musictheory_subreddit_stringUser: musictheory_subreddit_string

  1. musictheory 2010-01-22 14:07:58 adrianmonk
    Each fret raises the pitch of the string by a semitone compared to previous fret? You don't say!

  2. musictheory 2010-05-21 01:27:38 brainiac256
    > In 1992, she wrote 1,500 symphonies, 1,000 piano sonatas, and 1,000 string quartets, among other works none of which are any more original or interesting than the majority of public-domain music.

  3. musictheory 2011-01-15 21:12:00 theramon
    There are the Donald Martino String-O-Graphs. They are basically cardboard necks with the pitches for each string written on them. [You can buy them here for relatively little money.](http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/String-o-graph/2243) An orchestration book would help too. > any other major warnings or suggestions are welcome. Just don't write so many of them. Or at least break them up with single stops.

  4. musictheory 2011-01-17 03:34:22 tone12of12
    1. Cellist here. The easiest half-step double stops to play on the cello are centered around the open strings. For example, I can play a G-sharp on the D string against the open A string very easily; similarly, I can play the B-flat below middle C on the D string and play that against the open A as well. This holds true for the half step above and below every other open string except for the C string. It is also true for whole step intervals. Same concept, different notes. Also, a cellist can play half-step intervals with the thumb and the third finger (the ring finger). The lower pitch of the half-step will be played with the third finger on the lowest string, and the higher pitch of the double stop will be played with the thumb. If your cellist has particularly large hands, it can work the other way, but for most players it will be a very uncomfortable stretch, especially in lower positions. MAJOR WARNING: The first method is easy but quite inflexible, as you can imagine, so it will be rather limited in execution. The second method is not particularly easy to play consistently, AND it is not something that lends itself to fast virtuosic playing. It can be done, within reason, but expect lots of headaches and expect to pay your cellist well for the trouble. 2. As a composer, I've bumped into cluster problems in strings as well. If you are dead set on a cluster, the best thing to do is give on violin a double stop, say a major second like D against the open E, and then give the other violinist the D-sharp in between those two notes. On the violin, it's also easier to play small interval double stops in general because of the size, so the second violinist will also be able to hit the F. That way, you can get four notes a half-step apart played at the same time. Basically, think in overlapping double-stops and you'll be able to get a lot more variety in terms of chord clusters. Also remember, the double bass has a longer range than people give credit for, but its higher register will likely muddy the texture of the cluster you make if you use it in the higher registers. On the other hand, bass clusters are awesome, and if you pair it with the cello's lower register, you can get some pretty brutal sounds out of them.

  5. musictheory 2011-01-20 00:00:21 ludachrist
    Harmony, Rhythm, and Melody are about tension and resolution. In very basic terms: play two notes that are right next to each other. Let's say Ab and A (if you are a guitarist, play the 4th fret of the low E string, and the open A string simultaneously). Doesn't sound very good, does it? Now play A-->Ab-->A. Here it become "tense" on Ab and "resolve" when you go back to A? Audible memory lasts several seconds, kind of like looking directly into a light bulb and looking away. You still see the light "burned" in your eyes. Notes do that in your ears, so-to-speak. Music theory, I believe, is all based on this simple concept of establishing a key and messing with people's emotions, heehee. When we want an idea or feeling resolved in the piece, that's when it goes where you expect it. When music surprises you, its creates the feeling that something is unbalanced. Musicians write this way unconsciously, and consciously, depending on writing process, education, artistic ability, and emotional state.

  6. musictheory 2011-01-20 01:29:44 dave_c
    You may be missing something :) To understand how chords are major and minor, you have to understand how intervals work. Like JHWatson said, triads are made up of thirds, which is a distance between the notes. A major third up from a note goes up four semitones. Think about your guitar - moving up one fret on a string moves up one semitone. If you play the E string at the fourth fret, you've gone up a major third from E, which is G#. Likewise, a minor third is three semitones, so playing the third fret on that E string will get you a minor third up from E, which is G. Then, knowing that, just follow what JHWatson is saying. Major triads start on a note, go up a major third, and then go up a minor third. Minor triads start on a note, go up a minor third, then a major third. If you want to (and you should for practice!), try writing all the chords in the key of C and figure out if they're major or minor. Edit: JHWatson's pic spells the chords for you, but doesn't specifically say whether it's major or minor. You could still play each one and figure out all the thirds. Be careful when you get to the chord that starts on B, though, since it isn't major OR minor - it's diminished. It has two minor thirds in it, no major third at all.

  7. musictheory 2011-01-27 05:36:16 cbg
    That pattern, descending through different keys, is a great exercise. One of my favorite things to do is to work a single 2-5-1, but to throw in all the different substitutions I can. (I wrote an [/r/guitarlessons post](http://www.reddit.com/r/guitarlessons/comments/bpnk2/standard_jazz_progressions_and_simple/) about this topic a while back). For example... start with a 2-5-1 in D major, which is usually: Em7 - A7 - Dmaj7 Add spice by using different extensions on the V7: Em7 - A13 - Dmaj7 Em7 - A9 - Dmaj7 Switch it up by throwing in a tritone substitution: Em7 - Eb7 - Dmaj7 (You can make that a Eb9 or Eb13, too). Make it more interesting by adding a diminished chord between the Imaj7 and the ii7: Em7 - A7 - Dmaj7 - Ebdim7 You can combine these, of course... On the minor 2-5-1, my favorite is to use a diminished chord substitution on the V of the V chord: Instead of Em7b5 - A7alt - Dm7, play Em7b5 - Edim7 - Dm7. The cool thing there is to play with different voicings of the Edim7 chord by moving it 3 frets in either direction (go see [my other guitarlessons post](http://www.reddit.com/r/guitarlessons/comments/b0le2/interchangeable_diminished_7th_chords/)). Otherwise, I just like to experiment with different alterations. One cool move is to go from the A7#5 to the A7b9 in one measure... Em7b5 - A7#5 - A7b9 - Dm7 You can do this easily by fingering the two alt chords this way: A7#5: 5x566x A7b9: 5x56x6 That is, move your pinky from the #5 on the second string to the b9 on the first string. It's especially suitable in a bossa tune. You can do a similar move with the Em7b5 chord to a Em7b5b13 (but it's less versatile): Em7b5: x7878x Em7b5b13: x787x8 (Not sure about that last chord name) Anyway... fun stuff. You can entertain yourself a lot more while comping someone else if you have some of these moves to play with.

  8. musictheory 2011-02-05 08:30:54 [deleted]
    If I'm understanding your question, playing a single note in a tempered system and claiming that it's in one key or another is irrelevant to the frequency of the pitch, this is not the case in non-tempered systems (like string quartet playing) where the difference between a B and Cb are marked. Even B's in different keys are different from one another.

  9. musictheory 2011-02-08 14:28:00 thepeat
    They keyboard is the easiest way to imagine what the modes are to us nowadays. The modes are derived from playing white key to white key, starting at different places. CDEFGABC - Ionian DEFGABCD - Dorian EFGABCDE - Phrygian FGABCDEF - Lydian GABCDEFG - Mixolydian ABCDEFGA - Aeolian BCDEFGAB - Locrian Each of these modes can be transposed to different starting points, so long as you keep the same series of intervals: e.g. FGAB(flat)CDEF is Ionian starting on F. You will notice that the Ionian mode starting on C corresponds to the C major scale (and that the Aeolian starting on A corresponds to the a natural minor scale). The difference between C major and C Ionian is one of harmonic function: C major entails harmonic functions for each scale degree, while C Ionian does not. (This distinction is, historically, not particularly clean. Medieval music does exhibit scale degree functionality--especially on the first, fifth, and seventh notes of the mode in Ionian--and as late as Bach we find modal harmonies in tonal contexts.) Now if you look earlier than the late medieval period, a lot of this gets very confusing. Until around the 10th century (as far as I know) modes referred to much different things depending on whom you were reading (and, btw, I am not aware of any source before the 20th century that mentions the Locrian mode at all--the diminished fifth is the likely reason for this). Greek, Roman, and medieval theorists (up to the 10th century) didn't conceive of a mode as seven independent pitches, but as the combination of two tetrachords, with priority given to the lowest note. There are basically four foundational notes: the lowest note, the note a perfect fourth (3:4) above it, the note a whole step (8:9) above that, and the note a further perfect fourth above that one. This yields (starting on A): ADEA (these notes are pure intervals from one another; they do not correspond exactly to what we find on the modern-tuned keyboard). Between each of the fourths, two additional notes were added, at different spacing depending on the mode (for Aristoxenus, if memory serves, two of these modes were the diatonic, chromatic, which in fact do roughly correspond to notes spaced whole steps or half steps apart, respectively). This is the disjunct formation. By eliminating the whole step between the two fourths, we get the conjunct setup: ADG (with two notes between each of these two notes). A great deal of Greek theory is dedicated to cataloging different string ratios for different arrangements of notes between the fourths, and some theorists assigned mode names to these configurations. As far as I know, this is the origin of our modern names for what we call the church modes (those seven modes outlined above). In late antiquity--I believe with Aristedes Quintilianus, but again this is from memory--theorists start talking about picking different starting points along these constructed series of notes; that is, they would construct the mode as usual, and then change the low note from the original one (A in our example) to a higher note in the series. What's interesting about this, to me, is that it's not until the 10th century or so that we start getting a concept of octave equivalence; the idea that the lowest note of our ADEA arrangement was equivalent to the highest note does not jive with Greek theory.

  10. musictheory 2011-02-25 13:33:25 Slamphear
    While I feel that the other comments have contained good advice, I don't see them as an answer to your actual question ("When you see good jazz guitarists comping, it seems like they're all over the neck. What's going on when they're doing that?"). The simple answer to your question is "voice leading." A poor jazz guitarist will probably play the exact same voicing every time he/she sees the same chord; for a hypothetical example, every time "G13" occurs in any tune, he/she will play 3X345X (I'll use a sequence of numbers like that to refer to fret numbers going from the low E to high E strings, since it would be tough to draw a clear chart in plain text). Obviously, 3X345X is a perfectly reasonable voicing for a G13, and will sound good during the instant in which it is called for, but to use that same voicing EVERY time a G13 occurs (regardless of tune, style, band configuration, etc.) is just plain insensitive. A good jazz guitarist will take into consideration the separate lines within the chord progression and will make sure that each line is logically connected to the chords immediately preceding and following it. To get good at this, a basic understanding of species counterpoint and 4-part voice leading rules is pretty much essential. Here's an example: Let's say you have a BbMaj7, followed by a Bdim7, then a Cmin7, then a C#dim7 (we'll leave it there, even though it's an incomplete progression). The first thing you should notice is that the bassline is going chromatically up in half-steps. Therefore, it is imperative to the voice-leading of this progression that your bassline does NOT go down (such as going from the B in the Bdim7 down to a lower C for the Cmin7). Jumping down in such a manner would 1) create an unnecessarily large leap, 2) throw off anyone trying to follow the lower line of the chords, and 3) disrupt the entire texture that the composition seems to call for. Also consider those voices which will be moving in half-step increments. For instance, the 3rd of the Bdim7 is a D. It should follow logically that this should go up a half-step to become Eb (the third of the Cmin7), which would in turn go up another half-step to become E-natural (the third of the C#dim7). This keeps the voice-leading tight, and creates a nice parallel-10ths line to the chromatically ascending bassline. It would take a great deal of time to explain every motion that should be kept in mind while deciding how the voice-leading should work, even in such a short and incomplete progression as this, but hopefully this is enough to answer your question and help you understand why sometimes leaps across the neck can be necessary to facilitate voice-leading. Just imagine if you had a chromatically descending line on the high E string, and you wanted to keep the descent going even after you have run out of frets at the bottom of the neck. You would likely end up needing to re-voice the chord so that the line can continue its descent on the B-string (or, if you need even more room, the G string). It should be plain to see how keeping track of all of these different voices leads to many of such adjustments, hence the "all over the neck" approach you are seeing.

  11. musictheory 2011-03-01 09:46:01 IsaacOH
    Ah! Nearly all of Carter's pieces feature set-manipulation heavily. Dig this string quartet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apc-Fw0r2tI

  12. musictheory 2011-03-02 06:44:38 [deleted]
    When you pluck a string, (say C), you hear secondary notes called harmonics. The loudest harmonic that you can hear that is not of the same pitch class as the fundamental (C), is a perfect fifth (G). The next loudest is a major third (E). This physical phenomenon leads to all of our most basic notions about consonance/dissonance, scales, harmony, and tonality.

  13. musictheory 2011-03-02 08:10:34 AugmentedFourth
    >What all this means is that absolutely every song you have ever heard, known, and loved, is technically out of tune with the natural harmonics of the world, ie. the system of sounds that the entire natural world runs on. Every. Single. Song. Not necessarily. Vocal and string performers (or any other "non-discrete toned" instrument) often gravitate towards the "correct" intervals naturally. I can even tell you from doing ear-training practice that the perfect fifth I sing will be slightly off from what the keyboard says. However, I know that I'm right because it's so easy to "feel". This hits on 2 related issues (hopefully I can explain them clearly and correctly): The harmonic series is *continuous* and (mathematically) infinite. So, in order to construct a symbolic language to represent it, it had to be divided into a manageable set of discrete intervals. In doing so, there is a necessary trade-off between *precision* and *manageability*. If we used a 100-tone system, they would all be much closer to the mathematically perfect intervals but we'd have to muck around with way too many named tones. The 12-tone system was chosen because the division allowed for almost perfect 4ths and 5ths. So the 12-tone scale in western music is, in-and-of-itself, a compromise...although an arguably small one. In addition, instruments like the piano use "equal tempered" tuning. Which basically "equalizes" all the intervals allowing all keys to be played. Otherwise, you'd have to retune for every key.

  14. musictheory 2011-03-02 08:43:19 [deleted]
    Not only this, but if you take a C string and cut it into thirds, you get a G, and cut that into thirds, you get D, and that, you get A, and etc... Compress all of these into a single octave, and you first get the major pentatonic scale, and then you will see the full diatonic, 1st-7th. (Given, it will be slightly off, but oh well.) And not only THIS, but because of that fact, you will find pentatonic and diatonic scales apparent in a HUGE variety of world musics, which are often independent of each other. The same thing, different places, different people, different cultures.

  15. musictheory 2011-03-02 20:35:04 [deleted]
    complexity is just the logical next step from simplicity. you can puzzle together the entire 7 note western diatonic scale using just one string and some math. this is indeed simple. now take into account that the world is more than just one string making noise. dissonance is still based on these fundamental intervals. i think that all of music and harmony is based in physics, and that the level of dissonance that we can appreciate is cultural. as in, this folk ditty is great! (five years later) man that folk diddy is stale, lets use this slightly less accepted chord progression (with some dissonance!) EDIT: in short, rock and roll could not have possibly come about without, and is in fact based on classical music, though pioneering classical composers probably would have scoffed at the dissonance found in rock and roll. hell, back in the real old days, thirds were considered terribly dissonant and unpleasant! thirds!

  16. musictheory 2011-03-02 22:38:58 vaelroth
    I think the most important way to understand the relationship between the I and V is to study the harmonic series. Some people have already posted about it, but I'll see if I can bring it to what we're talking about with chord progressions. Natural harmonics of a given note, say C, allows follow a given pattern (thanks physics!). When you play a C on any instrument (excluding synthesizers they're a special case) you create vibrations in the air at the fundamental frequency. You also create vibrations that have 1/2 the length of the fundamental frequency and 1/3 of the length and so on down the line. The harmonic at half the string is pretty boring, its just the octave of whatever note you played. That harmonic at 1/3 of the string though, its very special, it is a perfect fifth above whatever note we just played. So, if we played a C, that harmonic that vibrates on 1/3 of the string's length is a G. Woah, so what I just told you is that any time you play a tonic note, you can hear the dominant note of that key inside the tonic. Further, the separation of the frequencies oh any tonic and the perfect fifth above it will always have the same ratio of space between the actual frequencies. That way you'll always here a perfect fifth as a perfect fifth because of the way the two frequencies interact and create aural "beats". Thats the "physical science" explanation. There's some explanations i've heard that rely on what chord members you'll find in each chord, but I think thats a step removed from the physical science explanation. if you have more questions keep asking. I just woke up so this might not be the most clearly worded reply.

  17. musictheory 2011-03-04 01:43:37 AugmentedFourth
    No, this is not an idealization its a fundimentalization. (is that even a word?) We're having a huge disconnect here. I don't disagree with any of your examples in your argument but they miss the point of what I'm saying. You're getting too hung up on my "removing the lines on a staff" example, which I agree only holds true in a limited context. If you read what I've been explaining since then, you'll see that I'm talking about exploring the FUNDAMENTALS of the sonic relationships. A series of intervals expressed as ratios (or named intervals for convention), is a series of ratios. You can efficiently operate on that conceptual level...as your ear (and brain) naturally do. Imposing a tonal system is a translation effect. For instance, if you were practicing ear-training and singing, you would sing a perfect-fifth (or series of intervals) the same in every key. Not the same exact *frequencies* of course but the same ratios of frequencies. Your voice and brain naturally operates on the *relationships* NOT the absolutes by intuitively adjusting the physical distances between pitches to achieve a desired (and learned) sonic quality. The same would generally hold true playing a non-fretted string instrument or multiple just-intonated instruments tuned to different roots. Now I am NOT saying that these ratios are completely *objective* because our ears and brains do not operate on a purely mathematical level. There are cultural, biological and learned effects that influence what a "perfect-fifth" means to me. That's what the tonal systems are for; externalizing the "musical ideas" to facilitate communication. I'm just saying that step is necessary when grappling with these ideas and trying to train your ear in a solitary setting or outside the context of any specific instrument.

  18. musictheory 2011-03-11 09:35:02 Yarrg
    Well, to answer your question, one of the earliest scales was the Pythagorean scale, which was a scale built by taking a string (any frequency), dividing the string in half (octave), dividing that half by 2/3 (fifth), and dividing by 2/3 again. Basically, raising notes by a fifth and putting them in the right octave. The inverse, dividing the 3/2 is also possible. Eventually, you'll end up with 7 notes, thus a scale. Ptolemy later altered the scale a little by introducing more ratios by which one could divide. Pythagorean and Ptolemaic tuning are a little different than what we are used to; some notes are a bit sharp to our ears. With these systems, however, one could only utilize the different modes of a scale, i.e. starting on a different note but using those set of notes. Eventually, composers wanted to modulate in the middle of their pieces. The answer to this was the equal temperament scale. Given any note, you could raise that note by a semitone by multiplying by 2^1/2. A 'cent' is defined as 1/100 of a semitone. Given this, we can now create a 12 tone equal temperament (equal frequency ratio between notes) scale, leading to instruments that can play in all keys, thus allowing composers to modulate. That is not the history of music notation, but it somewhat answers your question.

  19. musictheory 2011-03-12 05:53:21 [deleted]
    Probably not Bach, no. There was some appreciation of the idea way back in the 6th century B.C., with Pythagoras. He didn't really understand acoustics or the physics of vibrating strings, but he did observe that if string A's length were a low integer multiple of string B's length, the two would ring out sonorously when struck. It would in fact seem, with the prevalence of pentatonic scales throughout the ancient world, that this idea was understood on some level by many peoples pretty early on. I think it'd be hard to say exactly when someone noticed, "Hey, when I pluck this string I hear a fifth and a third too, that must be why we like fifths and thirds." It seems like a pretty intuitive conjecture, but even now it isn't really provable. Bach lived in a time when many breakthroughs in the science of acoustics as it relates to music had only recently been made by the likes of the Galileo, Mersenne, and Newton, so he may have had a deeper understanding of the phenomenon than the Greeks, however, the specific idea that a string vibrates at every integer multiple of its fundamental frequency wasn't known until the mid 19th century, through the work of Hermann von Helmholtz. P.S., If you're looking for an interesting read, I got most of this info from the book *Temperament* by Stuart Isacoff.

  20. musictheory 2011-03-13 13:25:39 jpaape
    Well, im not too into 12 tone music, but one of my favorite pieces that has a lot of chromaticism in it is Barbers String Quartet Op. 11 mvt.1. Its really good

  21. musictheory 2011-03-17 19:56:49 theramon
    > ...the major pentatonic and diatonic scales are the first to occur in the overtone series. Albeit not in tune with our current tuning system, so I might suggest that this doesn't have much bearing on the state of things now. Although at any point in time it would be extremely difficult to switch around note names. I suspect (but have no proof) that at least part of the answer has to do with keyboard ergonomics - most composers thinking in a key had some physical familiarity with a keyboard instrument. Certainly C major is easy to think about, but there is something about the white-key only structure of it that makes it harder to develop muscle memory. It's easier to feel your way around a key when the black keys are involved. Is A easier than E or Cminor? I don't know, but this western system of music/notation has always been flawed. I guess my point is, who says C major is easier than A major [currently]? Of course this does not translate to string instruments or voice, but often the natural key of wind instruments is something other than C.

  22. musictheory 2011-04-21 07:50:01 mcnubbin
    Just listen to some tunes by ethopian pop artists and then transcribe them and describe in european musical terms whats happening. Ex. "The performers hit a leatherskin drum with a leather wrapped beater to a three against two pattern, with a oud like instrument playing a mixolydian scale. The melody has microtonal inflections, as is common in that region. There is a drone played by a bowed string instrument exactly 2 octaves below the melody. The tune is a dance tune, and has a popular dance that goes along with it. The scale is mixolydian, but the 3rd is slightly raised, to coincide with the harmonic series. There is no harmonies in this tune, as is normal in the region and style. The crowd really gets into the dance around the 2nd phrase. The phrasing is in 4 bars of 4 beats." Something like that should be fine for an undergraduate world music class; I think they are called ethno-musicalogy classes or something like that now, kind of like how garbage men are now called waste management engineers.

  23. musictheory 2011-05-13 00:10:30 jiffwaterhaus
    Guitars make sense too! Since the length of the string is constant (we'll say "2 feet" long even though I know that's wrong), then the exact center of that string is the octave (half the length, double the frequency, so A2 open string at 110 Hz becomes A3 at 220 Hz). It also happens to be the 12th fret (0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11 and so the 12th is the octave, since there are 12 notes before you repeat one). I agree that the string order is a bit silly - EAGD B?? E just doesnt' make sense. If you're going to go in fourths, go all the way with EADGCF OR just make it super easy on everyone and go in fifths like CGDAEB (though there's prolly too much tension on the neck, so CGDEA wwould do just fine and have a larger range than a standard guitar anyway :) Be it on the guitar or piano, you're still learning patterns, because they don't change no matter where you start. It's no easier or more difficult to learn the note names on any instrument

  24. musictheory 2011-05-13 11:52:48 [deleted]
    I think the point was that on a piano, the notes are laid out completely linearly. It's completely unambiguous and obvious which note is which, whereas on a guitar, a given string can play any number of notes. There's a reason that a *ton* of musicians end up developing at least rudimentary piano skills, especially composers - conceptually, it's about as simple as it gets.

  25. musictheory 2011-05-13 17:36:17 Aikidi
    Technically, they should only call it a sus2 if it goes to tonic. Like, if you played a Csus2 with the 2 on your B string and then you let go of it to play a normal C chord, that would be a sus2. If you play the 2 but don't resolve the suspension, or don't resolve it down to tonic, it isn't a suspended chord. edit: this is of course, speaking in classical terms. The name "sus2" no longer refers to the leading, or really even the function of the chord anymore. Its just what people call it now.

  26. musictheory 2011-05-16 06:18:31 dust4ngel
    firstly, try playing exactly what you played on the guitar on the piano - i.e. if you play an Emin on a guitar, you're probably playing the E, B, E, G, B, E (i.e. the barre chord from the 6 string). this is a pretty rich voicing. if you play it on the piano as E, G, B it's not going to sound as rich. likewise, if you play the whole progression on the piano as simple triads in root position (i.e. not inverted) it won't sound as rich as barre chords on a guitar might. this brings us to voicing. way back in the day, harmony was thought about as parallel melodies (a group of horizontally-oriented elements on the staff) rather than as chord progressions (a group of vertically-oriented elements on the staff). the key principle here is that harmony tends to sound more pleasing if the notes in a given chord seem to 'flow into' notes of the next chord in a melodic way (usually meaning they are close by). if you play barre chords on a guitar, the chords you're playing generally span two octaves, with chord degrees being voiced twice in the middle. as a consequence, most chord progressions end up (accidentally) having melody-like transitions between the notes in one chord and the notes of the next. if you were to play the chord progression again as root-position triads, you would not get this effect and the harmony would seem 'jumpier' and less flowing. the long answer to your question is [voice leading](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_leading).

  27. musictheory 2011-05-18 02:38:44 mepc36
    >Also, regarding Barber, the first time I heard Adagio for Strings I thought "this sounds like something a talented kid would write the first week after learning about suspensions and deceptive cadences". Turns out it's one of the "best" pieces of music for our century. I kept waiting for the actual music to start. There's no interesting development and instead that asshole just keeps playing his cute suspension over the V - VI progression for 8 minutes. I mean yeah it sounds nice, but it's embarrassing how much people worship it. It's at about level of a particularly good introduction to a trance song. I had to think a lot about this comment and how to reply to it, because I could not disagree with it more. Isn't it at all telling that Barber (a master of counterpoint by any measure), in his Adagio for Strings, eschewed all complexity and spoke in a voice that, while definitely not minimalist, is certainly scaled back, and easily accessible to any listener (whether they come from a popular or a classical background) while communicating a great depth of emotion? At the risk of sounding confrontational (always a risk when interacting online, but just keep in mind, I'm going for a dialogue that we will both get something out of by the end of it), I certainly hope that you aren't suggesting that Barber doesn't know what he's doing, or simply forgot all of it during his writing of the Adagio. He knew backwards and forwards everything more complex (which you hold up as a higher standard) then the V - vi and Phyrgian cadences he uses in the Adagio by the time he wrote it (and, if I can be so forward, he knew counterpoint and how voices move in general a whole lot better than either of us - just investigate his solo piano works.) I think you're making a mistake that breaks an adage that I have to constantly remind myself of. *Never question the means by which good music is made.* If it is good music, leave it at that. If it affects you, leave the conscious out of it, because it will only get you in trouble. Music is most powerful (and most true to its very nature) when it is ineffable and something is left undescribed at the end of it. For instance, investigate [Pärt's "Memoriam In Cantus Benjamin Britten"](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGfF_9VZIr0&hd=1). Now, let's look at the composition from your point of view (that works need to be academically advanced to be worthwhile). What is the piece? It's in a slow 6/4, with a string orchestra and a carillon bell. The piece generates its forward motion from the expansion of the initial idea, which is an idea lasting 3 beats (a quarter note plus a half note) which suits the 6/4 meter very well, as it switches between an implication of duple and triple meter (which keeps the music from lapsing into tediousness.) The lower string voices enter with the same idea of the violins but multiplied by a factor of 2; that is, they enter with ideas the length of 6 beats, then 12 beats, then 24 beats, and so on. As the shorter initial idea in the violins, repeated over and over, moves downward more quickly than the string voices with their longer (but still related) idea, all the different string parts slowly converge around the same time in their lower range, standing in stark contrast to their high range at the beginning. It's climax is centered around the resolution of a suspended second (simple enough to be comparable to the V - vi cadence that you detest in the Adagio), even if the resolved chord is a huge one (there are many divisi parts). The carillon bell, moreover, only ever plays one note, the tonic. What's more is, the song is written in the key of C (no accidentals)...are you completely put off yet? But I *don't* think you can deny the emotional power of the piece. You've allowed your training to rob the music of some of its magic. If it's good music, it's good music. The reason V - vi and suspended seconds are so popular is *because* they are so powerful. Barber reached the top of academic training, and then reverted back to the most basic tools; that doesn't tell you anything? Being a good composer (not that I'm saying I am one) is being confident enough to know what you like, know what you don't like, and to make those choices, eff what anyone else thinks. Barber was confident enough in his abilities to write something that might seem simple enough to listeners like you. And I would challenge that Barber's command of sound is much finer than you might think from just hearing the Adagio; his orchestration is masterful in the piece. Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I am genuinely interested to hear what you think, because I do find myself thinking thoughts along the same lines as yours (such as when it comes to popular music...I mean, repeating the same 1 bar phrase 8 times over, such as in rap? Gimme a break), but ultimately I try to break myself from the habit. I'm sorry if anything comes across as confrontational, but this internet communication thing is tough without body language and what not. Anyway, thanks.

  28. musictheory 2011-05-18 13:14:12 Syric
    > In Eb Major for example, would you use flats? What if you're in D# Major? Is there a difference? In Eb major, you would use flats. In D# major you would use sharps. Eb major and D# major theoretically are the same thing. However, in practice you wouldn't call the key D# major because it's a pain in the ass to notate it in that manner. And that's the only reason. You *could*, but you wouldn't. It has nine sharps (or, seven sharps and two double sharps). Fuck that. Eb has three flats, which is much easier to deal with. You happened to pick a bad example. Between Eb and D#, the choice is obvious, because you'll use whichever has fewer accidentals. But if you look at the circle of fifths as recommended by Gerbergler, you'll see Gb and F# at the bottom. They're equivalent keys, and they're equal in terms of the number of accidentals. It's basically up to you which one you use. Now, depending on what instrument you're playing, or your own preference, one or the other will be more intuitive. As far as I can tell, string players (including guitar) tend to prefer sharps, whereas wind players tend to prefer flats. For this reason, guitar music will usually choose to denote that key as F# major, whereas trumpet music will be more likely to call it Gb major. But really it doesn't matter.

  29. musictheory 2011-06-01 23:41:17 jiffwaterhaus
    But tune it in fifths, like a mandolin, and you have a handful of shapes that can be moved all up and down the neck to make most of the commonly used chords. Much simpler than a guitar for the majority of chords, though it does make it harder to do the more complex 9th, 11th, and 13th chords (but that's what the bass player is for anyway) And common guitar tuning isn't even particularly useful for barring when you think about a guitar tuned to Open D or something - way easier! Standard guitar tuning is mostly a compromise between ease of scales and ease of chords. You say tuning in 4ths would be better for scales - that's why bass is tuned like that, since that most suits its role. A mandolin tuned in 5ths is easy to chord on, but with only 4 strings you really need a bass to help with complexity. There are 5 string 5ths tuning instruments - the finger stretches required to play those are quite imposing, though (another reason why the mandolin is more popular than, say, the mandocello - neck length) I guess I'm saying a lot just to agree with you, but I think guitars make about as much sense as the next stringed instrument - they all have their roles in music

  30. musictheory 2011-06-05 10:13:14 depnot
    They are just alternative fingerings of certain notes that are already on the diagram on a different string--depending on your position and where you are going with the scale, you can opt for one or the the other. You'll notice that they are all in places that you'd either have to stretch up or down the neck to reach, thus altering your choice of position.

  31. musictheory 2011-06-08 06:00:03 Peezor
    Some uke's are tuned to have a high g, some choose to have a low g(1 octave lower). Your logic that the notes should progress higher as you move up the frets and jump down a string would work on a piano, but due to the limited fret space and strings it makes for creating inversions and voicings easier.

  32. musictheory 2011-06-08 06:37:58 Thunderpiss
    Someone has already covered it, sortof... But the uke has a high string on the low, and high side. This makes the chords sound a bit... different. If you did this on a piano or a guitar (where the low end is uniformly advancing to high) you would notice a difference. Hope this helps!

  33. musictheory 2011-06-08 17:12:20 [deleted]
    I would call all of that the "end all, be all" of what a structured musician might have. But then again, most of my favorite musicians don't read music. It just helps with the creativity by giving you options down the road. For basics, I would definitely suggest finding what is called middle C on the guitar. It is 3rd fret A string. That is located one ledger line below the treble clef. Most people, including me, get the progression in the key of C major C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C. In between each note, there are intervals. For instance, between C & D, D & E, F & G, and A & B are what are called whole steps. This is synonymous to a major second. But the interval between E & F and B & C is a half step, or a minor second. The importance of this is the structure it forms. The structure in steps is whole, whole, half, whole, whole, whole, half (wwhwwwh). To move up or down a minor second or "half step" is to move to the next fret. For instance, B to C on the A string is second fret to third fret. This is a half step. A major second on the same string would be from 3rd fret to 5th fret. That is C-D and is a whole step. Basically, you just move to the next or previous fret for minor second/half step and you skip a fret for a major second/whole step. Note that B in the key of C major is the leading tone. It wants to resolve to the note C, which the tonic of C major. Moving to the 5th of C major, counting 5 letters from the current note C, is the Key of G major . See the of steps above as a skeleton or a sequence that defines the key. G major, for example, is not G-A-B-C-D-E-F-G because the step structure is wwhwwww and not wwhwwwh. It is actually, in this case, the mixolydian mode of C major. G major is G-A-B-C-D-E-F#-G because the leading tone is always a half step below the tonic G. Here we "sharp" the F. A sharp is a type of "accidental". A sharp moves the note up a minor second or a half step. Conversely, a "flat" ( Fb for instance ) is an accidental that brings the note down a minor second or a half step. The key of C major has no accidentals, the key of G major has one accidental- a sharp, the key of D major has 2 accidentals-both sharps. But the key of F, for instance, has only one accidental- a flat. In sequence, these keys start F(one flat), then C(no accidentals), then G (one sharp), then D(two sharps), then A(three sharps). This can be observed in the circle of fifths. Much as a scale has an order, keys, major or minor, are ordered in relation to how many sharps or flats they have. Memorize the circle of fifths by writing this over and over again on a piece of paper until your hand cramps: F-C-G-D-A-E-B clockwise in fifths and Bb-Ab-Eb-Db-Gb-Cb-Fb counter clockwise by fourths (this is the same thing backwards with added flats) *There is no such thing as Fb or Cb. They have enharmonic equivalents. Fb is actually E and Cb is actually B. It will come to you someday. * It is important to note that a scale is only 7 notes long. So why do I list 8? Well it is a convention to add the tonic an octave higher. An octave is the same note 8 scale degrees higher. This image will help: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://guitarsecrets.com/images/ALLNOTES1.gif&imgrefurl=http://guitarsecrets.com/all_notes.htm&usg=__ovZcd-RZ6jHowqzmjh8vk3HadVU=&h=128&w=507&sz=6&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=zQ3M6JYKZinwxM:&tbnh=58&tbnw=228&ei=UjnvTYGbMNPXiAKrnsjrAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dnotes%2Bon%2Bguitar%2Bfretboard%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D918%26bih%3D320%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=88&vpy=106&dur=595&hovh=58&hovw=228&tx=267&ty=58&page=1&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&biw=918&bih=320 I also recommend http://www.reddit.com/r/learnmusic At very least, understand that this will be the process you want to build up to. It shouldn't take more than a year to understand it all, but it might take longer. I would start by memorizing each note on the fretboard. The best way to do that is to start with C major and move clockwise by fifths to B major. So Just start by memorizing where C is and then D-E-F-G-A-B- and C. Then do the same with G major, A major, E major, and B major. Then read up on relative and parallel minor keys. By that time, minor will come to you. Then AFI may come to you. And then Bach's Little Fugue in G minor will come to you. Good luck my friend. Don't turn off from this and don't stop asking questions. People will be condescending and tell you to just google it. I hate that and I am glad you asked. People begin to fear asking questions about anything when people put them off. You just didn't know where to start. Don't feel bad.

  34. musictheory 2011-06-13 02:31:06 bensusername
    Additionally, Authentic cadences come in two flavors: Perfect and Imperfect. A Perfect Authentic Cadence, or PAC, has the soprano voice* of the ending I chord on tonic. An Imperfect Authentic Cadence, or IAC, has the soprano voice of the ending I chord on any other chord tone, normally submediant or dominant. *A soprano voice is not always referring to a singer who is a soprano. Roughly, the soprano voice is whatever the highest sound is. So, in an orchestral setting, the soprano voice would be the piccolo. In a string quartet setting, the soprano voice would be violin I or violin II but normally violin I.

  35. musictheory 2011-06-16 03:51:43 jiffwaterhaus
    What have you written so far? Have you ever written a song for guitar? If so, why not try turning that into string quartet to start. Give the melody to one violin and give one note each from the chords to the other violin, viola, and cello. Then see how that sounds (probably pretty boring). Adjust and experiment from there. Asking how to be a composer is too big of a question to really answer.

  36. musictheory 2011-06-20 11:59:43 PullTheOtherOne
    I'm not talking about barre chords, I'm talking about nearly *any* chord progression on the guitar. As the original poster observed, the guitar can get away with "blocky" chord motion that might be unacceptable on the piano, because that's the way it is commonly played -- often even in sophisticated classical and jazz playing -- due to its structure. Just look at the logistics involved: * On a guitar you have 4 fingers and 6 strings. * Most chords have only a few practical voicings due to the limitations of finger reach and contortion. * Because the notes on a guitar are stacked in "columns" rather than side-by-side, the combination of intervals in a chord's voicing is very limited -- many close chord voicings are impossible because two or more of the notes would have to be played on the same string (which is impossible) or on different strings spread impossibly across the fretboard. * Most positions of a chord have 4 voices, one per finger. If you use open strings or a barre, you can get a maximum of 5-6 voices in a chord. This usage imposes more limits on chord structure it "locks" you into a fairly inflexible position. On the other hand (literally), on the piano you have up to 10 fingers which can play nearly any combination of notes that fit within the span of each hand. You can easily play a cluster of 10 notes in a row, a stack of 10 3rds, or a weird combination in both hands. Furthermore, the two hands can overlap, cross, or spread as far apart as your arm-span allows (which for most adults is wider than the range of an entire symphony orchestra). Even considering that piano music rarely uses 10-voice chords, the number of voicing options for any given chord is much, much higher than available on the guitar, and therefore the likelihood that you can transition from chord to chord with good voice leading is much higher. Moving on to basic counterpoint: * On a guitar, the "geography" of a single moving line is not as simple as moving up-and-down: an upward step might entail moving up a fret or two, but it might also mean crossing a string and skipping two fingers (what feels like) *downwards.* * The geography of two moving lines in contrary motion -- the most fundamental ingredient in counterpoint -- can be very tricky or even impossible: eventually you will have to stretch impossibly far or "collide" voices in an impossible way (for example, two notes which must be played together on the same string). Imagine a very basic guitar situation: Two notes played simultaneously, the upper note with the first finger, the lower note with the pinky. Now start moving the lower note up by step while keeping the upper note the same. Very soon your pinky will stretch too far and you'll have to move to the next string. But your new low note is now on a lower fret than your top note. So you have to swap your first finger over to play that note, and swap a different finger in to continue playing the still-unchanged upper note. On a piano you could play this passage easily with no more than the thumb and pinky of one hand. With two hands it would be beyond easy. Moving on to the bread-and-butter of "proper" voice-leading -- a simple 4-voice chorale: * On piano, you could cut off the three middle fingers on each hand and still play a chorale with no problem (provided you could deal with the slipperiness of blood on the keys). Each finger can carry one voice, moving up or down independently of the other fingers. With all 10 fingers it's even easier. * On a guitar, however, there is simply no intuitive way to do this. In *some* situations it is possible but the fingers will, by necessity, have to hop around from voice to voice in a juggling act just just to simulate the illusion of 4 independent voices. In many cases it's simply not possible without adapting the piece to make it more guitaristic. Now I've heard Bach fugues played brilliantly on the guitar -- it's certainly not possible, but only in very limited situations, and these usually require very agile fingers, clever use of open strings and shifting, and a masterful understanding of the music and the mechanics of the guitar. Because of all of this, chord progressions on guitar tend to jump between a few common positions (and their variants), mainly based on the overall distance that the hand has to move. Even without barre chords, this is "blocky" in comparison to most piano chord progressions, which often consider the motion of individual notes within the chords. None of this is meant to disparage the guitar in any way. I love the guitar and do not consider it inferior to the piano, it just has a different structure and therefore a different style of getting from chord to chord.

  37. musictheory 2011-07-14 18:25:34 EveToWither
    As another quick side note. It's also IMHO that music should never be written on the instrument but rather in the musician's head then conveyed to the instrument. Otherwise you are truely limiting yourself to the same bland cliche scale runs and arpeggios etc. This will also greatly help with your improv because now you will be able to play out on the guitar what's in your head as it comes in, rather than just noodling around on the guitar with whatever scales, boxes, and rhythms that you have limited yourself too such as 3-note per string patterns, sweep picking without extentions etc.

  38. musictheory 2011-07-15 07:00:09 disaster_face
    The part about chord progressions is pretty inaccurate. I-IV-V certainly COULD be used for a sad ballad, but its an extremely common progression that could be used for any style of music (all of the progressions that they list are) and it certainly isn't sad sounding by itself. in fact, it's about as happy sounding as it gets as it consists of 3 major chords that are all diatonic to the same major key. Nor does any chord progression imply a tempo. Basically this is just a list of extremely common chord progressions with asinine names assigned to them seemingly at random. The next section talks about the difference in character between different keys, which is mostly non-existent. The reason a lot of metal songs are written in E is not because it sounds "hard" but because it's the lowest string on a guitar. How high or low something is within an instruments range can indeed change the character of it, but that is not only dependent on the key, but the range of the instrument, and the range of the piece / chord voicings used. Song A may sound much more intense in F than in A, while the opposite is true for song B. The next part that talks about how you can change a progression from major to minor by simply switching the diatonic chords with the same numbers. This is true, but very incomplete. Progressions in minor keys very often include altered notes borrowed from the parallel major key. The 6th and 7th scale degrees in particular are often raised in certain chords. For example, you can convert a I IV V progression to minor like the chart says, by just making it i iv v... this is a valid progression. However, the stronger harmonic progression would be to raise the 3rd (the 7th of the scale) of the dominant chord making it i iv V. This works better because the raised 7th, will make the dominant want to resolve to the tonic chord much more strongly. The next part deals with modulating to relative or neighboring keys. This is good information to know, but it is not the only way to modulate as the text suggests. You can modulate from one key to ANY other key. Also, simply writing one part of the song in one key, and then abruptly changing the key for the next part of the song is fine, but there are many much more interesting ways to modulate, like using a shared chord, or a chord substitution to modulate smoothly from one key to another. I would strongly recommend reading a book on harmony. No one will be able to sufficiently explain it to you in chart or in a post.

  39. musictheory 2011-07-16 03:08:17 ejlilley
    Careful how you use the word "theory". On its own it just means a collection of related ideas. "Theories" may be completely verified, or not at all accepted generally, or anywhere in between. Hence the "Theory of gravity", or "Theory of evolution", or "String theory".

  40. musictheory 2011-07-16 04:05:10 ejlilley
    My examples were meant to be examples of how the word "theory" applies to *different* things. Evolution does have a scientific consensus, Newtonian gravity does too (in the weak field, low velocity limit), but String theory doesn't. My point was that attempting to read a great deal into the fact that "Music theory" has the word "theory" in it is a bit spurious. It so happens that, yes, there is no great scientific consensus behind the theory of how music works, but that's not much to do with the label of "theory".

  41. musictheory 2011-07-17 02:11:21 EveToWither
    Lol "String Theory" is that the eleven dimentional playing style where they're trying to tie together finger style, alternate picking, economy picking, sweep picking etc. into a grand unified picking technique with time/key or "keytime"?

  42. musictheory 2011-07-19 13:38:28 disaster_face
    yep, it would be called a 5/8 in traditional (figured bass) notation. Often it's inverted so that the root is on the 5th(A) string, so it would then be a 4/8 chord. Just calling it a 5 chord would be sufficient for jazz/folk/rock chord symbols... i.e: E5. But yes, power chord is obviously the most popular term.

  43. musictheory 2011-07-23 02:40:38 12121212
    If you want to understand chord borrowing, just start looking for chromatic movement within chord progressions. Notes love to move by half steps, and when listeners notice half-step movement, they're less put off by the weirdness of out-of-key chords. I suggest you try playing Creep (G B C Cm) on guitar using barre chords and pay attention to the movement on the B string. [Another example](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEwFik6ObJs). In this case, the songwriter uses the bVII chord to add country flavor to the chorus. (Hint: it's the fourth chord, but you'll be able to tell that just by listening.) And [one more](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixqbc7X2NQY). This one starts with C and D, the bVI and bVII chords of E major. Hope that helps!

  44. musictheory 2011-07-31 22:28:37 [deleted]
    It is of course perfectly acceptable to tune to a just chord for slide playing since this style doesn't rely on the discrete frets of the 12-TET guitar, but then again, a big part of the slide style is the ability to introduce a certain form of microtonality idiomatic to blues-based music. Almost as bad is when a guitarist tunes to the 5 7 fret string-pair harmonics thinking this will put the instrument in tune, which it won't because this method does not take into account that a 5th is not perfectly just in 12-TET/EDO.

  45. musictheory 2011-08-01 01:23:57 [deleted]
    You've got to keep in mind that there isn't any one "unequal temperament". Just intonation is a philosophy of tuning that uses fractions rather than the logarithms of equal temperament to place notes. So there's a wide variety of just intonation tunings, all of which sound different, just like there are a wide variety of equal tunings (12 tones, 19 tones, or as many as you like). You could also construct a non-equal scale in other ways, mathematically or arbitrarily. But here is a selection of music in just intonation to give you some examples. * [La Monte Young - The Well-Tuned Piano](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CViBJCos42M) * [Ben Johnston - String Quartet No. 6](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3e_BmCUVpM) * [Toby Twining - Shaman](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xDlSuW5sIs) * [Toby Twining - Orpheus at the Gates and Walk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnCJ65P1Zu4) * [Harry Partch - Barstow](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cccu9O-zhPA) Once you start making new scales, the temptation is apparently irresistable to expand your tonal palette by adding notes, so most of these have more than 12 notes used, except for The Well-Tuned Piano, which has to be played on a piano with the regular number of keys. Partly the extra notes serve to add new types of intervals, and partly they provide places to modulate to, although Harry Partch's music is the only one of these that actually needs to "add" notes beforehand, since he built instruments of fixed pitch (marimbas, plucked strings). The other are for voice and strings, so the scale only provides a logical framework, and the piece can use any number of distinct pitches.

  46. musictheory 2011-08-01 23:38:31 scoooot
    In a diatonic major key, the IV triad is major. IV *minor* is a very interesting sound, and is used extensively in many genres. (ex. Wake Me Up When Sept Ends I-I-I-I-IV-IVm-I) This is what is happening with the F minor. It's called "subdominant minor" in jazz theory. Basically, the song slips into the key of C minor for that one F minor chord. (parallel minor: borrowing chords from the key of C minor when in the key of C major) Abendfeuer is absolutely correct about the circle of fifths. V7-I is a very strong chord change... the V7 chord points directly to I. In your example, there is a string of these changes. E7 points to A7 (V7-I7), A7 points to D7, D7 points to G7, G7 points back to C major. It's also interesting to note that the E7 chord which starts off that string of V-I cadences is also a subdominant minor chord. The subdominant minor sound is based upon the lowered 6th note of the key. In the key, F should have an A for it's third... the F minor lowers it one step to Ab. That same Ab is also G#, which is the major third of the E7 chord. *ahem* TMI

  47. musictheory 2011-08-03 07:25:23 [deleted]
    Yup, Lou Harrison could go on the list. And I did include Ben Johnston. :) It's a shame not much of his music is on Youtube. I would much rather have included string quartet 4, 5, 9, or 10. I don't think 12-tone JI scales are much good for comparison. People frequently try to make reductionist comparisons between 12 tone equal and some arbitrary 12-note JI scale, but that's not very enlightening, first because the sound of a scale isn't independent of the musical materials used to show it off, second because it's nonrepresentative of JI's sound in practice, and third because 12-tone JI is totally nonspecific as to what the 12 tones might be. Usually what you get is a slide show of chords or intervals, which leads people to conclude that JI has a dull sound and ET is much more lively. Misleading! There are a whole lot of JI intervals, plenty of them lively. Either that or a piece written with a more equal temperament in mind is retuned, and it comes out sounding weird and/or dull too. Misleading as well! It's like using Google Translate to evaluate a foreign language. The more interesting intervals won't occur in a naive JI scale, and thus won't occur in poorly translated music. And a few dull intervals are good for contrast. You can write good JI music with only 12 notes, but the resulting scale isn't going to be generally useful for retuning music, and it won't resemble a naive 12-note JI scale either. For example, here's the scale from *The Well-Tuned Piano*: 1/1, 567/512, 9/8, 147/128, 21/16, 1323/1024, 189/128, 3/2, 49/32, 7/4, 441/256, 63/32 (it's made of perfect fifths and sevenths). I don't see how any 12-tone JI scale could be useful for comparing JI and equal temperament. The closest thing to an actual comparison would be reimagining a piece of 12-equal(ish) music in extended JI, without an arbitrary number of notes for it to use, and with enough artistic license that the original harmonies are interpreted with appropriately piquant intervals.

  48. musictheory 2011-08-05 12:06:01 adrianmonk
    > Every key is distinct and has its own sound an timbre, very subtle, but it is there. I am not at all convinced it's anything other than an association that certain people have with certain keys. It's certainly affected by the way certain instruments' tunings and other factors relate to a key. Continuing with the guitar example, there is a certain G# that can *only* be played on the lowest string (unless you use an alternate tuning). If you transpose a song that features that note up by a half step, that note could and probably would be played on the next string, and that string is [EDIT] *thinner* and sounds different. Similarly, a piano may be tuned not in ideal equal temperament but with a preference for one key. For example, more songs are in C than in Db, and tuning is all about compromises, so a piano tuner may choose (whether consciously or unconsciously) to tune the piano to give better results with C at the expense of maybe slightly not as good results when playing in Db. Furthermore, some instruments make it relatively hard to play in one key compared to others. For example, there are many more guitar songs in E and A than there are in Eb and Ab. Thus, people might associate the keys of E, A, D, G, etc. with guitars, and the sounds of Eb, Ab, Db, Gb, etc. with other instruments. > People who have perfect pitch can attest to this People who have perfect pitch instantly know which key a particular song is in. As a result, they are the best equipped to make mental associations between keys and all the things they've heard in the past. That doesn't mean that the keys inherently have anything to do with the things people associate with them.

  49. musictheory 2011-08-05 13:45:59 BrohannesJahms
    There are some considerations made for instrumentation, for example. B major is a very easy scale to play on the piano because of the layout of the keys and the natural shape of the hand. Bb is kind of a pain in the butt, though. Similarly, D is a braindead easy key for violins and string instruments in that same family. EDIT: Just noticed this: >I understand for stringed instruments like guitars, the open notes for the strings are important for chords, but in the music itself, does key matter? Thing is, music isn't made without instruments/voices. They're a vital part of any performance and writing music without thinking about what kind of instruments you want to perform it would be purpose defeating.

  50. musictheory 2011-08-06 02:10:32 mkawick
    It's partially what maincolbs said, but more to my point: even the low E on a guitar falls outside of the 'normal' range for the instrument. The low D sounds a bit wonky and it's overtones throw the string 'off' a little. I am speaking in particular about it's lowness; it doesn't sound like the rest of the guitar... out of place. Lots of bands do it, sure, and you can even find classical composers who have done it, but they do it for effect... not because it sounds natural. I guess what I mean is: the aesthetic sounds unnatural.

  51. musictheory 2011-08-06 02:50:21 Vortilex
    To people with Perfect Pitch, there is a difference in key, and I feel that G minor is angrier than D minor, which is sadder than A minor, for example. Major keys are more similar to me. I'm actually exploring the "extra keys" for unequal temperament (everything from G# major - Cx major to Fbb major to Cbb major, and then their minor keys). In unfretted string instruments, key does matter, because they tune to the natural key by default. If you're playing them with a large ensemble, they'll tune to the equal temperament (or rather, your fingers will attempt to match it because you hear it). If you've got singers and string players, finding the key you want is no problem, and it is quite clear. Once you introduce an equal tempered instrument, then they all tune to that. To answer your question, key matters some of the time.

  52. musictheory 2011-08-06 02:52:13 rawrr69
    Is it? It is nothing but tuning one string down one step...

  53. musictheory 2011-08-06 07:46:16 cobaltage
    I thought I would throw in some ideas that aren't yet represented in the comments. In the most abstract sense, key doesn't matter. As you start adding practicalities, key matters in different ways. For instance, if you take into account the instruments involved: key has a direct, cyclical, and bi-directional impact on the register, and each analog instrument has a different timbre depending on the register. It won't make much of a difference at transpositions of small intervals, but certainly if you played the same song in one key and then transposed it a fifth away, the tone quality of the instrument itself could be very different between the two cases. Similarly, Pachelbel's Canon might not catch anyone's attention played in E, but played in G on the same instruments, it's going to sound different to a more people. The different adjectives that can describe different registers on an instrument -- "muddy," "bright," "strained," etc. -- demonstrate these differences in timbre. With respect to stringed instruments in particular, the open strings don't just make a difference in relation to playing intervals or chords; the open strings will resonate if another string plays the same pitch-class. This adds a lot to the timbre of a stringed instrument, and the effect is a subtle cue regarding which pitches are being played that can be used in certain compositions to underscore the key relationships. Furthermore, if you actually hit an open string and another fretted string at the same pitch-class at the same time, you can get some subtle flanging effects (so to speak) from slight mismatches in the frequencies. One of the reasons to re-tune a guitar is to have access to certain chords or intervals using the open strings as well and to take advantages of these resonances. Other than the fact that different musicians are used to playing in certain keys, the tuning of strings also means that playing certain keys can be much easier or much more difficult. Violins (which have strings tuned to G, D, A, E going up by fifths) play sharp keys much more easily than flat keys, again because of where the notes are relative to their harmonic functions. The key of D-flat on a violin is much more challenging than the key of D. This is the most likely reason why you're finding it difficult to play certain songs on the ukulele in their original key. The earlier effect of the resonating open strings plays off of this element. Even if you're the master of barre chords, if an arrangement never hits an open string or causes resonance with an open string, the arrangement is going to sound very "closed" or "intense" relative to an arrangement that is closer to the "home keys" of the instrument. (I can't think of better adjectives for that.) This is one reason to use a capo, in addition to the fact that it might be easier to play with a capo. Additionally, our musical notation system prioritizes keys closest to C-major. The farther you deviate from that key, the more accidentals there are, which can slow down sight reading. This is probably not your biggest concern, though. Finally -- and this is just a conjecture on my part -- I think one could make an argument that, to musically untrained listeners, the fact that the vast majority of the songs gather around a small subset of possible keys means that those keys are going to be more familiar to them. I've read that untrained listeners are so used to hearing popular tunes in their recorded key that they can actually sing those tunes blind in the right key. This is not perfect pitch, but something more like a concrete association. But I wonder if the overall result of this effect might impact how an untrained listener would hear a song in, let's say, A-sharp minor, and I'm curious if this relative experiential unfamiliarity is something that Chopin's Nocturnes, for instance, take advantage of. Anyway, this could have an impact if you're transposing a well-known popular song. Not that that would be so bad. The fact that you're using a ukulele already means that the result will be somewhat unfamiliar, which can be great. One could argue that all of these differences are relatively inconsequential from the standpoint of theory, but the emotional reaction of listeners is based on subtle things. Music theory certainly doesn't account for differences in the physical construction of instruments, their ranges, etc. If you look at a text on instrumentation and orchestration, there are a whole host of considerations that are not about theory.

  54. musictheory 2011-08-07 19:48:14 Def-Star
    Pick any fret on a guitar. Label that fret as 1. A minor second is the next fret over to the left or right. A major second is two frets over. A minor third is three frets. A major third if four frets. A perfect 4th is five frets, a tritone is six frets, a perfect fifth is seven frets, then minor 6th, major 6th, minor 7th, major 7th, and octave. Start on, say, the low E string. That interval is a perfect fourth with the A string. Pick any fret on the E string. The fret right below it is a perfect fourth. Below and to the left one fret on the A string is a major third, then minor 3rd, etc. The fret below and to the right is a tritone, then perfect 5th, minor 6, etc. The G and B strings make a major third interval together. All other adjacent strings are 4ths. Choose a random fret on G. Below is a major 3rd, then minor 3rd to the left and perfect 4th to the right. Etc...

  55. musictheory 2011-08-08 11:02:39 HEY-ness_A-ness
    Well if you're only talking about the fretboard: * Unison is the same pitch (pretty self explanatory) * A **2nd** is **1-2 frets** (1 minor, 2 major) * A **3rd** is **3-4 frets** (3 minor, 4 major) * A **4th** is **5 frets** (perfect) * A **tritone** is **6 frets** (augmented 4th or diminished 5th) * **5th** is **7 frets** (perfect) * **6th** is **8-9** (8 minor, 9 major) * **7th** is **10-11** (10 minor, 11 major) * **Octave** is **12** (perfect) Just keep in mind that each string is a 4th (or 5 frets) apart, except for G to B, which are a major 3rd (4 frets). In reality it's a bit more complicated, but this is it for the most part.

  56. musictheory 2011-08-08 15:02:24 posting_from_work
    The difference is subtle, yes, but I feel as if the ET rendition is kind of bland in comparison to the bach-lehman tuning, as if it lacks depth and complexity.. Sine waves make it easier to hear beating in intervals for sure, but maybe don't convey quite as much depth, all pure wave forms sound a bit raw really. And sine waves don't have overtones at all (anything that sounds different to a sine wave has overtones). String instruments are nice. Check out some Turkish music played on Oud, which is fretless - they have scales that use heavily microtonal systems Here's [Mendelssohn's Venetian Boat Song](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMU6szv8BFc) on ET and a couple of other historical tuning systems with some explanation on the differences by some professor-like-bloke. The difference is really subtle and interesting. He also shows notes that are altered in the tunings so you can get some idea.

  57. musictheory 2011-08-09 08:22:55 ralphstrickerchapman
    Actually, it's not so much of a joke. It's an ancient idea. In the Baroque era theorists referred to the "doctrine of the affections," and although there was not much consensus on which minor keys were the "saddest" and which major keys were the "happiest," the concept has a strong basis in physical reality. There are major organological differences among families of instruments, and different keys have different qualities on different instruments--for instance, as members of the violin family are tuned in fifths, generally to the pitches C, G, D, A, and E (violins and contrabasses get the last four, violas and 'cellos get the first four), a piece written for strings in the key of, say, D major will tend to have more resonant roots, fifths, and, to a lesser degree, thirds (due to a sympathetic response from the fifth partial of each open string), as opposed to a key such as B-flat, which will have more resonant thirds and sevenths, in general. It is of course more complicated than simply saying "D minor--saddest of all keys--lick my love pump, etc.", as all families of instruments have their idiosyncrasies, and different keys are more or less resonant on different instruments, but there are certainly characteristic qualities among the 24 keys. This is not so evident on a keyboard that has been tuned to equal temperament, but with any of the less extreme forms of mean-tone temperaments (equal temperament is actually just the most extreme form of mean-tone temperament, at 1/12 of the Pythagorean comma, compared with the quarter- or sixth- comma mean-tone temperaments that are more commonly recognized as "mean-tone temperaments"), the distinctions become very clear. As a musicologist friend of mine once put it: "If the key signature indicates B major (in seventeenth-century music), the intent is that you should suffer." ;)

  58. musictheory 2011-08-15 10:30:32 vaelroth
    I will warn you that anything that has you tap a rhythm can be quite frustrating at times. Usually it requires tapping the space bar on the beat, but you have to be just a hair ahead of the beat when tapping. Its akin to playing a piano to some degree, where to really be on time you have to strike the key just a hair early. With a piano this is because of the time it takes for the mechanism to act on the hammer and eventually strike the string. With Auralia its just frustrating. Still, I highly recommend the program to anyone learning music theory at the undergraduate level or above.

  59. musictheory 2011-08-23 20:19:45 samjowett
    As a guitarist this "static root drill" exercise is, by far, the best way to get modes into your head: simply play the major scale in different positions against a droning/repeating low E string. Boom.

  60. musictheory 2011-08-24 01:35:58 RockofStrength
    Or to keep it simpler use the open D string and the standard top-3 string major scale (the one for G major on the top three strings in open position), shifting it around. If you keep this shape and there's a D somewhere in there, you're in a mode. This version of the drill is very conducive to finger-picking.

  61. musictheory 2011-08-24 14:10:44 OnaZ
    It's a tricky concept but it basically deals with the [overtone series](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_%28music%29). Imagine a vibrating string in a perfect setup. If you divided the string in half, you would get a pitch sounding one octave higher. Unfortunately, pianos do not contain perfect strings in a perfect setup. Due to its characteristics, the piano string itself takes up space in the vibrating sound wave system. What this means is that if you try to divide a piano string in half, you get a little less than an octave. If you took a note in the middle of the piano and tuned absolutely pure octaves up and down the keyboard from there, by the time you got to the ends of the piano, your pitch would be a little bit off from your original note. So octaves are tuned just a little bit wide so that the notes on the edge of the piano are more in tune with notes at the center of the piano. As I said before, piano tuning is a series of compromises in an effort to fool the ear that everything is "close enough."

  62. musictheory 2011-08-24 14:30:03 Def-Star
    String inharmonicities. Basically, a tensioned string when plucked or hammered doesn't vibrate with perfect integer overtones. The thicker the string, the shorter the string, or the more inelastic the string, the greater will be any kind of deviation from integer valued overtones. This deviation is called inharmonicity. The deviations are small, but noticeable, and greater in the higher registers. To counteract this effect, you have to tune the higher strings a tiny bit sharp and the lower strings a tiny bit flat. The bigger the piano, the smaller the stretch. If you've ever tried to tune a guitar, you will notice that if the strings are all perfectly tuned, you will always have chords with some bad octaves and thirds. You either learn to average it out, or you get yourself [one of these](http://i.imgur.com/GbzUE.jpg).

  63. musictheory 2011-08-26 02:55:17 ralphstrickerchapman
    It's a common misconception that a lower pitch necessarily means lower tension. The lower tension is generally due to tuning to a lower pitch on modern strings with a gauge more appropriate for higher pitches. There was quite a bit of experimentation done with materials for strings in the 17th-and 18th-centuries (they used wire, silk, and wound composites of metal over gut not unlike the construction of our modern synthetic strings, among many other materials), and among the various methods of testing new experiments there was a common technique which involved stretching a string of a certain gauge and length until it snapped. The appropriate pitch was then determined to be approximately a whole tone below the breaking point. In fact, the performing pitch in a certain place at a certain time was almost exclusively determined by the pitch of the church organ, and that varied widely from place to place, including pitches significantly higher than our modern 440 Hz.

  64. musictheory 2011-08-30 14:00:04 [deleted]
    > This system is well tempered, instead of in just intonation. I think you mean equal-tempered. Well temperament is a different thing. > Writing music with well tempered instruments abstracted away a lot of the nonsense that came with just intonation. Before, composers were immobilized in terms of what modulations they could do, what chords sounded okay, and they were pretty much limited to elaborating Do and Sol, since those are the most in tune partials, relative to each other (along with the octave Do). Now they could explore key relationships, elaborate the dominant in a meaningful way, and a myriad of other cool tricks. *Only* if you try to cram just intonation onto a piano keyboard. In practice composers can use as many notes as they like, which ranges from the 12 notes in The Well Tuned Piano to the over 1200 individual pitches in Ben Johnston's 7th string quartet. Just intonation = total freedom.

  65. musictheory 2011-09-02 12:26:18 [deleted]
    I play guitar and I can read sheet music, but I am pretty slow at sight-reading. I think that that is a good place to be as a guitarist. I am 100% sure I am a better guitarist for knowing how to read and write music when I need to, but I don't do it enough to need to be good at sight-reading. Being able to play what you see in sheet music as easy as reading a book is very difficult and takes years of practice. Don't expect yourself to do that. Just learn how to, and then you will have that tool available to you. It's really not that hard. Assuming you memorized the staff (EGBDF + FACE), you will probably pick it up within an hour. The top space of the staff is E, and that is your open high E string. Middle C is at one ledger line below the low E, and that is at the **3rd** fret of the A string. Use those for reference points and figure the rest out for the first position. I would suggest getting the sheet music for the star spangled banner to practice. It's a good beginning song for it. EDIT: Wrong fret. Thanks snookerdoodle

  66. musictheory 2011-09-02 21:09:21 [deleted]
    This is me, too. Actually, I can sight read pretty darned fast with no mistakes if it's in C. Throw in a sharp or two and I have to muddle through. :( And if I really need to learn the song quickly, I'm better off learning it by ear. The funniest thing is, among the folks I play with, they think I'm one of the ones "who knows music" and I don't. I try to tell them that. I wish I had time to practice enough to learn to sight read faster. And I'd like to learn music theory better. Or, in a more disciplined way, like, by taking a college course. I'm figuring on getting to do this when my teens are out of the house. You forgot to tell them about Every Good Boy... Oh, middle C? 3rd fret of the A string, not 2nd. :)

  67. musictheory 2011-09-10 14:05:23 ralphstrickerchapman
    I feel a long, meandering post coming on. You've been warned, but I hope this will answer your question, as well as more than a few questions that arise in the course of answering your question. The 7-tone western diatonic scale *is* derived from the overtone series, but not quite directly. It is primarily derived from concatenations of the intervals found among the first few overtones (which is to say a fifth built upon a fifth built upon a fifth, etc), which are generally agreed to be the most consonant intervals, at least within the confines of a musical culture (ours) which makes distinctions between "consonance" and "dissonance." The first notated examples of music in the 7-tone diatonic scale appear during the [Carolingian Renaissance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_Renaissance), but by this time people in western Europe had already been using the scale for several hundred years. In spite of the fact that "Gregorian chant" is named after Pope Gregory I (540-604 C.E.), the practice probably predates the reign of Gregory by at least a hundred years, and, on top of that, the attribution of the "invention" of the chant repertoire to Gregory was a fabrication, occurring late in the aforementioned Carolingian Renaissance. This limited historical background is only included in order to emphasize the point that people were making music within the confines of the scalar scheme to which we currently adhere (more or less) for many hundreds of years before they actually wrote any of it down. Purists will rightly distinguish the medieval modes from our major and minor scales, but they are in essence identical. The first interval which appears in the overtone series is the octave, and its omnipresence makes it easy to undervalue its importance in human music. All musical cultures appear to acknowledge the idea of octave equivalency (the concept that a tone and a tone an octave above it are in some sense identical, like a and a'), and this is most probably linked to the way in which our brains process auditory information. The octave acts as a limiting factor in the development of a scalar system--it is something to be "filled in" with a set of tones, and different cultures have created a wide variety of means for achieving this end. There are a number of ways to derive the western diatonic scale from the overtone series, but I will offer two derivations: one which involves the stacking of fifths, and another which involves the stacking of triads. If you begin on the tone F and ascend in fifths, you will have derived a reasonable facsimile of the western diatonic scale by the time you've arrived at B (F;C;G;D;A;E;B--A;B;C;D;E;F;G.) This is conceptually sound, but in practice this will sound a little "off" if just fifths (the 702-cent fifths derived from the overtone series) are used. The just fifths are a little wide compared to the fifths we're used to hearing, and by the time you get to that final B, it will be 12 cents higher than the B you're used to hearing on the piano keyboard. The derivation I prefer is actually a much more recent invention, dating to the 15th-16th centuries, and it was developed for the purely practical concern of being able to play in a wide variety of keys on keyboard instruments without using prohibitively complex mechanisms or prohibitively populated keyboards. A system which accounts for naturals, flats, sharps, double-flats and double-sharps would require 36 keys (35+1) to the octave. [People actually did this shit.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archicembalo) It didn't work out very well in practice, and the instruments were abandoned. The method I prefer is one of the foundations of the [mean-tone temperaments](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean-tone_temperament), and, as I said earlier, it involves the stacking of major triads, rather than the stacking of fifths. Simply put, if you take the tonic triad, and append the subdominant triad to the lower fifth and the dominant triad to the upper fifth, you will have the complete diatonic pitch set. Specialists (possibly luciender) will point out that this is not exactly the way in which the specifics of the mean-tone temperaments are hammered out, but if they do, I am prepared to justify myself--It's just that the purpose of this post is to *decrease* confusion, and as temperament is a rather advanced set of concepts, I have chosen to simplify things a bit. I also prefer this derivation because of the parallels to the hexachord system (detailed in Def-Star's post in this same thread), the way it lines up nicely with the spacing of the three clefs, and the way it equates inferentially the importance of the subdominant to that of the dominant--the diatonic pitch set is incomplete if only tonic and dominant are considered significant. So we've derived the scale, and now I think I can begin to answer your question. For many hundreds of years, this was the scale which was used in western music. Chromaticism arises in western music earlier than most people seem to realize, and by the time of the earliest notations it is commonplace. As a side note, the information in the preceding paragraphs, coupled with the fact that a tone similar to b-flat (it's really too flat to be a b-flat) occurs in the nearer overtones goes a long way toward explaining the existence in the German notational system of the note "H", or b-natural, alongside the note "B", which is, confusingly, identical to everyone else's b-flat. So, in effect, there *was* a movement among early theorists which encouraged the naming of the new notes according to new letter names, but the system of flats and sharps prevailed in the end. As people began to experiment (again, this experimentation probably occurred *before* people started writing music down), they began to apply the principles implied by the existence of b-flat and f-sharp (b-flat entails extending the string of fifths mentioned above down one more, f-sharp one more in the opposite direction) to other tones, creating semitones where there were previously whole-tones and recreating the "major scale" (scare quotes because the name is anachronistic, although the practice is ancient) on other degrees. I'll conclude by attempting to clear up what I believe is an all-too-common misconception about the nature of the history of western music. Far too frequently, people conceive of the development of western music as "linear"--music begins simply and proceeds to become more and more complex. History shows that this is a gross oversimplification of the reality, which is that throughout the history of western music, in different places at different times, socioeconomic circumstances have convened which allow for or encourage experimentation in the art of music. These confluences include the Carolingians, the [Ars Subtilior](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Subtilior), and the Baroque (the true Baroque of Monteverdi, Frescobaldi and their forbears and successors, and not the highly formalized Galant style of Vivaldi, Rameau and Stamitz which is so often conflated with the Baroque style), among countless others, most of which have been lost. According to this model, the "experiments" of the 20th century can be viewed as more of a collection of rediscoveries by eager musical philosophers than a set of innovations, and there is much evidence which supports this view (for example, Stravinsky's well-documented fascination with Gesualdo.) Edit: an easy way (at least I find it to be easy) of sorting out the H-is-b-natural, B-is-b-flat dilemma is to associate the "H" with the hard hexachord (H for hard) on G, as opposed to the "soft" hexachord on F which uses "B" (b-flat)

  68. musictheory 2011-09-13 06:20:14 DirtySketel
    People who have perfect pitch often find it very frustrating. Someone with perfect pitch can go see an orchestra, and one string on one violin can be slightly out of tune and it will ruin the whole concert for them. You can't learn perfect pitch, as far as I know. My friend has managed to get a round-about idea of what a C is (that is, he can reliably tell when the nearest note is a C, but not sing a perfect C on command) and can from there work out the other notes with a bit of thought. Most people can with some practice recognise notes to within 3 semi-tones, but even that isn't considered a core musical skill.

  69. musictheory 2011-09-24 05:12:56 wildeye
    The ear hears beat frequencies between 97 and 101 that it does not with 100 and 100. Highest possible information is indistinguishable from randomness, but the article and the paper aren't talking about going to that extreme. Since you bring it up, white noise is rare. Nature and music both use noise with a 1/f distribution far more. Possibly more to the point, almost every musical instrument (other than synthesizers) have a very complex timbre which has a Fourier transform (as visible in a frequency analyzer) composed of a large number of sine waves, even when only a single note is sounded. The subject is complicated by the fact that the article concerns human perception, not just information content of the raw physics. Note that the latter is actually somewhat ill-defined without a lot of specification; this is closely related to the now-famous point that the length of a coastline depends on the measuring scale, rather than having a single unambiguous answer. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Long_Is_the_Coast_of_Britain%3F_Statistical_Self-Similarity_and_Fractional_Dimension In the case of a stringed instrument, one complication is that the typical analysis of the sound is in terms of the steady-state some time after it is plucked or picked or bowed. The short-term state immediately after the string is given an impetus is much more complicated; in a simple analysis, this is indicated by pretending that the string is stretched at a single point so that the two sides of the string form two sides of a triangle, and then when it is released and begins to move back again, complicated things happen to its shape before it settles down to a steady state where we can simplistically begin to pretend that it forms a sine wave. The frequency bandwidth of an oscillator like that begins as covering a very wide bandwidth, and in theory requires infinite time to settle down to the infinitely narrow bandwidth that we have in the case of a pure sine wave. In practice it settles down to a reasonable approximation of a steady state fairly quickly, but it still takes finite time -- on the other hand, there are nonlinearities in things like guitars and pianos, so it isn't *just* settling, it's also undergoing some qualitative changes. All of which is just to say that I would hesitate to be dismissively overly reductionist on the subject.

  70. musictheory 2011-09-26 18:09:37 Stumpgrinder2009
    A keyboardist in an old band of mine had perfect pitch, to the point that we would use him to tune up to. The way he see... erm, hears it, it didn't matter whether base A was 440, 441, or 440.005 so long as everything else was in tune. A vast number of albums are 'off' by a few cents, we've all seen (heard?) it, you get your guitar in tune with the tuner, and some albums are high by a few cents, some are low, you cant avoid that. But if the bass guitars top string is slightly off.. thats when my mate would go 'crazy'. He also said he much prefered the 'just' tuning to the tempered tuning when he was young until he heard enough music to become accustomed to it, then after that it was just 'meh'

  71. musictheory 2011-09-30 20:13:53 Confoundicator
    I can tune my guitar by touch, to an extent. If a string is close to in-tune, I can feel the beats resonating through the neck and body and adjust the out-of-tune string till the beats disappear. Our ears are the only sensory organs we have that can perceive musical pitch. The sense of touch can detect vibration from objects, but it can't detect the pitch. Check using a tuning fork. While vibrating, the base of a tuning placed on a solid surface will force it to resonate a the same frequency. Held in one's hand, we can detect the vibration and maybe even if it's vibrating faster or slower, but not the exact pitch in the same way as our ears.

  72. musictheory 2011-10-01 06:43:31 ekovv
    Also, make sure you don't forget about the open strings being selected. Sometimes I put in a chord shape but get a weird name because of an open string being in there.

  73. musictheory 2011-10-01 09:46:50 Beaker271
    Thank you, this answers my question perfectly; previously I had thought that I would have to write a measure made up of four quarter note triplets, and then string together 3 of them, then 4 of them, then 3 of them, then two of them. This is for a purely theoretical piece that will never be danced to. If there is any way to write it in 4/4, however, I would like to know purely out of curiosity.

  74. musictheory 2011-10-01 14:17:09 mmmmmmmmichaelscott
    Right, what you're asking about pertains to the overtone series. When a string vibrates for a particular pitch, nodes form along the string which produces other notes. These notes stack in the way nature intended our ear bases what sounds "right" and "wrong" off of this.

  75. musictheory 2011-10-03 08:00:42 hoketus
    Often, a capella music (especially barbershop) drifts towards Just Intonation, much in the same way a string quartet might.

  76. musictheory 2011-10-03 08:36:18 bazzage
    The Watersons were capable of ringing each note like a bell when they wanted to. In the pieces I linked, I hear enough free intonation that it would be tough to nail down exactly whether they were going for any particular tuning, be it well, five-limit just, quarter-comma meantone, or what have you. I suspect they were going for the sound that they liked, based on what they had heard in the singing of their predecessors. I have read that string players often tend toward Pythagorean tuning, probably based on tuning their strings a fifth apart. I have also read that if there will be a piano playing in the room, the easiest way to get violins in tune with its oddities is to bang a D minor chord with a B just below it. The violin's A and D can be tuned in unison with the piano, and the G and E can be made to fit in as well as they can. Another factoid that may interest OP, and others, is that tuning the A of a viola or cello to the piano, and the other strings by just perfect fifths will leave the C string noticeably flat compared to the piano's C. **tl;dr** TunIng can get messy. Listen, listen, listen, study the peculiarities if you like, and then trust your ears.

  77. musictheory 2011-10-03 08:49:45 hoketus
    It's not really 'going for a particular tuning system' as much as 'going for 12ET, but innately drifting towards pure intervals (whole number ratios).' You find this everywhere, as I mentioned mostly with singers and string players.

  78. musictheory 2011-10-03 09:17:27 bazzage
    Hearing a good barbershop quartet up close is an unforgettable experience. Still, I can't really agree that a string quartet or close-harmony vocal group has any reason to want to go for 12TET in the first place. That book by Ross Duffin has some interesting quotes from a couple of word-class quartet players on the balancing act between carrying a melody line while keeping the harmony working. That's about the place where Duffin says string quartets may get closer to extended sixth-comma meantone when they are on top of their game. I'm still in the "listen, listen, listen" phase of things, and once in a while I can get things tuned the way I like. There is another interesting book, Alain Danielou's [Music and the Power of Sound](http://www.alaindanielou.org/Music-and-the-Power-of-Sound.html) which gets into non-western modes a lot. Heavy going, and worth reading once perhaps. I may read it again someday when I have trouble sleeping.

  79. musictheory 2011-10-03 14:43:40 [deleted]
    move the 4 on the a string onto the low e string and that's it

  80. musictheory 2011-10-07 11:32:49 probablynotthere
    I have perfect pitch, but not relative pitch. This means I can tell what a note is, but not whether it's sharp or flat, even in relation to other pitches. It's very difficult for me to sing/play a wind/string instrument in tune, because I don't have relative pitch. It's useful in a music theory setting; I can score orchestra music by ear. I was forced to learn movable do, and that was absolute torture. And I can't transpose, so.

  81. musictheory 2011-10-10 00:23:38 Infinitezen
    Interesting ideas you have. I think when its all said and done, I will still favor the Min(Maj7) with the tension because that is what my ear tells me is correct in terms of where the root lies when I play it as I have been. This is generally my method of deciphering stranger chords, to just follow my ear when possible. Leaving the third out is an interesting idea which I will try, or I could replace it with the 11th if I didn't want to skip a string (I play guitar). Also, it's nice to meet an intellectual deadhead; I know there are a lot of us technically but I only have a few friends that listen to the Dead and even fewer who are actually into music theory on your level, so meeting and talking to someone like you IRL is kind of a wet dream for me. Might I ask what your favorite Dead song is, technically or otherwise? For me its definitely "Eyes", but there are many other gems to choose from :)

  82. musictheory 2011-10-10 05:38:49 DirtySketel
    Yeah, if you have perfect pitch, 1 string in an entire orchestra can frustrate no end

  83. musictheory 2011-10-11 13:34:20 taintedblu
    I think that what you are hearing is a combination of all those things. The notes in this progression are comprised of the number iii chord, the number IV chord, and the number ii chord of a(n arbitrary) major key. Of these 3 chords, 2 are minor (in what is called quality), and 1 is major. My guess is that when the song shifts from the minor iii chord, and to the major IV chord, you feel the shift as a (major) hopeful one. Additionally, these chords are being played across many instruments, for instance, a string section and a bass. This, as well as a slew of recording audio production methods are being employed (reverb, compression, delay etc) to affect your perception. As for the progression itself, the ii chord and the iii chord are a commonly used pair of chords to hover around for a given composition, and is commonplace in pop, rock, jazz, latin and many other forms of music. A famous example is the song Moondance by Van Morrison. Once again, it is an all around combination of the things you mentioned. This wikipedia article can get you started learning about how to develop this type of progression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/major_scale#Harmonic_properties

  84. musictheory 2011-10-11 14:40:12 Skjerzo
    Thanks! Great answers from all of you, I love understanding how such passages are created. Time to load up a string VST and try it out :)

  85. musictheory 2011-10-14 23:19:40 [deleted]
    The 10/7 tritone and 7/5 tritone are particulary nice. I'm a big fan of 11/8 as well, and 13 based harmonies are unreal, very unique (see Ben Johnston's 5th string quartet). There's always the humble 7/4 too, which gets replaced by a 16/9, two stacked fourths, in the 12-equal scale. See The Well Tuned Piano, which uses it heavily, and Ben Johnston's 4th string quartet, which uses it to good effect on the 8th note of one of the variations on Amazing Grace. I can't give any chords by name, but you can hear them in Toby Twining's music, in Ben Johnston's, and to an extent in The Well Tuned Piano (La Monte Young), although it's heavily based on stacked perfect fifths and 7/4s, so it doesn't use all the intervals above.

  86. musictheory 2011-10-15 00:16:00 Infinitezen
    Interesting stuff. As a guitarist, I suppose I can always go fretless if I want to achieve more just intonations without sacrificing playing in any key. On the other hand, I'm just still not quite convinced that mathematically perfect overtones are worth all the trouble. The effect of the music on my brain is definitely interesting, I can feel a certain electricity listening to the piece, but again, I'm not sure that that pure bell harmonics are necessarily what music is all about, rather harmony, movement, timbre, interplay, rhythm etc. I guess one doesn't preclude the other, but it does make harmony across instruments a more complicated matter (i suppose a string quartet would have the easiest time pulling it off once they trained their ears, but that seems no small feat) Is there supposed to be an "a-ha" kind of moment when listening to just intonations where you sort of put it all together? Because, again, what I notice most is reverberation of the overtones, and I'm not sure if the nature of the melodies is affecting my brain or the overtones themselves.

  87. musictheory 2011-10-15 02:26:51 [deleted]
    > As a guitarist, I suppose I can always go fretless if I want to achieve more just intonations without sacrificing playing in any key. Yes, I've done that. > On the other hand, I'm just still not quite convinced that mathematically perfect overtones are worth all the trouble. The effect of the music on my brain is definitely interesting, I can feel a certain electricity listening to the piece, but again, I'm not sure that that pure bell harmonics are necessarily what music is all about, rather harmony, movement, timbre, interplay, rhythm etc. Me neither. I don't see why all music has to be harmonic in any sense (that is, using harmony at all, whether just intonation or otherwise), but these are super powerful sounds that can create moods unlike anything we've heard before, and they should be used *some* of the time, more often than they are. Not having these intervals is like not having a set of tiny files in your toolbox, because you can usually squeak by without them. Some things can be crafted much more finely with them. Mathematical perfection isn't interesting to me, but distinctive sounds are. > I guess one doesn't preclude the other, but it does make harmony across instruments a more complicated matter (i suppose a string quartet would have the easiest time pulling it off once they trained their ears, but that seems no small feat) It all depends. There's no reason you can't make fixed-pitch instruments to play a certain set of justly tuned intervals (like Harry Partch's instruments, or La Monte Young's Well Tuned Piano tuning), which are no harder to play in tune than their 12-equal versions. And now that we have electronic keyboards, it's easy to make them play any pitches we want, either spreading an octave's worth of tiny intervals across a few keyboard octaves, or remapping the pitches on the fly to keep intervals between keys close to normal. As for performing on flexible-pitch instruments, some intervals are easier to find than their 12-equal varieties, and some are harder. Composers have to make sure they don't write anything that can't be performed, but that's nothing new. There are a lot of intervals avoided in vocal music for reasons of singability, and there are double stops you wouldn't write for strings. Of course it all depends on the performers. Bizarrely, except for Harry Partch, the biggest accomplishments in just intonation have been for string quartet and voice, and not sequenced on computer, even though that would logically be easiest and provide the surest intonation. > Is there supposed to be an "a-ha" kind of moment when listening to just intonations where you sort of put it all together? Because, again, what I notice most is reverberation of the overtones, and I'm not sure if the nature of the melodies is affecting my brain or the overtones themselves. I'm not sure what you mean by "put it all together". I guess it depends on the piece of music, whether you find the melodies or the overtones most affecting.

  88. musictheory 2011-10-15 02:59:19 rDr4g0n
    I have a loooong theory about learning (that is probably stuff that is well-known and discussed in psychology circles, but I havent really researched it outside of my own head), and one of those elements is what I describe as offloading processing to 'instinct'. Basically, instead of thinking about what fret to hit, when you see the note in the music, your finger will go there automatically. You won't think about it, it will just happen. Since you aren't actively processing this and making decisions, you have more processes free to read ahead and try to decode the rhythms. So this muscle memory or 'instinct' or whatever you'd like to call it comes from doing the "processing" part over and over again. Keep reading, keep thinking "okay that line is a C which is 2nd string, 3rd fret" and doing it. That's the processing part. Eventually you brain will switch that chunk of logic into it's own prepackaged chunk of instinct/reflex and you will automatically play the note without thinking about it. Also, as others have mentioned, you will learn to recognize common patterns, scales, progressions, etc. This is just a long way to say practice makes perfect :)

  89. musictheory 2011-10-15 13:15:29 xiipaoc
    There's another issue: play the lowest note on the piano. Can you recognize it as an A? Kinda, but only if you know to look for it, right? It's generally just a percussive sound. It has a frequency of about 27.5 Hz, just at the edge of the hearing range, and when you play it, you hear the overtones more than the note itself. And those overtones are not exactly linear because we're dealing with a bunch of pieces of metal and not an Ideal String™. The notes around it are somewhat similar. Those overtones are loud down there in that range, so when you play a chord, you hear all of those overtones conflicting with each other. For notes that are higher up, you hear the overtones a lot less, so a C and an E don't conflict as much in the middle register than at the bottom of the piano. Furthermore, the ear can distinguish between a high A and Bb much better than it can between the two lowest notes on the piano! The overtones line up a whole lot more when you play a perfect 5th, so while it will still sound muddy if you play the lowest A with the E right above, it will be less muddy than any other interval. An interesting experiment to do would be to take a frequency generator and generate low frequencies together to see how they conflict without any overtones at all, to test the theory. Another interesting experiment would be to take a piano with justly tuned thirds and see how they sound in the lowest register. Experiments are the best way to find out! Science!

  90. musictheory 2011-10-15 14:00:58 Def-Star
    There are a few of things workings in concert. 1. First, because the notes are so low, there is a greater difference between in wave length between any two notes in the lowest register versus the same notes in a hire register and so differences in notes will appear greater when the notes are low. 2. Secondly, we have a narrow range of hearing and we are generally not able to process and differentiate very low and very high notes as well as mid range notes. 3. And finally, and probably most importantly a string is not an ideal vibration medium. That is, tension, length, density, and cross sectional area of the vibrating string will work together to create inharmonicities that interfere with the natural modes of vibration by varying degrees. Inharmonicities also have different velocities from the ideal harmonica and will constantly phase in and out of each other. This effect is amplified with piano bass strings just because they are so much larger than the others. Inharmonicities are taken into account by tuners and string makers but there is only so much that can be done.

  91. musictheory 2011-10-15 15:19:28 adrianmonk
    > we're dealing with a bunch of pieces of metal and not an Ideal String™. This raises an interesting point. On a piano (and most stringed instruments), the lower notes use a different type of string/wire than the higher ones do. It's not that surprising that things sound different with copper-wound wire than with bare steel. I don't know if this is the cause, but it seems like a possible explanation.

  92. musictheory 2011-10-15 17:51:59 [deleted]
    Yep xilpaoc has mostly covered it. The effect you're experiencing is called [inharmonicity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inharmonicity). An "Ideal String™" would be infinitely flexible. As soon as you add some stiffness to the equation the overtones start to become out of tune with the fundamental, in other words the string becomes out of tune with itself. The thicker the string is the stiffer it becomes and the more out of tune the harmonics get. The bass strings are a real compromise, especially in smaller pianos. They're very thick and stiff so they exhibit this effect more than the higher ones. This is one of the big advantages of grand pianos. They can use much longer strings for the bass so the string doesn't have to be as thick and stiff, as a result they have much less inharmonicity.

  93. musictheory 2011-10-15 19:59:27 deviationblue
    Yep - a single, incredibly beefy string, as opposed to paired thinner strings as in the next couple of octaves, and tripled even-thinner strings for the other five octaves.

  94. musictheory 2011-10-18 00:44:30 ringolio
    My understanding is that strings are wound around a core above a certain gauge precisely so that bending stiffness of the string can be minimized (to keep it as close as possible to an ideal string) while the diameter of the string can be sufficiently large enough for the desired pitch/tension.

  95. musictheory 2011-10-18 18:56:11 Confoundicator
    Sound is vibrations. The range of human hearing is from about 20 vibrations per second (hertz, abbreviated Hz) at the low end, to about 20,000 Hz at the high end. When two strings vibrate at different frequencies they produce interference patterns based on the ratio of the two frequencies to each other. For example if one string is vibrating at 220 Hz and another is at 440 Hz, the interference pattern would be practically nil. The two notes are barely distinguishable. The ratio of the higher pitch frequency to the lower is 2:1, which is the definition of the octave. In this case, both notes are (American) A. Using higher ratios like 3:2, and 4:3, etc gives you notes that are closer together than an octave, and as the ratios increase even higher the interference between the two notes becomes more chaotic, and as a result they aren't as pleasing to the ear. When an instrument is in tune (modern system), all of the notes are at close approximations to even-integer ratios i.e. all the vibrations line up (more or less). Out of tune means that something is causing an interference pattern that isn't lined up, and is causing all kinds of chaotic overtones (multiples of the vibration sources' frequencies). In the modern system, the octave is split into 12 equal parts called half-steps and 2 half-steps is a whole-step. A diatonic scale is an arrangement of 7 of the 12 possible notes in an octave, set up in half-steps and whole-steps. In the following H=half-step, W=whole-step: Major scale: W W H W W W H Notice that it's seven notes long and it's asymmetrical. If you start a scale on each of the seven notes you get seven unique sequences of W's and H's. These are the diatonic modes. The major scale is the first mode. The natural minor scale is the sixth mode. The rest are the exotic names like dorian, lydian, that you've seen. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Check the links in the side bar!

  96. musictheory 2011-10-20 06:00:53 [deleted]
    I meant sound like a single note the way stops change the color of a single note on a pipe organ even though additional pipes are playing. I suggested using a multiple of 3 between notes. We are accustomed to hearing the multiple 2 as the octave. We treat 2 as an equivalence class. Why not 3? A fifth is a ratio of 3/2. Its frequency is the average of a tonic and its octave. So if 200 is the tonic then 400 is the octave and 300 is the fifth. A hierarchy of consonance: [unison, octave, fifth, third] follows from the division of the octave (the third is 250, halfway between the tonic and the fifth). So 3/2 (fifth) is less consonant than 2/1 (octave), and 5/4 (third) is less consonant than both of these. To me, a 3/2 ratio played on a guitar sounds like an interval rather than a timbre. OTOH, a ratio of 3 sounds like a timbre. A 12 string guitar has a different timbre from multiples of 2. You can play a new timbre from multiples of 3 too. I think this works because 3/2 is not equal to the third partial but 3/1 is. 3/2 is an overtone divided by the octave and is therefore less consonant than the octave. 3/1 is a whole number and as such has equal standing with 2. You might see the 12th as less consonant that the 8th from the order of primes [2,3], but with the right tuning I feel the 12th is more consonant than the 5th because 3 is a whole number and 3/2 is not. That is why I say multiples of 3 can sound like a single note.

  97. musictheory 2011-10-23 11:49:48 Vortilex
    It is usually done for keys where there are seven or more flats. Fb has the same tone as E in equal temperament, but if you're writing in Cb major, for example, you should write Fb so as to make it easier to identify (Cb major has seven flats). Fbb major (seldom used, if at all) would be hard to identify if it were simply written as Eb major (which, although the same in equal temperament, is slightly different in natural temperament, such as on unfretted string instruments).

  98. musictheory 2011-10-27 05:22:59 PotatoMusicBinge
    I will, for the fun, answer your questions in ascending order! The first point, I do not quite follow >But why study consonance and dissonance in a scientific way if we are not going to study why they are used in such an organized way? Are those two ways of studying consonance mutually exclusive? I would have thought not. >Generally being a very important word in that sentence. Who, then, is the exception? What are these niche, competing, theories? What are they based on? (please don't link to several 60,000-word abstruse PhD papers, just give me the gist and I will believe you) >there has been a lot of study of consonance and dissonance. And quite a lot of nothing conclusive has come from it Well then you will be quite excited and astonished with what I am about to tell you! Get two taunt strings of equal length, tension and thickness, and set one vibrating. Change the length of the second string to half the length of the first string, then set it vibrating. You will hear that the interval created between them sounds very pleasant to the ear. By experimenting with different lengths of the second string, you will find that the most pleasant sounds are achieved through simple ratios of the two string lengths. In fact, the simpler the ratio (with 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 etc. being the simplest) the more pleasant and "relaxed" the sound. Congratulations! You have just experimentally verified the current most plausible theory of consonance as understood in western tonal theory.

  99. musictheory 2011-10-31 17:52:50 [deleted]
    Yeah, surely you can't diminish unison? That's like having a piece of string that's -1" long.

  100. musictheory 2011-11-01 03:39:56 m3g0wnz
    Ah you're right; I'm mixing you up with another person. My point about minor triads still stands... Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_tuning fyi Edit 2: perusing your comments, you are actually referencing Pythagorean ratios and string divisions in your arguments quite a bit, you just perhaps aren't aware of their (antiquated) origins.

  101. musictheory 2011-11-01 04:19:55 m3g0wnz
    Even in modern days, however, E-sharps and F-naturals would be played differently on non-keyboard or non-fretted instruments. Good wind players, string players, and singers will tell you that an E-sharp is not played the same way as an F.

  102. musictheory 2011-11-03 03:28:21 spike
    Generalizations: Haydn's themes tend to short and succinct, and his development of them very long and eventful by comparison. Mozart is rather the opposite, his themes are long and highly developed while their development is often quite short in comparison. Haydn uses the theme and variations form in the slow movements much more often than Mozart. Haydn's orchestration is usually more adventurous, or at least more extraverted, and Mozart's more subtle. Neither composer uses the minor keys very often, but when Mozart does, it's for a telling effect, while Haydn is more restrained. Both composers are influenced by the Italian comic opera tradition, but Mozart is a much more overtly based on a vocal style, while Haydn is more instrumentally grounded. Haydn often uses melodies that have a grounding in Middle European folk tradition, Mozart much less so. Both composers excel at counterpoint (Mozart had his father Leopold as a teacher, who used Handel and Hasse as a model, while Haydn learned from Handel's rival, Nicola Porpora), but Mozart's counterpoint is somewhat more naturally idiomatic "Baroque" than Haydn's, who sounds more modern and perhaps a bit stiff. Mozart's signature instrumental form is the piano concerto, a form Haydn rarely indulged in. Haydn, on the other hand, wrote concertos for instruments Mozart never cared for, like the trumpet or the cello. Mozart's operas are one of the glories of Western civilization, but Haydn realized very quickly this was one field in which he could not compete, and gave up, aside from the very late Orfeo. Haydn turned the string quartet and symphony into his laboratory, as Mozart did with the piano concerto. Haydn often comes close to "program music", in that he sometimes uses what we would today call "sound effects" (animal noises, explosions, etc..) and conceptual forms (the "Farewell" symphony), while Mozart tends to be more abstract, although not too much should be made of this.

  103. musictheory 2011-11-03 05:05:37 spike
    Mozart and Haydn were almost polar opposites in their personal lives. Haydn was a life-long employee of the nobility, while Mozart was self-employed. Haydn was deeply religious while Mozart was irreverent, a Mason and possibly an atheist. Mozart was a virtuoso instrumentalist, Haydn a competent musician whose favorite instrument was the orchestra. Mozart was a womanizer and party animal, Haydn a homebody (although that changed late in life when he visited England). Haydn was a shrewd businessman who ended his life in comfortable retirement, Mozart was an irresponsible spendthrift who died in debt. Nevertheless, they admired each other deeply, knowing quite well that they were the two best composers in Europe, by far. Haydn, in his Opus 33 string quartets, revolutionized Classical music, and Mozart realizing this, dedicated his own set of string quartets (Nos14~19) to Haydn a few years later.

  104. musictheory 2011-11-03 10:40:18 ifodge
    Mozart = piano concerto Hayden = string quartet Note: This method is not foolproof.

  105. musictheory 2011-11-03 13:16:43 [deleted]
    the best way to really get a feel for what you're looking to do would be to listen to rock and pop songs with horns and try to take a dictation of the horn parts. Then do the same for the string parts in rock and pop songs that feature strings. The idioms will become apparent quickly.

  106. musictheory 2011-11-04 00:32:13 [deleted]
    I go to Seattle University. Perhaps not the most robust program but it's small enough with good professors. Philosophy major. I have an AA from Laney College in music composition, with 2 years at the Berkeley (not Berklee) Jazzschool for guitar performance as well. I'm pretty far along, theory-wise, in 17th-19th century. So far quite good with score analysis. Comfortable arranging for SATB chorus, but those exercises are always less compositionally oriented and more paint-by-numbers oriented (if that makes sense). Ultimately I'm just looking to break through to the next level of arranging and composition beyond homework, but I'm not sure how to kick start that project. The theory is really helping a lot mentally, but I figure that it's pretty much useless unless I'm making some music with it. I haven't really been too inspired to write anything (just want to start with some string quartets, really) for fear that it's going to sound like a homework exercise. So anything to push me in that direction and really get the personal music going would be great. FWIW, three albums that have really inspired me to go in this direction are *Veedon Fleece - Van Morrison *Di Doo Dah - Jane Birkin *Lisbon - The Walkmen (very specifically the song "Blue As Your Blood." Those strings kill me every time!)

  107. musictheory 2011-11-06 22:14:51 StrettoByStarlight
    Stevie Wonder is a great example! Too High has this string of stepwise descending Major 7 b5 chords, and Sir Duke has some real neat chromatic stuff going on as well. He was definitely the master of throwing in some really interesting and complex harmonic material while keeping some real mainstream appeal.

  108. musictheory 2011-11-10 21:56:37 milkshakeiii
    But not of course solely by virtue of its spelling on the page. Each note has a harmonic and/or melodic context which contributes to the tuning of that note. That it is spelled E# might, for example, imply that it is the leading tone in F# minor (perhaps the third of a dominant chord)- it is context like this which would determine its optimal tuning. It is notable that because of the same considerations not all Fs written as F are played the same- as the same good string player, wind player, or singer would tell you. The world of tuning and tuning systems is large and full of compromise! So once you start talking about about E# being soooo not the same as F, I say it should be in for a penny in for a pound. ;)

  109. musictheory 2011-11-15 08:16:13 japaneseknotweed
    Huh. That's a *really* interesting thought. I'll add two things to the mix: * quartet players (at least the good ones) are constantly making choices regarding tuning. Do I as Violin II play this B as a super-high leading tone leading to the C coming next as part of the melodic line, or do I tune it in a nice square fifth with the cellist below me on an E? * string players are taught that the human ear perceives the top point of a vibrato as the official pitch, so your hand rocks back/under the pitch, then up *to* it but not beyond.

  110. musictheory 2011-11-16 06:42:27 m3g0wnz
    Go to Youtube and check out what the Kronos Quartet has done. They have some really awesome new string quartet music going on, and oftentimes the leader will explain a bit about the music too. This sounds right up your alley to me.

  111. musictheory 2011-11-19 09:35:28 FynnClover
    It's played on a ukulele, so yes it is played G#, C#/Db, E, B where the second string is the lowest. The reason why I said Db was because I went from an E7 chord (G#, D, E, B) and moved the D down a fret. Thus Db. Btw, when I see E6, I think of an E chord in first inversion. EDIT: I was originally playing in the key of A. [This progression](http://soundcloud.com/hyperdreams/chord-2-1#) should give it more context. The chord progression is DM7, my interesting chord, DM7, my interesting chord, A.

  112. musictheory 2011-11-30 06:58:03 rgowen
    The point of equal temperament is that all the keys are, in fact, equal. There is no difference between the keys in terms of the space between the intervals. As a composer you will probably end up basing your choice of key on things like your preferred playing style or the way the key sounds in a particular register of the piano. Your statement that string players can "distinguish slight differences between keys" is false; the reason keys in other tunings have specific characteristics is because of the space between the intervals and equal temperament eliminates those.

  113. musictheory 2011-11-30 07:01:45 m3g0wnz
    I think the idea that led the OP to the conclusion that string players can distinguish slight differences is that string players do NOT play in equal-temperament; that is to say that a G-flat is different than an F-sharp to a string player (and to a singer and many wind players, for that matter), while on a piano, it's literally the exact same pitch.

  114. musictheory 2011-11-30 11:52:20 yepyep27
    As a pianist, yes, different keys have different sounds and "personalities" if you will. Sharp keys generally sound brighter; for example, a lot of generic rock songs are in either E or A because of their bright qualities. Another, classical, example is "To the Spring" by Grieg, written in F# major. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bbYS-3Evq8&feature=related> Conversely, when a composer wants to compose a darker, calmer song, he'll choose flat keys because the pitches literally sound flatter. Even though we're in a well-tempered society, string players and singers will often sing a flatted note a few cents lower than they would a sharped note. If you were to sing a major scale, the third of the scale and the seventh of the scale are generally slightly flatted according to today's standards of "The Major Scale." In choirs, conductors often tell the voice-part singing the third of a chord to sing it sharper than what they naturally want to do because, as I previously stated, sharped notes sound brighter, and we want major triads to sound bright and happy.

  115. musictheory 2011-11-30 12:18:19 basstronomy
    That's true, but it's also contextual: a string player will tune each given interval and sonority of the piece she plays as well as she can, but that means that not every A (for example) will be the same. An A that is the third of an F major chord will be in a different place than the A that's the seventh of a B7 chord. This means that string players don't really play in a single temperament, but rather an amalgamation of several.

  116. musictheory 2011-11-30 13:59:01 moviedude26
    Technically, in twelve-tone equal temperament it just comes down to relative pitch, as keys don't actually have the color variations that they do in well tempered tunings. Low frequencies feel different from high frequencies, simple as that, and even the difference of a semitone can shift the feeling of a piece enough for a composer to favor one key over another. Additionally, for keyboard specifically there are great physical differences between keys. A particular motif may lie best in Ab, and since you were whistling it in your head in A, you figure "fuck it, i'll just put it where it feels good". What yepyep27 says about sharp keys being bright is only true for orchestral music and other musics not played on fixed pitch instruments. Orchestral musicians always color their notes with microtonal inflections to give intervals deeper meaning. Generic rock songs are in E and A simply because of the guitar's tuning, as those two keys provide open string chords with perfect fifths as their base interval. Guitar based folk songs rather tend to be in C or G, as those keys (on guitar) have major thirds as their base interval.

  117. musictheory 2011-11-30 14:55:59 secher_nbiw
    Yes, and string instruments aren't really the problem when it comes to temperament. The differences between keys becomes an issue when you have instruments that play a fixed pitch every time. On a violin, a C-sharp and a D-flat aren't necessarily the same, but on a piano/harpsichord/organ (especially on organ because it is quite difficult to adjust the tuning) they will be. This wasn't *that* much of a problem if you only wanted to play in a very restricted set of keys that were tuned well at the expense of others. Temperaments were one solution to the problem. Keyboards with split accidentals (or even split naturals) were another. Historically, temperaments won. A mean-tone temperament (1/4 comma, 1/5 comma, whatever variety you like) allowed you to play in decent number of keys, but wasn't very suitable for music with much modulation. As musical practices changed, it became necessary for newer temperament systems, such as well-tempered and eventually equal-tempered instruments. Prior to the wide-spread adoption of equal temperament, different keys had different "flavors" because the size of the half-steps on the keyboard were not equal. For modern music, the associations with different keys still exists because of the historical precedent. For some, absolute pitch or various types of synesthesia may affect perception of different keys. Also, the choice of key will place notes in different ranges, and that can have an impact on the sound.

  118. musictheory 2011-12-05 22:25:16 satanloveskale
    this is a couple of interesting articles/dissertations: Fitzsimmons, William Edward (Author). 1971. "A historical and interpretive study of four works for orchestra." Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International (UMI) (MI) Ann Arbor, MI, 1971. RILM Abstracts of Music Literature, EBSCOhost (accessed December 5, 2011). Wen, Eric (Author). 2001. "Stripped of the G string: Bach's Air from the Suite no. 3 in D." Theory And Practice 26, 87. RILM Abstracts of Music Literature, EBSCOhost (accessed December 5, 2011).

  119. musictheory 2011-12-06 07:00:55 Justintimejjc
    I was able to find the writing "Stripped of the G string." Thank you! He mentioned that when you transpose it for strings, it leads to voice leading errors. I'm trying to out more about that.

  120. musictheory 2011-12-15 06:13:01 [deleted]
    Check out Haydn's string quartets - he was considered the master of them and Beethoven was reluctant to write string quartets for a while because he didn't want to try and go up against Haydn's writing. They're structurally simple enough that analysis isn't too difficult while at the same time being very creative and adventurous.

  121. musictheory 2011-12-15 17:01:07 XRotNRollX
    as someone else said, Haydn string quartets are good, but you shouldn't limit your analysis to just one instrumentation i suggest you analyze some piano sonatinas (Clementi, Diabelli, etc.) and Mozart's earlier piano sonatas

  122. musictheory 2011-12-15 23:10:23 jpaape
    Ravel's string quartet in F is pretty easy enough. Standard sonata form and all that. Give it a look

  123. musictheory 2011-12-19 14:22:44 japaneseknotweed
    That's because some of us don't think of **any** of the various pentatonic scales as being "the" scale. Given C,D,E,,,G,A I can hear just as many tunes/possibilities with the center on C or A as I do D or G. And if you want to tweak the tuning and get out of Pythagorean, that's fine too as long as the intervals stay wide. To me, a pentatonic scale is a simply a group of notes that 1) probably but not necessarily are the ones that mimic the top end of the harmonic series. 2) contain enough notes to imply some sort of tonic/non-tonic chord structure, create a feeling of "home" vs "not-home" 3) contain NO half steps, so that in any sort of sustained playing -- long decays like in banjos or gamelans, use of drones like in bagpipes or crosstuned fiddles, slow kaleidoscopic shifts like in 20th century organ music played in big cathedrals or ancient Georgian vocal polyphony -- all of the notes sound "good" no matter what, since ALL of the notes exist in nice, clean simple ratios to all the other notes. The realization that pentatonics (or even gap-ier scales) sound good in situations where the notes pile up on themselves is an easy one to make, and many cultures have made it. If you want to see a motley crew of 21st century folks grooving to a lot of pentatonic action, go find a YouTube video of this year's Burning Man -- both the gamelan within the Temple and the "Earth Harp" strung up out front. As far as research on "the" pentatonic being cognitively significant or having a cross-cultural resonance, it sounds like you're referring to Kodaly's work, or current Waldorf practices, some of which is well-supported by tons of field work ( but within a fairly narrow cultural region) and some of which... gets a little too woo-woo for my taste. I'd really like raise a control group of children in an environment free of all pre-made music, but stocked with every conceivable sound-making object, and see what they come up with... Working right now, in this culture, I can definitively report that students struggling to learn to play in tune on string instruments progress faster if they learn to "ring" the intervals in order of strength - get the octaves in tune, then the fifths, then the descending third from 5 to maj3, then the beautiful "square" sound of the whole step from 1 to 2. Now stay in the pentatonic for a while, shifting the tonal center around so you get used to hearing a good clear ring in both maj/min, straight/"modal" situations. Then, and only then, start playing the leading tones. I do a lot of "clean-up" work, students that come to me after misguided self-taught struggles or mediocre school programs, and I've found that staying within a pentatonic framework at first makes learning to *truly* hear what's going on much, much more accessible.

  124. musictheory 2011-12-28 07:14:41 pemungkah
    In the context you mention (also true for a capella singers): equally-tempered intervals are all actually not as consonant as its possible for them to be. A "perfect" fifth/fourth/third/etc. has integral ratios between the frequencies of the two notes; players of instruments that do not have frets or keys (voice, violin/viola/cello/string bass) will all unconsciously retune to the most consonant interval. Only octaves, exact doubles of frequencies, are "consonant" in equal temperament, because the twelfth root of 2, an irrational number, is used to compute the next half-step up or down from a given note (f1 * 2\*\*-12 = f2, a half step up, and (2\*\*-12)\*\*12 = 2). In ensembles where it's possible for this retuning to happen, it does; with other equally-tempered instruments in play, it doesn't.

  125. musictheory 2011-12-28 15:34:29 disaster_face
    As other's mentioned, it's the difference between just intonation and equal temperamental. Equal temperament is the system we use today, and in it, there is absolutely no difference in pitch between A# and Bb. However, many instruments without fixed pitch will drift towards just intonation in some instances... for example, if a sax player is playing the third of a major chord in a horn section, they may error on the flat site. That said, the intonation differences that some players may infer from different spellings is pretty minor, and not something that should be a major concern. There are more important factors to consider when choosing a spelling. String players will often be the first to complain about how something is spelled because their fingering technique is mostly diatonic. Therefore, in a given passage, they may use a different finger to play A# and Bb. (This isn't as much of a concern on double bass as its technique is more chromatic.) Using proper spelling also makes the theory behind the music more clear, and makes it easier to recognize patterns when they occur. It usually makes for an easier to read part (though not always).

  126. musictheory 2011-12-29 21:01:03 hoogiz
    I'm not sure. I was thinking for String Quartet, but I know that writing for that would be hard. Possibly a simply set up like piano and a melodic instrument, like a cello, violin or clarinet? Thanks for your help. Any particular that you'd recommend to listen to?

  127. musictheory 2011-12-31 21:29:56 [deleted]
    I teach middle school band students and we actually go into some depth about it. While any note is just as easy or as difficult as another note to play in tune, on wind instruments the more difficult notes to tune are higher. Students are learning how to control the flow of their air, the pressure of their lips (brass instruments), etc. in order to produce the pitch. On some instruments (Flute, Trumpet), lower notes can become more difficult to tune as well. I know this is a little outside the context of string instruments, but I thought I'd offer. I actually teach my beginners to listen for "the beats" as they play in unison and try to get rid of them altogether using various techniques.

  128. musictheory 2012-01-02 17:06:25 [deleted]
    It's hardest to hear the pitch of very low and very high notes, so notes in the middle range are easiest to tune properly by ear. When you play a low note, the sound wave oscillates more slowly, so you have to wait longer before you get enough of the wave to identify its pitch, plus the ear's resolution in semitones is lower, although a person can learn to discern pitches for low notes by listening to the harmonics. The resolution also lowers as notes become very high. > So, is it easier to tune a string to a lower note because it will be closer to the right frequency No, because tuning works in ratios. 160 Hz and 80 Hz may be only 80 Hz apart, but they have the same 2:1 ratio that 880 Hz and 440 Hz do. If a 440 Hz A is 1 Hz off it's nearly imperceptible, but if a 110 Hz A is 1 Hz off it's noticeable.

  129. musictheory 2012-01-04 07:55:08 xmonk
    There are many books that are worth while, one that I see recommended a lot is Samuel Adler Study of Orchestration, I think it includes a CD. My composition teacher was also an active orchestral conductor, so that was very helpful, as he would perform my pieces with the orchestra for me to hear. One of the things he had me do, was to work on the instrumental families, ie. Arrange/Orchestrate a piece for woodwinds quintet, brass quintet, string quartet, etc... By orchestrating the same piece for different ensembles it enabled me to grasp the nuances of phrasing, harmonic organization, texture and color. Also he had me combined instruments in very odd ways, that would force me to think about how to balance those instruments effectively. The other thing that we worked on, was he had me do piano reductions of orchestral pieces, we worked on all type of music from Monteverdi to his own compositions. The way it worked, is that I would do 3 or 4 piano reductions, and then I had to orchestrate the works from the piano reduction. It was illuminating and a lot of hard work.

  130. musictheory 2012-01-05 10:12:04 xiipaoc
    Sure, let's figure it out. 5th string G is 10th fret, like you said. That's the same as the 3rd string. I'm guessing you have 11th fret Bb on the 2nd string and 10th fret D on the 1st string, so your chord is G D G bb d' -- or, since the 10th fret G is the same as 3rd string G, that's D G G Bb D. It's more of a Gm/D. I'm going lowercase to go up an octave, and prime to go up another octave. I hope the notation makes sense. But then you slide it down. D is still the lowest, so it's D F G a c'. There are many ways to look at this chord, because it's very non-traditional. The root at the bottom of the chord is G, since D and F both gravitate to G in this context, but A and C aren't. To me, this screams bitonality -- the D and G are basically a pedal Gm, with an F major chord on top. Because of the context of the Gm chord and the separation between the bottom part of the chord and the two highest notes, you hear the second chord as a split structure in this way instead of one coherent chord.

  131. musictheory 2012-01-05 12:00:09 jpaape
    Listen to a lot of Debussy. He was master of the pentatonic scale. Listen to how he uses the scale in different ways. Also, for some examples of pandiatonicism, listen to some Ravel too. His string quartet in F, first movement is very pandiatonic. Pandiatonicism is essentially the idea that in a key, any note can be heard with any other note. Sometimes it is diatonic, sometimes the extentions from tertian harmonies are used.

  132. musictheory 2012-01-20 06:36:12 Ferniff
    I can remember G-C-E-A (relatively at least) because I "memorized" the sound of an open ukulele being strummed one string at a time.

  133. musictheory 2012-01-21 00:27:41 [deleted]
    I've heard the term string theory used a lot and I'm fairly certain that my understanding of it is vastly inferior to that of a professional physicist. In any case, what is taught as 'tonality' to those at undergrad, maybe even MA level is usually not what 'tonality' is. Music is not so easily labelled. Tonal is not synonymous with triadic and never has been. You can put a sequence of combinations of notes together in an infinite number of ways, yes. And a piece of music can be infinitely long. If you think otherwise then maybe you should be pursuing another lifestyle, one that requires no imagination. Maybe a binman?

  134. musictheory 2012-01-25 13:34:40 annoyedcamel
    I will definitely check out that Beatles song. I mentioned on the other comment that the bass kinda threw me off. All I could really make out was an Fmaj7 that sounded like some notes were descending on the D string of the guitar. I've been on a Neil kick recently and this one has been bugging me for a week more. Thanks.

  135. musictheory 2012-02-02 10:24:39 shevsky790
    To be honest, just play as much music as possible. Play as many styles and as many instruments as possible. Surround yourself with musical ideas but make sure you think about them all. Try to copy and play with any sound you here. Try to convey with music anything that music conveys to you. Piano is great because it's very different from string instruments and a lot of things just make sense on piano - mostly cause it's so easy to play and see all the notes at once. I'd highly recommend it, but, learn anything. You'll gain a lot of musical knowledge if you start playing bluegrass or flamenco guitar too, as long as you understand what you're doing instead of just copying something someone has written down. The more you do it, the easier it will get.

  136. musictheory 2012-02-06 11:12:00 melbosa
    I am transcribing some rock songs for string quartet for my wedding. This will definitely come in handy. Awesome! (PS if anyone feels like helping because you like doing this type of stuff, I will gladly accept).

  137. musictheory 2012-02-10 16:31:27 wesleypipes2
    the top string is a low B so when playing modes all you have to do is take what you play on the high b and mimic it on the low

  138. musictheory 2012-02-10 16:58:23 slamgauge
    Take it back and get a six string. I hate my 7 string. It sounds so muddy and awful. I bought it when I was 17 for way to much money and now I can hardly give it away. Every friend I have pawned it off on has brought it back to me.

  139. musictheory 2012-02-10 20:33:40 xmonk
    Modern Contrapuntal Technique by Gordon Delamont deals with what you're looking for. I would start experimenting with poly-tonality and poly-modality, using the species system. This will help train your ear to the different possibilities, especially using contrasting tonalities like say a Cantus Firmus in F and the Counterpoint in E, you'll have to concentrate on things like contour, texture and non tonal resolutions, to avoid favoring one key over the other. Then experiment with Pentatonic, Whole Tone, Diminish Scales etc... I would also recommend you listen and study the scores of composers you like. I would recommend Alban Berg String Quartet Op. 3, it's a very contrapuntal work, he uses Imitation, Inversion, and Retrograde technique, the Whole tone scale is present on the piece, so it's not a Twelve Tone Piece. Aside from Berg, Schoenberg pre-twelve tone pieces are very interesting, I also would recommend the music of Luigi Dallapiccola Quaderno musicale di Annalibera is a good start. There is a lot of music that is worth listening and studying, like Luciano Berio, Luigi Nono, Mauricio Kagel, Milton Babbitt, Charles Wuorinen, Charles Ives, Elliot Carter, Olivier Messiaen, etc.... One more thing, while it may seem that anything goes, you'll soon realize that's not the case, melodic contour, control of the texture, rhythm, and colors. As well as organizing the ideas into logical and cohesive units are very important, development and growth are also key, rhythm is specially important, you'll find pieces where the notes (pitches) are few, but the rhythm is key to giving momentum, and contrast to the piece. Harmonic density specially when you'll find that two notes in some cases can be as dense (full) as 4 notes, and of course the Form is also very important. As a parting this book http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Atonal-Counterpoint-Stanley-Funicelli/dp/1449929532 may be of help, I haven't read it myself so I can't really comment on it, but it seems adequate. Hope this helps.

  140. musictheory 2012-02-10 22:57:28 Eutow
    I cannot recommend enough the Rusty Cooley "Shred Manifesto", "Art of Picking", and "Extreme Pentatonics" videos. I picked up a handful of exercises (also some from Petrucci's "Rock Discipline"; minded the 7th) and licks that were quite critical for my growth of technically playing the 7-string. Also since you are looking for advice on scales, I would recommend the Fretboard Logic collection of books, as it logically introduces you to one of the most popular ideologies in viewing the fretboard(the C-A-G-E-D method); simply apply it to your extra B string. 7 String = Dat Note Range.

  141. musictheory 2012-02-11 02:55:20 slamgauge
    I have an ESP LTD with some type of Seymore Duncan's. The guitar actually plays really well, keeps tune great and has good feel. I have just grown to dislike the thickness of the neck among other things. You can't do the Jimmy Hendrix thumb over the top of the neck thing. If you play anything other than power chords with the low b it ends up sounding like you are trying to play with the guitar's whammy bar pushed down. I have played a few other 7 strings and they seem to only get worse. I will say that if I want to play some chugging metal it does that well. I just figured since OP was asking about his 7 string and I have had one for the last 12 years I might let him know what I think. Down vote away guys.

  142. musictheory 2012-02-11 11:52:17 slamgauge
    I like heavy gauge strings, .13 on my high E and everything is proportionate. I can't be sure but I think my B string is .64. I always have to buy single bass strings for the low B. I am pretty sure it is 25.5" scale.

  143. musictheory 2012-02-12 16:01:04 xBUDDHAx
    here are the specs for mine : 25.5" scale 5 piece neck-thru body design Cepheus 7 extrended range bridge Maple fretboard with dot markers. Position markers are located on the side of the neck. 24 Extra Jumbo 2.9mm frets and a 13.7" (350mm) radius neck for fast play Grover Die Cast tuners USA Made EMG 707 Pickups Reverse Headstock, string through body. Width of the neck at the nut: 1 7/8"; at the 22st fret: 2 3/16" Uniform Neck Profile - For ultra fast playing - 21.5mm at the frest fret and 22mm at the 12th fret. Thickness of neck at the first fret approx 11/16" Overall length, including the strap button: 41"; Scale length: 25.5" Pickups Dimensions: 3" wide, 1 3/8" tall. Mounting screws are 3 3/4" appart. String Gauge: 009, 011, 016, 024, 032, 042 and 056 Actual Weight is only 8.5 lbs and i appreciate all the advice guys thanks :D

  144. musictheory 2012-02-15 12:55:10 tnova
    Definitely do some research about orchestration for string instruments and writing for voice. Some general guidelines for voice: -Use stepwise motion as much as possible, save wider leaps for climactic moments -If you have multiple leaps in succession, try and make them outline a triad -If you don't know who specifically you're writing for, keep the range between C4 and Bb5. -Give the singer time to breathe, but also write some long notes for her to hold out. While it is cool to have fast runs in instrumental music, most people just like to listen to the beautiful tone of the voice.

  145. musictheory 2012-02-17 07:49:28 [deleted]
    > I really don't think that's true, based on personal experience. Metal is one of the most resonant materials out there. Can you explain how you came to this conclusion? The resonant modes of a bar aren't the same as the modes of a plucked string or conical column of air. Strings and conical air columns resonate at harmonic frequencies. Bars don't. (Drums also don't.) The material has nothing to do with the modes of resonance; it's purely a matter of shape. Of course that doesn't mean that Gamelan music is aharmonic, at least no more so than Western music in equal temperament, which is resolutely non-harmonic in its tuning.

  146. musictheory 2012-02-17 08:31:13 milkshakeiii
    I can try if you want. :) A vibrating string is the simplest way to explain modes of resonance. This can be demonstrated with a spinning rope too (which is basically a big version of the string on a violin). A string can either spin around and around the whole string at one time, or have one or more still "nodes" while it spins at integer divisions of its length. A mode of vibration with a single node will have the node in the middle (1/2) of course. The string will then spin in two halves, one going up while the other goes down. You might be able to picture this, or just try it out if you have anything long and skinny nearby. The same string can also vibrate in thirds, quarters, etc., although that might be harder to reproduce using a rope. Of course musical instruments produce sound by vibrating and disturbing the air around them, creating pressure waves. So modes of resonance or vibration are key to understanding the nature of sound. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrating_string - This article seems I think pretty good.

  147. musictheory 2012-02-17 09:21:13 milkshakeiii
    I actually had a similar discussion with a friend of mine during which I took your side. He had shown the overtones of a particular cymbol (a mess, needless to say) and began talking about aharmonic instruments. I said that, yeah, the cymbol produces a huge cluster of tones which makes it sound like a crash and not a note, but if you extract each of those tones in the cluster, they should each have corresponding harmonic overtones elsewhere in the spectrograph. It was an easy thing to analyze with the software we were using, so we did the analysis quickly and didn't find any great amount of harmonic overtones. It was an overwhelmingly aharmonic instrument. As we know, for any vibrating instrument producing sound, there are many frequencies being created. In the case of a percussive instrument as you point out there are complicated clusters of tones that produce various percussive timbres. In the case of a violin, there are overwhelmingly only the frequencies in the harmonic series, the fundamental being the most obvious. So I'm using the term "aharmonic" to describe any system of vibration (and thus sound production) that is not dominated by the harmonic series. It is I admit a slippery slope to some degree- the violin is not technically a perfectly harmonic instrument. There are complexities with deformation of its metal string and imperfections in just how "sympathetically" the wood of the violin is vibrating that I'm sure end up producing an amount of aharmonic frequencies (although proportionally a very small amount). However the gap between instruments like the violin or an instrument that produces sound through a vibrating column of air (harmonic instruments) and any metalophone or drum ("aharmonic" instruments) is large and measurable enough that drawing the distinction can be useful. Especially since we humans so readily hear the difference.

  148. musictheory 2012-02-17 21:00:20 nilajofaru
    Try searching for tabs, there is quite a lot online. Most of the music for lute is easier to play if you tune your g-string down to f#.

  149. musictheory 2012-02-18 11:33:56 ShamwowTseDung
    If you don't care about the names/reading music..just learn the pattern on the fret board. One for each type (Major, 3 types of Minor *(Natural/Melodic/Harmonic)* for now). After that it'll come to you as you practice, it's muscle memory. You won't know the notes but you'll know your playing a scale -> it also helps train the ears a bit, could be an introduction to hearing intervals. Then start learning the notes on your board so you'll be able to pinpoint the root and follow the shape. <---- it's what I've stumbled upon as a bassist (electric). Oh, and I learned it by doing the whole/half fret(steps) method. W=Whole step, H=Half step, these are the distances between the notes in a scale. *Done in C major and C minor*: Major: (C)**W**(D)**W**(E)**H**(F)**H**(G)**W**(A)**W**(B)**H**(C) Minor (Natural): (C)**W**(D)**H**(Eb)**W**(F)**W**(G)**H**(Ab)**W**(Bb)**W**(C) Whole step = 2 frets Half step = 1 fret - Do it on one string. - Then pick one root note (your starting point) -> find all of the same notes all over the fretboard and start your fretting there. You'll be crossing strings for this one. I had it "easier" because I just listened to a scale and figured it out quickly on my bass, instead of what you might have to do which is make learning the notes on your board a higher priority, as you may get in trouble trying to cross strings without any reference, if you don't know what a scale sounds like. **But** once you figure out the pattern, which you have do only ***ONE TIME,*** (per scale type) you can take it anywhere on the board, as long as it fits. There's multiple patterns for each type too (at least on starts with playing an open string), so you'll be able to play a scale anywhere. Otherwise, the other guys wrote down all I would say.

  150. musictheory 2012-02-22 06:57:54 schenkerian
    This isn't true. You have decided--arbitrarily--that A's essence is as "scale degree 6" in C Major and thus, for you to use other names for A, you would be translating from its scale degree name. But there is absolutely no innate "sixness" to A in C Major. The only reason you would consider it so would be because you learned in a system that--arbitrarily--labels ascending scales with ascending numbers. Someone who learned in a solfege system from the beginning would see A in C Major, think "la," and then need to translate that into numbers. This is particularly true in musical excerpts that do not simply walk up the scale (most music!). Your "blort fung zop coo was dut swib blort" string is exactly as arbitrary as numbers and solfege syllables; it's probably less useful to use as a tool, however, because it does not offer the useful ordering properties of cardinal numbers, it does not offer the ease of vocalization of the solfege syllables, and it does not have the widespread usage of either scale degree numbers or solfege. But even if cardinal numbers are useful memory aids, there is as little "sixness" to A in C major as there is "Every Boyness" to the lowest lines of the treble clef.

  151. musictheory 2012-02-22 07:35:05 sundriedhands
    A A#/Bb B C C#/Db D D#/Eb E F F#/Gb G G#/Ab, that is the musical alphabet. B and C & E and F only have a whole step between them, meaning there is no such thing as an E# or Fb. if you start on your lowest string on the guitar, which is E, and then play the first fret thats an F and then the 2nd fret is an F# and so on

  152. musictheory 2012-02-23 05:43:31 Bitterfish
    But, you would just spell the first chord as D G A. According to common practice spelling conventions, you would only spell the note as Fx if you intended it as a tone with an upwards tendency towards G# (e.g., some kind of leading tone or lower neighbor), which in the key of G would be exceptionally uncommon. In that progression the G in the first chord (well, the verticality D G A, which is not actually a functional chord so much as an ornamentation of the next chord by a non-chord tone) has as it's goal F#, a suspension of the tonic over the leading tone. As another poster said somewhere in this thread, the most likely occurence of a an Fx would be as part of a string of chromatic ornamentation. That is, a G# would occur as a chromatic lower neighbor to an A, and that could itself be ornamented with another chromatic lower neighbor of Fx. Alternatively, you could have a fancy chromatic tonicization of a chord with a G# in it, and then get to an Fx that way (for example, using enharmonic reinterpretation of common tone versus dominant diminished seventh chords, or something of that nature).

  153. musictheory 2012-02-29 11:30:17 uh_no_
    yes but temperment is largely meaningless for instruments on which you can adjust intonation. ON any wind/string instrument, you can adjust so that thirds/fourths/fifths are exact in every key.....meaning the tuning of a given note can change slightly from chord to chord. It only matters for instruments like pianos/organs for which the tuning is fixed

  154. musictheory 2012-02-29 12:36:40 [deleted]
    First things first, a time signature is an element of notation. It is the written expression of "Meter" in music, or the division of each measure of music into beat/pulse patterns of 2, 3, 4, 5... and so on depending on the piece. Your initial question concerns what you hear, and what you hear is meter, which can really be expressed in any number of ways depending on your interpretation. So, there is no ONE WAY a piece can be notated with a Time Signature. Many valid opportunities exist. So, let's get down to what Time Signatures are and what they accomplish. In notation, you have different note "values," specifically the duration at which a sound is played in time at a given speed called the "tempo." So, to break it down in music, you have... 1. Measures; 2. Divisions of measures we hear as the beat/pulse; AND 3. Time Signatures that tell musicians the note values that represent the beat/pulse, as well as how many of these beats/pulses to expect per measure of music. I'm answering your second question now. What do you count? My method is to begin by starting with larger "phrases" of music and narrowing my way down to measures that could possibly create those phrases. So, if I hear a verse in a song, I'm thinking about how I could easily divide that into measures of music. Generally, if you can sense any "stress" within the larger structure of a phrase, you can find a "downbeat" that will clue you into where a measure is likely to occur. Pro-tip: most popular drumset patterns use the bass drum to emphasize the downbeat, and most string bass/bass guitar patterns line up with the bass drum to emphasize a sense of pulse. When you have a sense of the downbeat, you can begin establishing where measures are likely occurring, and from there, it's a matter of simply breaking those measures down into beat/pulse divisions. Can you hear two, three, or four beats per "downbeat"? Find the stress, or the "downbeat," and you can usually figure this out rather easily. From there, we generally attempt to assign the simplest note value - which in today's music is the quarter note, which fits rather nicely between larger (half note, whole note) and smaller (eighth note, sixteenth note) values. This has the added benefit of being readable to live performers. And beyond this, it can get really complicated if you allow it to be. For example, determining whether to use a 2/4 measure or a 6/8 measure has to do with how often the beat/pulse is subdivided into 2 divisions or 3. There's almost no rhyme or reason to notate a piece in 2/4 when virtually all divisions of the beat/pulse are groupings of 3. Ergo, we use 6/8 to save ink and keep notation as simple as possible instead of writing in "triplet" groupings of eighth notes in every measure when we'd never need the 2/4 because we never have pairings of 2 eighth notes subdividing the beat/pulse. It's not difficult to understand, just practical if you understand what you're doing. And if you're just looking for ways to apply simple and appropriate time signatures to music, just go buy a songbook of familiar tunes and look at how other arrangers do it. There's no hard and fast rule for writing time signatures except for the purpose of keeping it simple for the sake of live performance. That just comes with time and experience, honestly. I know, I've made my fair share of mistakes with regard to that, so, hit me up for some pointers if you're struggling. I'll do my best to help.

  155. musictheory 2012-03-04 09:12:04 Tired_of_this
    Oh no, I strictly play acoustic guitar. I just never really liked electric guitars because they feel strange to me, a little too small. That, and I love the way nylon string acoustic guitars sound.

  156. musictheory 2012-03-05 04:43:40 wildeye
    Oddly, so far no one has mentioned "twang", which many (but not all) claim to be an essential component of many or even most kinds of country. It's hard to find an actual definition, but it seems to be an onomatopoeic word for a boingy sound, a certain kind of vibrato. In singers it is a nasal sound. In guitars, telecasters are widely considered to be one of the most twangy guitars, with a sound similar to but different than the stratocaster "quack". In playing style, it often involves string bends similar to those in blues. The "B Bender", a guitar mod that allows bending the B string by 2 whole notes, is actually widely used outside of country, but is nonetheless widely associated with country. (There's very little that is 100% exclusive to any single genre.) Many people claim that Duane Eddy (e.g. in "Rebel Rouser") is a classic early example of twang.

  157. musictheory 2012-03-13 04:33:13 simpelton
    When you are playing "regular chords", like A major or D minor, they consist of three notes, so you'll have to play some of the notes more than once on the different strings. You can also choose to not play on all strings. For example A major, that consists of A, C# and E, is usually played like this on the guitar: * Don't play on the lowest E string * Open A string * Second fret on the D string gives you E * Second fret of the G string gives you A * Second fret of the B string gives you C# * Open E string So there are two As, two Es and one C#. (You could play the lowest E, but so many Es, especially with one as the lowest note, would not get you the right "A feel") Hopes this clears it out a little.

  158. musictheory 2012-03-13 07:24:07 xiipaoc
    The guitar is a nice instrument. When you're dealing with simple chords, the guitar is tuned in such a way that a few basic shapes let you play any chord. For example, two good major chord shapes are the shape you hold for E major using all six strings and for A major using the upper five. Then you can barre to make any chord. Other chords, like G major, make use of the fact that three of the strings are already tuned to D G B, but they'd be hard to barre. Because the guitar has six special notes -- the ones you can play on open strings -- some chords are easier to voice than others, but if there's any triad you want to make, it's not too hard to figure out how to do it. You usually want the root at the bass, and use the other notes as you can find a fingering for them. For more complicated chords, things get a bit harder. You only have four fingers on your left hand that you can use (unless you're doing crazy stuff, but anyway), so you generally want to stick to four-note chords, because if you end up using open strings (other than in the bass), they'll stick out and your sound will suffer. Then, you have to pick the most important notes of the chord and find a fingering that works with human fingers. For example, if you want to play G#m7, the notes are G# B D# F#. There's only one G# to use and that's on the 6th string. You can use B on the 5th string and D# on the fourth, but then where will your F# come from? 1st string? Good luck reaching, and your chord will have a big gaping hole inside it. So you could instead voice it 6th string G#, 5th string D#, 4th string F#, 3rd string B (or 2nd string open B, but then it will stick out). You could do that, and it wouldn't be terrible, but your chord will be really low and bottom-heavy. Which is OK, if that's what you want, but a better voicing would be 6th string G#, 4th string F#, 3rd string B, 2nd string D#. That has the disadvantage that you need to use your fingers to play it; you have to mute the 5th string to pick it. But so it goes. So no, it's not blatantly obvious. Much the opposite, in fact. It's highly nontrivial!

  159. musictheory 2012-03-13 16:19:55 arnedh
    You already know the names of the strings. You should learn: the circle of notes (not the circle of fifths, that's for later): 0 E 1 F 2 F#(Gb) 3 G 4 G#(Ab) 5 A the construction of chords (root note, 4 half notes up, then 3 half notes, then root note again etc = major chord) With these pieces of knowledge, you can construct chords. If you want G minor, you find you want the G, the Bb and the D notes. E string: position 3, G note. A string: position 1, Bb note (or position 5, D note) D string: open, D note. (or position 5, G note) G string: open, G note. (or position 3, Bb note) B string: position 3, D note. E string: position 3, G note. (or pos 6, Bb note) So you get 310033, G Bb D G D G Then it is a matter of fretting those in a good combo, and damping others if necessary.

  160. musictheory 2012-03-14 09:16:36 justintonation
    I did some investigation and found a G# on my 5th (A) string. (Kidding). Seriously though, I play G#m7 with a whole-neck 4th-fret bar(re) and my ring finger on the 6th fret of the A string.

  161. musictheory 2012-03-18 11:45:51 moonlitmist
    It has this strange sound in the string section's melody. I love that part and would love to know how that works

  162. musictheory 2012-03-19 00:22:12 [deleted]
    Just did the chorus: Bm G D A Em D Fdim F#7 Listening to the bass is a bit tricky on this one because they are using detuned or seven string guitars or something. Keep trying is all I can say really. The song is power chords so dont bother with minor or major and all that.

  163. musictheory 2012-03-21 14:25:18 [deleted]
    Octaves! Try doubling the note you're playing on another string, it adds more to the bass part. My friend does this a lot, it's great.

  164. musictheory 2012-03-27 09:05:02 Pyrrish
    So if you're talking about C G C G C E - you could transpose it up a Major 2nd and have D A D A D F#. This has the same number of non-changing strings (2nd and 3rd as opposed to 4th and 6th), but the tuning doesn't go as far away from standard tuning. For example, the lowest string only goes down from E to D, instead E to C. Obviously this transposes the piece you're playing, but you did mention in your OP that you'd be ok with a different key. Otherwise, what davef said.

  165. musictheory 2012-03-27 12:23:14 thespaceVIKING
    http://www.cagedguitarsystem.net/ The CAGED system is a pretty simple way of breaking down all Five positions of the guitar. It works by creating a major scale pattern off of the root note for C, A, G, E, and D in their OPEN POSITION. The open positions are: C: (x3201xx) A: (x0222xx) G: (320003) E: (022100) D: (xx0232) The advantage of this system is how quickly you begin to realize how small the guitar neck actually is. You can string together the same quality of chord (I'll use C major in the example below) and by using the OPEN SHAPES C, A, G, E, and D with the SAME ROOT NOTE on different positions of the guitar. Try this: C major shape (x3201xx) A major shape (x3555x) G major shape (875558) E major shape (8 10 10 9 8 8) D major shape (xx10 12 13 12) If you played that correctly, you'll have played all the five viable ROOT POSITION (the lowest, "bass" note of each chord being on the lowest available string) C major chord on the guitar. So, instead of playing C major as an open chord (x3201xx) you could play it, if you were down farther on the neck, in a D position (xx10 12 13 12). VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE: the progression of chord shapes follows the word C.A.G.E.D. -- if you start on C, the next shape is A. But if you start on E, the next chord shape is D. The pattern continually spells out CAGED. it's a fun exercise, and I recommend learning it even for guitarists who don't follow CAGED primarily. The next step, once you learn those chords relative in C major, is to change the root note. So, if you were playing in D major, you would start on (x5423xx) and each chord would follow as they did in the previous example. the next step after that is to learn major and minor scale patterns starting on each root in the same pattern --- C major leads into A major leads into G major etc etc. Different books will teach you different ways of shifting between positions. I'll try and lay it out, but it will probably be confusing unless you understand how the shapes work together. I'll indicate starting fret, and starting finger: C shape 4th position (pinky starts on 3rd fret) A shape 2nd position (2nd finger starts on 3rd fret) G shape 4th position (pinky starts on 8th fret) E shape 2nd position (2nd finger starts on 8th fret) D shape 2nd position (first finger starts on 10th fret) Even though your hand is moving all around the guitar, you're still only playing the notes inside of the scale of C major. CAGED is good at showing how unbelievably small the guitar neck actually is and how for each musical idea you have there are really only 5 different possible ways to play it.

  166. musictheory 2012-03-27 14:11:50 scoooot
    Every pair of notes is separated by a fret, except for B and C; E and F. Those pairs of notes are on directly adjacent frets. Start from each open string, and play each natural note all the way up to the 12th fret skipping a fret except when you go from E to F, and from B to C. The 12th fret will be the same letter as open. Once you've done this a few times, do the same thing with a chord using CAGED. Play the first chord, and name every note from lowest to highest. Then, move on to the next shape in the sequence and do the same. It really isn't as much work as it sounds like. Honest. :P

  167. musictheory 2012-03-27 15:54:54 thespaceVIKING
    TWO THINGS: 1) MAKE LANDMARKS (3rd fret on 6th string = ?, 7th fret 5th string = ?) and build from there using the octave shapes. if it's the same note an octave apart, you already know it's name. there are only 12 different notes, and that is not that many. 2)start reading music, but read in position. position = where your first finger lies on the fretboard, regardless of string/note you're playing. so, if you're playing A major, you're in 4th position starting on the 6th string, with your 2nd finger (5 on 6th string). HOWEVER, when you're learning how to read on the guitar, ALWAYS read in positions starting on your 4th finger. this way, when you play in KEY, you don't have to shift around at all. C major = 5th position (4th finger on 8 of 6th string) D major = 2nd position (4th finger on 5 of 6th string) etc etc etc. you'll pick up the notes pretty quickly this way.

  168. musictheory 2012-03-30 02:04:48 fearthespoon
    I'd say that the easiest thing to do is memorize the inversions in a sequence, starting with 1st and going up to 3rd (for 7th chords). This is at least how I did it. So, you end up with a long string of numbers that kind of makes a weird pattern. For triads: 6, 6/4 For seventh chords: 6/5, 4/3, 4/2

  169. musictheory 2012-04-05 02:15:11 moviedude26
    Have you heard Schoenberg's second string quartet? That theme is SO fucking catchy, though admittedly not twelve-tone - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hEifT_Zy7E

  170. musictheory 2012-04-09 21:53:38 Kujo_A2
    In jazz, which you stated as a use for it, all of the harmony is based on equal temperment, so A# is indistinguishable from Bb. I'd love to hear an example of the distinction, though, from something like a brass quintet or string quartet that can tune more precisely.

  171. musictheory 2012-04-10 14:59:56 xiipaoc
    That's the thing, though -- there isn't. There's this idea out there that musicians playing, say, string instruments will adjust the pitch of an F# differently from how they adjust the pitch of a Gb. That's not at all the case. A violinist playing in F# major will play something in Gb major with exactly the same pitches even though everything is spelled differently. A violinist playing in C major may in fact tune those notes differently, but it's because of context rather than because of the spelling. The pitch of F# is *exactly* the same as the pitch of Gb, but the *adjustment* for a b5 might be different from that of a #4, regardless of how you spell it. Videos like this propagate a misrepresentation. EDIT: But you can *redefine* your music system such that F# and Gb are two different notes, which is what the video references. However, in the current Western music system, such a distinction between spellings simply does not exist.

  172. musictheory 2012-04-11 03:07:58 Bebop_Ba-Bailey
    If you were to hear a note from some instrument across the room, then play it back on your instrument, then I'd be inclined to say that you had "perfect pitch". Just because you can recall a song in your mind, then match your voice's pitch to it doesn't mean you have perfect pitch. It means you have a decent ear. Stick with learning your intervals. Most people I've met with perfect pitch are able to associate what they almost always call "color" with pitches. They can tell when a single string on a guitar is flat or sharp just a few cents, "the color's off, tune it up" a friend of mine would say. If someone were to play a single note on an instrument across the room like I mentioned, most of us normal people have to do something similar to this: imagine a perfectly tuned middle-C in your mind, then by use of knowledge of recognizing intervals, figure out the relative pitch of the note you hear. But you have to be able to just "know" what a C sounds like, and this is just the start. You can come to "know" what other keys sound like too, you can begin to recognize them like you recognize colors. Stick with your relative pitch stuff if you feel like you are improving with it. But otherwise I would start listening to songs by category of the key they're in. Get acquainted with each key's "color". Lots of country songs end up being in E, A, G, D. I can recognize those keys usually right away (so can guitar players, generally). That's how I've developed my ear. Unless you're just a straight up musical genius studying at Julliard right now, I would stick with what your teachers are trying to teach you, but if you want to achieve perfect pitch, it's the color analogy that seems to get through to people.

  173. musictheory 2012-04-13 03:51:12 m3g0wnz
    Since others have explained the theory behind enharmonic reinterpretation, let me tackle this question: >why choose enharmonic modulation over chromatic modulation, common-chord modulation etc. Common chord modulation is good for getting to *closely-related keys*. Enharmonic modulation with º7s or with +6s are much more effective if you need to get to a *distantly-related key*. It is very easy, for example, to modulate to either a tritone away or a semitone away using the +6 reinterpretation. I'm not sure what you mean by "chromatic modulation"—in my vocabulary, that's just a more general term for modulating to a distantly-related key, without a specific technique specified. Choosing a chromatic sequence modulation, for example, over an enharmonic modulation would just be an aesthetic choice, I guess. Here are some pieces that use chromatic modulation. I am just looking in my notes on teaching chromatic modulation, and I'm too lazy to go look at the scores to tell you *exactly* where they are...but I'm sure you can figure it out yourself! 1. Mozart, String Quartet in D Minor 2. Schubert, Moment Musicale 3. Beethoven, Sonata Pathetique 4. Chopin, Mazurka in F Minor, Op. 68, No. 4 5. Beethoven, “Waldstein” piano sonata

  174. musictheory 2012-04-18 12:58:00 Jhoppa
    ? Except that you have fret markers and a tactile sense of which string is which...

  175. musictheory 2012-04-18 21:43:59 unamenottaken
    I'm beginning to think that, for me, learning music theory is going to be difficult unless I learn at least some of the history. I don't think most people have this issue, but I get a bit of a mental block when I try to absorb information without any explanation of why it is like it is. Bugs me. Another example is that I'm curious as to why perfect intervals sound especially good. It's easy for many to just accept it and move on, and as a musician that would be the most efficient route. I imagine Bach himself didn't know why. Others are satisfied once they find that they are ratios of whole numbers, since intuitively that seems like it would sound better. This particular question, though, doesn't interfere with my progress. At some point, of course, you have to stop. Or you'll be wondering how the atomic structure of a vibrating string plays into all this.

  176. musictheory 2012-04-19 08:39:31 byproxy
    Each string is divided uniformly into half-steps. It can be daunting to think of which note is which (even with fret markers and knowing the current string), whereas on piano the same wbwbwwbwbwbw pattern is repeated, making it relatively easy to pick out a note. Another thing I was thinking of was that if piano was entirely successive white and black keys, then playing C major in different octaves would require different hand positionings, which kind of correlates to guitar position playing.

  177. musictheory 2012-04-21 04:44:30 RadioUnfriendly
    I only know how to play the beginning of the song, and don't really care to learn the rest. I am aware the next section is based on frequent open A string playing with a lot of major/minor third intervals.

  178. musictheory 2012-04-26 10:41:16 flyingsoulo
    Sounds like it starts out with a l C#maj7 --> D#-7 l F-7 --> E-7 l D#-7 l. Thats what I hear for that beginning phrase at least. All 6th string root voicings if I'm not mistaken. Hopefully that gives you a springing off point.

  179. musictheory 2012-04-27 21:15:53 bazzage
    Reading the abstract, it appears to have little to do with equal temperament vs. just intonation. Stretch tuning compensates for the fact that the overtones of a real physical (i.e. non-ideal) string do not have an exact harmonic relationship with each other. It appears that a statistical method has been found for quantifying the aural grind between inharmonic overtones of different strings, and that minimizing that grind using this method replicates the results of experienced human piano tuners using their ears.

  180. musictheory 2012-04-29 12:26:51 Dalinar_Kholin
    i could only hope it would be that good... i love mendelssohn. he has some string quartets that are just gorgeous. thanks very much!

  181. musictheory 2012-04-30 08:19:33 Sazabi00
    I actually wrote a piece that evolved out of a very simple practice for myself. After having a year of music theory, I decided to delve into some topics that my class didn't cover. This time around, it was power chords. So I basically wrote straight power chords for a string quintet (36 measures, quarter note = 120, 4/4); and as I listened to it over and over, I began to hear over-laying melodies and underlying beats and harmonies. Of course, I have nowhere near perfect pitch, so I had to experiment a little. Eventually, what was a simple minute-and-a-half practice thing, transformed into a seven minute piece that I will always recall as being my first piece ever. So, moral of the story is, learn to experiment a bit. If you have any musical thoughts or ideas suddenly pop into your head, try to write it down as best as you can. Don't worry about the rules at first, and just let your mind run rampant! Once you have figured out your musical idea, add some flourish to it, a hint of creative repetitiveness on the side, and voila! You have the beginning to a piece. At this point is when you should proceed to employ the rules to your piece. Did something sound kinda icky? Check your harmonies. Or maybe your piece didn't seem to end quite right? Check some of those resolutions! Just remember that those pesky rules serve as a basic template. Yes, there are rules that shouldn't be broken (parallel fifths &#3232;\_&#3232;) but overall, you have the ability to write what you feel is necessary to write. Eventually you'll find the right sound. Just keep trying. Never give up - never surrender! P.S. - Sorry to have rambled on forever. I'll provide a concise TL;DR for you. TL;DR - experiment with writing some musical ideas, then applying the rules to what you wrote. edit: I accidentally a word.

  182. musictheory 2012-05-02 21:59:49 ChuckFinale
    It should be pretty clear based on WHAT you're borrowing. If you're borrow say, a bVI from the minor instead of your own vi, since vi is an F minor chord, you should be playing F Flat Major (and not E major). EDIT: yes. If you borrow a IV chord, you should preserve the fact that it is a 4-chord in Ab so your Db chord should indeed be Db minor. Enharmonic chords actually SOUND different. Some string players at least will tell you that they play slightly differently with respect to intonation, so it's important for them to know this technical stuff when you present them with sheet music. I'm not sure I beleive the haha, but I've had choirs who've actually sang leadings tons a tiny tiny bit sharper than the piano would play them.

  183. musictheory 2012-05-05 13:16:25 Redhavok
    I write the stems and replace the note heads with the name of the note(or fret/string, snare etc). I find it easier for me to use because if I write notes with space in between it can take up quite a lot of room but a few little stems takes up hardly any at all. You can also write the rhythm down but put the notes at different heights to represent the curve of the melody. Roman numerals are a definite time saver. It also allows you to write the piece before even settling on a key.

  184. musictheory 2012-05-07 14:32:56 xiipaoc
    Well, not exactly. When you listen to music, it's easy to hear the top voice and the bottom voice, and we often call these the soprano and the bass even if they're not. These are the outer voices. However, you might decide to put the principal melody in an inner voice. Maybe you have a string bass playing the bass, a cello playing the melody, and the viola and violins playing harmonies above it. Maybe the melody is in the horns and the trumpets are doubling it a third higher. The melody is wherever the melody is. But whenever a voice is *not* important, you should strive to use voice leading that doesn't make that unimportant voice stick out.

  185. musictheory 2012-05-10 02:55:15 just-intonation
    Have you heard Ben Johnston's 5th string quartet? It makes heavy use of harmonies involving 13. 11 and 13 sound a lot better when you "soften" them by using them in a chord, and in the right context. A 9:11:16 chord, for example, is not particularly offensive. Or a... 12:15:22, if I've got it right, is a neat variation on a Maj7 chord.

  186. musictheory 2012-05-11 04:34:47 johneldridge
    I've found that musicians with string backgrounds are also very well prepared to play piano. If you don't have a keyboard handy, I'd suggest trying to find a piano somewhere nearby; not sure if you're in school or what, but there are always pianos around wherever you are. You can also go into music stores (i.e. Guitar Center) and play on their keyboards to your heart's content. As long as you aren't pissing people off.

  187. musictheory 2012-05-18 01:02:03 Bitterfish
    A lot of what that guy says sounds sort of cracked out because he has questionable grammar and tends to run on, but there's some truth to it. In principle the tuning pitch doesn't make any difference, but that's only in a theoretical situation. In reality, music is composed of actual compression waves that propagate through the air. Differences in frequency of pitch correspond to differences in wavelength, and resonators (string instrument bodies, wind pipes, etc.) are generally sized based on a sort of average characteristic wavelength scale produced by an instrument. Given all that, it is quite possible that the specific structure of an instrument's resonant area (including the acoustics of the surrounding space) will produce audibly different results for different tunings. I calculate that 440 and 432 have a difference in wavelength of [1.4 centimeters](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=speed+of+sound%2F%28432+Hz%29+-+speed+of+sound%2F%28440+Hz%29). That's small, but big enough that it could make a difference. Resonance is a very powerful effect, and it is greatly amplified by having dimensions that closely match your multiples of your wavelength. There are also crazy things like combination overtones which are also going to be subtlety affected by the frequencies used and the dimensions of the ambient space. I really don't know how much of a difference 8 Hz would make, but it does seem sort of plausible. It would differ, though for every single instrument and room. There's no universal reason why 432 specifically would be desirable, but it is certainly possible that some specific instrument might sound better if tuned down a little bit. The guy really does seem to be advertising that 432 Hz a lot, though, as if he thinks it's important when it really could be, at most, a slight detail brought on by the dimensions of an instrument.

  188. musictheory 2012-05-18 02:20:10 Grimsrasatoas
    i know very little music theory in general. what i do know is the I IV V progression, the minor pentatonic scale, blues scale, and something i discovered but dont know the name for. on the guitar theres something i call the T shape (like i said i dont know the real term or progression or whatever). basically if you play one chord/power chord at, say, the 7th fret on the 6th string, which is the note B then move down to the 3rd fret, G again on the 6th string then to the 5th fret on the 5th fret which is a D then end on on the 5th fret 6th string which is A. when i put this progression into normal chords i make it Bm G D A. you can play this shape pretty much anywhere and it sounds good. [Cry Thunder](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r1He8lgUa8) by the power metal band Dragonforce uses this progression during the verse and chorus

  189. musictheory 2012-05-18 04:04:06 7redorbs
    I've tried to explain that to DirtySketel, he doesn't see the connection betwen string length and root key frequency. I'm disappointed, because combined with Pythagorean Temperament it just ain't the way he and jedimastert thinks. I'm truly sorry to convey this bad news, but that is the facts as I know them (please feel free to technically show me why I'm wrong) And it don't matter how many times you vote me down ;) Trying to explain the concept of antithesis, is hard when scientists only look at one side of it...

  190. musictheory 2012-05-18 05:58:15 hornwalker
    Reading all these comments, and part of the original post, I'm wondering why people are making the idea of harmonics and frequencies more complicated than it needs to be(especially for the purpose of this discussion). DirtySketel, you are correct in your assertion(I have two degrees in music for what its worth, and have studied this extensively). As others have stated, I don't know that 7redorbs was disagreeing with this, and I'd echo Bitterfish's sentiments above. I'll tell you why the tuning does matter-Equal Temperment as found on keyboard instruments is not going to sound as good as Just Temperment, which can be performed by string and wind instruments and vocals, because it is naturally more consonant. You might be aware of this already, but from what he said I don't know 7redorbs does. Perhaps he's been spending too much time tuning organs?

  191. musictheory 2012-05-18 06:07:47 hornwalker
    A harmonic is not a wave. There are many definitions of what a harmonic is, but in music the best way to understand it is as the node on a vibrating string. Perhaps an easier way to put it is lets say the lowest string plays a C(The fundamental, or root). Stop it in the middle, it plays a C above that(1st harmonic). Stop the string a 3rd of the way up is the note G(2nd harmonic), and so on. Is this what you meant? Also, since the word harmonic is used synonymously with overtones(although that is technically incorrect) there may be more confusion when using that word.

  192. musictheory 2012-05-18 11:57:10 42ninjacat
    You're right that the guitar chord would be in second inversion. If you're clever and hook your thumb around to press the low E string on the second fret, then you can strum all six strings and have a Dmaj chord in first inversion. However, this is pretty much just pedantry, as it is (*in my experience*) much more difficult to hear chords in inversion on guitar than on piano.

  193. musictheory 2012-05-18 12:00:39 uraniumballoon
    Why are you replying to me? My comment was only directed at Jedimastert. DirtySketel does seem to understand the connection between string length and frequency. He doesn't see the (nonexistent) relationship between string length and the ratios between the frequencies of the harmonics produced by that string. I don't really know what you are trying to prove here, nor, I think, does anyone, so I don't know what I would need to prove to "tecnically" show you why you're wrong. I honestly don't care anymore who wins this sprawling debate because watching you argue back and forth about nothing is pointless.

  194. musictheory 2012-05-18 19:26:27 7redorbs
    A harmonic is a wave, the problem here is that you are considering a harmonic only a REPRESENTATION OF A WAVE. This is the problem with theory in my opinion. I've been writing scores for about 15 years now. Unfortunately the representation your so hot about represents the physical wave interaction of the initial wave travelling, so therefore is a "potential" or secondary wave , has a timbre and pitch and character based on the n/2 frequency of the primary frequency and any interacting wave as well as the assymetry of the room. So therefore the harmonic is a real pitch based on n/2 and the aforementioned factors, that has real interaction with other waveform geometry and indeed the room geometry. Which means the physical shape of a wave with different harmonics will be different in ANY ROOM WHATSOEVER. This will change the timbre, superposition, tonality, and more, because if you change the harmonics, you are making changes to the way sound interacts, and whilst in theory the difference is negligible - particularly in organ and string work is is critical and, actually it just ain't the way everyone's saying it is. So whilst in theory, there is no physical wave difference to changing a ratio, there is massive differences in the geometry of the wave itself and the global harmonics of the instrument (which entirely alters its character because the ratio and white space in between the notes are different). Polyphony is the sound understanding of overlayed harmonic overtones, which is precisely what I am talking about. The greatest polyphonic work is by J.S Bach. Total proof the way harmonics can add up, notice also an organ is used so specifically what I am talking about is at work. Having worked with this for 5 years I have to say I'm disappointed with the music community and the scientific community for failing to properly understanding superposition and sound. Other absolutely crazy assumptions are made, harmonics with respect to time and space... it's like a load of people missed out on practical theory because it differs from what you're taught in the classroom. E.g. it is a physical wave. Really not hard or much new to understand here is there? Not a single person has told me where I'm wrong, cause I'm not. DirtySketel is talking about "what a harmonic is". I'm ignoring that useless information because as we can see, changing the structure of harmonics made physical changes to the music , new waves, that werent there before - Which by the way, was the height of my claims. I've absolutely no idea what DirtySketel is debating. I think he's just trolling me because he thought he knew everything there was to know about music. Here is news, you don't DirtySketel.

  195. musictheory 2012-05-18 21:11:19 7redorbs
    I'm really sorry, but overtones ARE waves, and overtones ARE harmonics. So yet again, harmonics are waves, because overtones are. It's worth noting anything with a frequency and an amplitude is a PHYSICAL wave. The standing harmonic is simply used as a term that is not always referencing the wave frequency to scale relationship in order to express the relationship in tone. I assure you if you look up harmonic you'll see it refers to the physical component, of the wave, in precisely the same way as the overtone is expressed. I'm sorry I seem arrogant, but I unlike all the other people here apparently understand that the overtone is the nth harmonic from the 2nd harmonic thereof e.g. if n is the first tone, then the first overtone is 4 * n/2, and therefore harmonics are waves, with frequency based on the Quarter Wave. E.g. base 4 fractions. All music is based on the INTEGRATION of fractions, but you as a musician already know that right. Every single fraction used in music IS A REPRESENTATION OF A WAVE. This includes overtones and harmonics, however, they are PHYSICALLY REACTIVE COMPONENTS. Which means I can refer to them as "physical waves" if I integrate space over time. This is actually base physics, ever heard of a wave guide people? The structure of the harmonic cannot be changed, I never said that. What I did say however was that changing the structures of harmonic through the root key and the tuning system effects the PHYSICAL WAVE FORM OUTPUT. It's an analogue fact to do with sound, and harmonic in the dictionary IS considered physical, go check it's not only true in physics, it's real physical waves in music aswell. This is not a new concept. Ask any organ tuner. The only reason why the term harmonic is used is because it's a much shorter way of saying "relationship between the variation of frequencies to global frequency arrangement". Using the word harmonic, this is a fact by the way, It removes a complex dimensional relationship and makes it "linear". What you people are doing is carrying that OUT OF CONTROL. It's a simplification of a convergent dimensional system by using division (e.g. fractional integration). To make a statement that harmonics are not real is like ignoring that they apply to a physical primary wave and geometrical arrangement of hertzian differences and overtone counterparts, and thus based on different wavelengths (string lengths). Thus different harmonics, thus differing symmetry when changing Root key and temperament. (when changing the divisions between the notes whilst shifting the reference note) So as you can see the global frequency arrangement, (divisions of tones), and the frequency root note, does effect PHYSICAL wave harmonics, or overtones. It is a physical thing, contrary to what I believe you are suggesting (that harmonics are not physical). If they were not physical you would not hear the difference in timbre. They ARE PHYSICAL WAVES ;) In fact exactly as I have said before this :) I do not think it is I who does not understand accoustic theory, but people who state erroneously that a harmonic is not a physical wave, such an idea is the height of delusiveness. Or choose to copy out what they have been taught, when in fact in practice, it is not this way. I believe you know for sure that I am not making this up. Also I think people who do not understand acoustic theory make the common mistake of assuming that the root key is NOT an integral, but a linear function of the logarithmic scale. This, in essence is not the case, and the root key is an integral of its own, and thus, not a linear function but a dimensional relationship to do with the conjugation of primary waves and nth overtone's to frequency and wavelength relationship, and actually, not as has been numerously presented by musicians and physicists who just got it wrong. Please though, do please continue voting me down because my statements are "arrogant". Continue the scientific approach of downvoting someone who has a poor attitude, who knows how it works. It's actually hilarious if not distressing that an entire community of musicians still think that harmonics are not representations of waves (and indeed overtones) that are physically expressed. It is in fact a true miracle of amazement I am yet to fully process. Or worse, thinks that arrogance out to be replaced with delusive assumptions about harmonics not actually consisting of physical waves, if they were not physical waves, created by the primary waves, then you would not hear the difference. The difference, I do hear, because it is critical to tuning an instrument both in key, and in tune. Perhaps my contempt and arrogance is founded, because this is something I continuously have to correct my peers about , and to be honest I am sick and tired of doing it. Next time I'll just let people think they know how shit works, and I will stop "making words up" that properly explain how this all works. All I know is that if we would have trusted the theoretical physicist whos name is Skel, then we would have assumed something that is clearly incorrect, and actually totally misses the fundamental abstraction of music, that there are litterally billions of combinations the way an instrument can fold a sine wave.. and that is the thing that you are trying to tell me is the basis well, no, what I said is the basis of music. The reason why organs are reconfigurable is because the overtones interact with the musicians mind. I've done years and years and years of research. You do realise this right? Oh forget it. Best, A

  196. musictheory 2012-05-19 02:17:53 xiipaoc
    Usually, if you want a good D chord, you only play from the fourth string up, and that gives you D A D F#. You can also finger it using the four middle strings as D F# A D, but that's an annoying stretch. Barre chords work too (5th fret). The inversion is determined by the bass note, always. *Usually*, you want to play chords in root position, which for a D major chord means D needs to be the bass note, and unless you're playing drop D tuning, you pretty much have to do either 4th string or 5th string 5th fret to get that D. The second inversion chord, notated D/A, is *unstable*, meaning that it really wants to resolve someplace else! Usually that resolution is an A or A7, and that resolves back to D major. This was very popular in the Classical period, with Mozart and such. The first inversion chord, D/F#, is *weak*, so it gives your music a more subtle flavor. It's useful when you want the bass notes to sound nice together instead of jumping around from D to G to E to A to D. On a guitar, it's often hard to properly control the inversions, so *popular* (not classical) guitar music is usually a bit more tolerant of using the "wrong" inversions for things. Still, I'd say you should try to stick to root position unless you have a good reason not to. As for the A D G chord, that's an interesting one. (: What other people said is right. Mostly. Notice that A to D and D to G are both perfect fourths, so this chord is a stack of fourths (which means it's called a quartal chord). It's an interesting sound. Fourths aren't dissonant intervals, but they are *unstable* -- same reason that the second inversion is unstable -- and they want to resolve down to the third (usually major). But A D G has *two* fourths! What do we do? Usually, you assume chords are in root position, so the root is A. So the most important fourth is A D. Drop that D down a half step and you have A C# G, an A7 chord (without the fifth, the E, but that doesn't matter too much). So you'd notate A D G as A7sus4 (if you want to be pedantic about it, A7sus4 (no 5)). The sus4 indicates that you *replace* the 3 of the chord with a 4. But maybe this chord is secretly *not* in root position and the actual root is the D. Then the notes are D G A, and if you drop the G down to F#, you have D F# A, a D major chord, so D G A is Dsus4. A D G is therefore Dsus4/A. Notice that you can resolve A D G to A C# G *or* A D F#. You can actually do the same with D G A; resolve it to D F# A *or* C# G A (A7/C#, a first inversion A7 chord). This means that you can make your listeners think that you're about to resolve to one chord and resolve to the other instead. If you end your D major piece in the chord D G A, years of listening experience will tell everyone that that G needs to resolve to the F#. So if the D goes to the C# instead, WHOA! But *that* chord will then resolve to the D major everyone's waiting for. So you're taking the listener out on a loop there. (Note that the G will resolve to the F# *eventually* in either case, because you're in D major and that's what the fourth of the scale wants to do.) That help?

  197. musictheory 2012-05-19 13:08:05 tnova
    On guitar, your D chord can be in root position if you play the open D string but not the open A string. A-D-G in this context would still be D major, the G would be a suspension. In another context, this is what is known as [quartal harmony](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartal_harmony)

  198. musictheory 2012-05-20 09:38:02 xiipaoc
    What do you want to use it for? Musicology and music analysis is about taking music and understanding what makes it work. Composition is about taking the understanding of what makes it work and making music out of it. Both are fun, but they're pretty much the only occasions where you need music theory. If you're playing a particular piece, analyzing it will help you play it better. If you're writing your own piece, then theory will help you get it to do what you want. It's also great to just understand music because you like understanding things and knowing things, and listening to music differently. Maybe you want to do all of those, but that's what happens when you know music theory. It makes you a more educated person and gives you the tools to understand and create music. The problem is that there's no grammar to music -- not really, anyway. There are only things that sound better than others at different times. The trick is knowing what sounds better *now*! The most basic element of music theory is not the note -- a single note is meaningless. No, the most basic element of music theory is *two* notes. The important bit is how you hear one note in reference to another, or together with another. If you pick a "home note" -- the root of your scale -- and you play the scale, you'll notice that each note has some tendency to go to some other note. The 7 really wants to resolve to the 1; the 4 really wants to resolve to the 3. The 2 wants to go to the 1. The 5 is sort of a stable point, but if you give it a chance, it'll go to the 1. The 3 is also sort of stable. The 6 wants to go to the 5, usually, but it might instead want to go to 7 then 1. The 1 likes where it is, by definition! This is all for a major scale; other scales have other tendency maps. And this is also very much situational and varies way too much to make it a rule. These are just some generalities I thought of, but in music, context is *everything*. For example, if you play a 5 and a 1 together, even in the key of the 1, the 1 will want to resolve down to the 7 because the perfect fourth is unstable. You can come up with counterexamples for all of these. In polyphonic music, the 7 often resolves down to the 5 because the next chord needs a 5 and there are other voices already going to 1. **TL;DR: every note has somewhere to go.** Harmony leverages that. So you play a dominant 7th chord (that's a regular 7, like G7, not an altered 7 like Cm7 or Cmaj7). You play the dominant 7th chord on the V of the scale, so the notes are 5 7 2 4. Well, the 4 wants to go to the 3 and the 7 wants to go to the 1, so the natural resolution for this is the I chord, 1 3 5. There's also the inherent instability in the tritone (the interval between the 7 and 4) that makes the V7 chord have tension and want to resolve, but most of the power is in the notes 7 and 4 themselves in relation to the scale. So the V chord tends to the I chord. In jazz, this might be V9 - Imaj7, or V9 - I6, or V13 to Imaj9, or it can be minor: V7 - i, or V7b13 to i9, or a bunch of stuff. This is the V-I relationship, and it's the principal relationship in Western music. If you string together a bunch of these, you have a very "natural" progression. In major, this might be something like iii - vi - ii - V - I. A little repetitive, maybe, but you see ii - V - I *everywhere*. The first four chords of Bach's first Prelude in Book I of the Well-Tempered Clavier are I - ii7 - V7 - I (if you analyze using classical symbols, it would be I - ii42 - V65 - I, but those symbols are confusing if you don't already know them). And so on. The more you listen to music, the more you learn what works this way. To learn them, what you *need* to do is listen to music, *write down the melody and chords from hearing it* (this is hard and you might have to listen to parts of it over and over until you get it right), and sit there and figure out why you like it, if you do, or why you don't like it, if you don't. If a chord progression is interesting, figure out why you think it's interesting. Most likely it's some unexpected motion between notes. Harmony is a LOT wider than just triads and 7th chords. Even popular music is more interesting than that! See if you can learn yourself some cooler chords. However, you'll find out that when you create some interesting chord, it's usually just a variation on a chord you already know that makes it sound more interesting without changing its meaning. If you have a tonic chord (the root chord of a key) and it's, say, C major, then C6 or Cmaj7 will also be good tonic chords. They'll sound different but serve the same purpose. So will C6/9. On the other hand, if you hear G7b13, that *ain't* a tonic chord. That's a dominant chord! That wants to resolve to C of some sort, especially that b13. It's similar to a G7 except more complex. The way to learn those is to listen, listen, listen and figure out what you like, and play music that other people have transcribed and written to see what they do on paper. Ultimately, music theory won't help you unless you want to use it for something, even if it's just general knowledge. You might find that it's just not something you're interested in, though clearly it's something a lot of people in this subreddit are interested in. But unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, you learn it mostly through careful experience. Good luck!

  199. musictheory 2012-05-26 18:12:42 rtrusko
    No one has said these artists to the best of my knowledge: Jeff Buckley-check out his life performances where he extends out/ and rearranges his own music as well as covers. Also check out on youtube he performed Dido's Lament at some point. On his only true studio album, grace there are some awesome textures. Also check out the Live at Sine version of "Strange Fruit" and "The Way Young Lovers Do". Both of these he changes vastly from the original tunes to the point where its like "is that the same tune?" Emerson, Lake & Palmer- Pictures at an Exhibition (their arrangement is boss.) Incubus-Check out S.C.I.E.N.C.E. There are some nifty really jazzy progressions on that album especially in the tune "Anti-gravity Love song". Queen-Can't believe no one has said this one yet. "Death on Two Legs" "Good Company" "Love of my Life" and the rest of the album night at the opera are great examples. Talking Heads- Some very interesting minimalist textures. Especially on the album "Remain in Light". Many of the songs only have one or two chords, but there are times where there are so many different layers going on. I'm thinking specifically of the tune "The Great Curve". Also the forms of their songs are sometimes very against the norm. One example is the tune "I Zimba" off of Fear of Music. This tune was written in the text setting style, lyrics first (I Zimbra is actually a dadaist's poem). Grateful Dead- I am just starting to get into them, but i know that Phil Lesh studied with Berio. I also know conceptually about their "Wall of Sound". Björk- She's not my favorite, but Ive seen some of her stuff and been interested. Her performance on Colbert Report was interesting. The Roots- All there stuff has really dope harmonies and grooves. Mellow My Man, Rising Up, Dear God 2.0, Radio Daze are all great tunes that exemplify this. Also check out off of the new album undun the Redford suite. There is some awesome string writing that I have been told Questlove wrote and was influenced by the concert he did the year before in Philly where he played the music of paris with some Philly Orchestra folk. Also listen to the recording of Questlove playing with Robert Glasper Experiment. In this group on the intro tune to the Experiment half of the album Questlove is playing a groove that is ridiculous. He he sits part of the grove so far behind the beat and part so close in front its just insane. Also check out the Philadelphia experiment. This is a subject I am very interested in. As I think of more I will post it.

  200. musictheory 2012-05-27 22:40:19 themandotcom
    Know the circle of fifths. Here's a great mnemonic. You have to remember C and F. After that its BEAD (on a) G (string) {<-- All flats} BEAD (on a) G (string) {<-- All naturals}. I got this method from [here](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpheIZP9Rss&list=PLF798D05C2FDE9859&index=6&feature=plpp_video). Then figure out the relative minors: take the letter 3 places to the right of the slot in question. Then to figure out the specific sharps and flats: *Sharps:* Father Charles Goes Down And Ends Battle and *Flats:* BEAD Greatest Common Factor.

  201. musictheory 2012-06-01 02:19:07 tubefox
    Easy way to see this: -Pick a scale -Draw a fretboard up to the 12th fret -Write down "1" everywhere the first note of the scale can be played (For example, A major you'd put down "1" on the 5th fret of the E string, "1" on the open note of the A string, 1 on the 7th fret of the D string, etc.) If you look at it laid out like this, you'll be able to recognize, for instance, that the scale shape for B Dorian starts a whole step up from the scale shape of A Major.

  202. musictheory 2012-06-02 23:39:12 [deleted]
    I just started reading it. If there is any interest in a discussion among people who are currently reading it (maybe chapter by chapter), someone more motivated than me should start one and I would happily participate. I am a math guy with a non-professional interest in music and music theory, so maybe I could help shed some light on the math pieces in exchange for some music theory explanations. Okay, so my impressions of the book so far. To my mind, one thing that knowing good math theory does for you mathematically is allow you to improvise and adapt more easily when new problems come up. I think that the same thing can be said about what music theory does for you musically. Now, what about music/math crossovers? I think that the more complicated a mathematical model for music becomes, the bigger the payoff needs to be. For example, the circle of fifths is, mathematically speaking, not complicated at all, and so we would not expect a lot out of it (it seems to be surprisingly useful, so this is a bonus). Tymoczko seems to be proposing a model that is mathematically much more complex. I would expect a bigger payoff or at least the potential for a bigger payoff; we should learn something really interesting that we don't know, or we should get some great new tool that will allow us to improvise on the fly, or something. What I haven't seen in Tymoczko's book so far is any hint of such a payoff or a potential for such a payoff. (But I am not far along in the book.) I skipped ahead and skimmed the chapter on jazz; Tymoczko seems to be using his model to explain why certain things sound good. Since I already knew those things sounded good, I'd like to get something else out of this, like maybe a surprising prediction about something else that will sound good. So to sum up, it seems to me on a brief skim of only a little of the book that Tymoczko has created a mathematical model that has the same relationship with music theory that string theory has with lab physics. Both are mathematically complex theories that provide some good explanations of some observed phenomena, but don't really provide any new stuff. Again, I have not read the whole book.

  203. musictheory 2012-06-03 00:10:54 theOnliest
    I think the comparison with string theory is kind of apt, actually. It's true that many of the things Tymoczko does can be explained in simpler terms, but frequently the simple way to explain things is not the fully correct way. Theorists are very interested in coming up with complete systems, that can explain all possibilities (in an ideal world). So while you can say "take four notes and move each by a half step" and it works for Chopin, but that method won't work for every piece of music ever. To do that, you really need the four-dimensional space that has all the possibilities for four-note chords. The Callender-Quinn-Tymoczko work is very similar to string theory in that they are trying to uncover fundamental principles of tonal music much in the way that theoretical physicists are trying to uncover fundamental principles about the way the universe works. While it's certainly true that Josquin wasn't thinking of four-dimensional orbifolds while he was writing, it's equally true that a child playing catch in the year 1515 wasn't thinking about gravity: gravity existed, even if people didn't know how to explain it. Tymoczko and his colleagues have a similar vision in the world of music: if tonal music really does exhibit these five basic principles, then *why*? How can we explain them in a theoretically rigorous way? Their work is not the only answer (cognitive psychology also has a lot to say on the matter), but it is one answer, and it's a pretty well thought-out one. (Edit: I conflated two comments here: oddrobotgames brings up the point about string theory in his post. Sorry!)

  204. musictheory 2012-06-07 01:38:37 theGreatDissonance
    Metal is interesting and entertaining because it often encompasses so many extremes that exist within music. Experimental and progressive bands in general tend to blend a number of styles which allows for the music to have a very wide range of dynamics and feelings. Bands often mix the lighter side of jazz and blues, with the most crushing metal riffs, which in contrast to each other create quite an intense experience. A band like Tesseract, for example, has extremely ambient sections which then get completely obliterated by their 7-string breakdowns. Another band would be Between the Buried and Me, who mix everything from hardcore and death metal with jazz, blue grass, and world music. This allows them to create a completely unpredictable, yet sensible sound. Of course, then there are bands which do not exhibit quite the same range of dynamics, but incorporate many different styles. Bands like dillinger escape plan evoke the sounds of nu-jazz, experimental, and electronic while mixing it with destructive hardcore/metalcore aesthetics. in conclusion, by mixing all these styles and ideas metal creates a music journey which is unrivaled in most other types of music (IMO). Having studied classical music for 2 years, I can say that while most metal music is not structurally similar to classical, the overall purpose of it often is. To provide a music journey for a listener that starts you one place and takes you somewhere completely different. A good portion of metal music is not meant to be listened to casually. It is meant to be listened to repeatedly to be appreciated and understood so that the listener can find new dimensions to the music each time they listen.

  205. musictheory 2012-06-07 02:31:16 fdrs_legs
    Metal is this generations classical music. Just how Stravinski drove people to riot Meshuggah drives people to beat each other to a pulp. The ties to classical is probably what brings me to listen to this music. This music isn't some scripted bullshit to make sure it sells millions of records. It's raw emotion. And from this raw emotion like classical music you get this crazy music. It took me a while to enjoy extreme metal because of the vocals. I still hate them. But band like Meshuggah have slowly changed my mind. You can't bang your head to them, because you can't find the beat. That itself is amazing to me. We are programmed to tap our feat or snap our finger etc. to a beat. You rarely can do this with this type of music. The use of 7 and 8 string guitars empowers this genre even more. There is something about the low B and low F# (or E) that just strikes a nerve in me. Easiest way to describe it is "sexy." You can't get that kind of sound detuning your guitar down 3 whole steps. It looses something. The people who make this music are not your regular run of the mill players. These people took the time to learn there craft and develop skills through hours of practice. Some players it's very obvious that they have spent hours doing that, while others hide it inside the music. Bands like Animals as Leaders or Dream Theater it is rather obvious someone owned a metronome and had lots of time on there hands. But with bands like Vildjharta or TesseracT this skill is hidden with their rhythmic figures they play. I guess the over all reason this genre piques my interest is the fact that its technical and the players actually care about their playing.

  206. musictheory 2012-06-07 05:23:21 burningtoad
    I listen to metal for the musical complexity. Opeth can string together diverse moods, keys, and rhythms into a 15-minute epic. Or The Faceless can write as intricate and detailed a composition as any work of chamber music. Good metal is mentally engaging. And sometimes, it's just for the awe of the chops that go into a wicked guitar solo.

  207. musictheory 2012-06-13 02:11:47 jimbo91987
    I'll give this a try, but I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Take for example a common maj7 shape with the root note on the A string (assuming you know guitar). The notes in the chord go in this order: 1-5-7-3. You would suggest doing something like 1-5-3-7? Or just try all the different combinations? Either way, I'll probably poke around at this idea for awhile.

  208. musictheory 2012-06-14 01:56:03 chefericmusic
    No it is not incorrect, Eb is a terrible key for rock guitars, you almost have to alternate tune the instruments if you want an open string riff. Some keys are awful for horns, which is why " in 3 " as in "Summertime in 3 " was a phrase used by horn players in the 40's and 50's to describe the key of Eb. Pop singers are shopped the same way as studio cats are and certain keys lend themselves better to certain parts and certain types of instrumentation. It takes a completely different kind of pianist to play in an odd minor key than it does to rip up a boogoe woogie piano part; each pianist would be happier and the part would sound more natural and facile, in one key vs. another. Bach wrote violin sonatas in G because that's the lowest note the instrument plays and it has open G and D strings. If he wrote it in Ab, he would have to feature other characteristics of the instrument ( and he did), but in G with open G and D strings, there are pedal tones and intervals against open stings that will not occur in other keys.

  209. musictheory 2012-06-15 04:37:52 Yeargdribble
    My wife plays oboe semi-professionally and she runs into this sort of thing more often than she likes (sometimes because the parts are shitty flute/clarinet doublings). Even if it weren't exposed, it just honestly doesn't sound that good in almost any context. Even with the pitch under control, the timbre in your head is almost certainly not he timbre that would actually come out of a real oboe playing in that register. I understand that perhaps you wouldn't mind if it sounded a little shrill, but I still don't think you quite understand what it will sound like. If you plan to compose/arrange a lot I would highly recommend you take things like this, even after we've all told you to write it down, and find a good oboist to play it for you just so that you have an aural picture of it. The same advice was once given to me when writing a string part a little high. It's eye opening to specifically have your relative failures played by real, very competent musicians. It's way too easy to err on the wrong side, the side of "technically" playable, but horribly impractical. It's also generally best not to write things that only a handful of people would be able to pull off without having an aneurism. If you have an orchestration book that you use as a reference, take notes on things you find in the relevant sections or find somewhere to keep up with things you learn about instruments as well as orchestration tricks that help pull off certain unique sounds.

  210. musictheory 2012-06-18 02:39:17 scientologist2
    **The basic ~~connection~~ idea is to connect theory with practice.** You look at a work of music, see what they are doing, and develop your own understanding of what they are doing so that you can do the same thing. This goes back even to the old old old school method of learning to write music; you *hand copy* the score, and *hand copy* a complete set of parts, or you make an arrangement of the work. This is why we have Bach arrangements of Vivaldi, for example. Or why [Mozart made arrangements of Bach fugues](http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/showthread.php?t=1354), etc for string quartette, and played them. If a genius like Bach or Mozart learned new music by copying parts and making arrangements, there might be something said for the technique. (doing it on a computer doesn't produce the same learning experience) **The Music comes first.** The theory is your understanding of the music so that you can produce the same results. If you have it down pat, you can do the same thing easily. Studying the theory first can help, but the study is quite incomplete without actually looking at the music in depth. The end result is that you are so familiar with your musical language that any texture or expression you desire can be written down easily, you know the things that work, and the things that don't. In other words you have a complete musical vocabulary. If you have an incomplete musical vocabulary, then there will be things that you want to do or say, and you will not have the musical vocabulary to say them. Use the Hand copying technique as a way to accelerate your study, and pay attention to what you are actually writing on the paper. **EDIT:** There is also * the practice of writing counter point, then going back and looking at it so that you can see what chord progressions are coming out of it. * knowing what sort of chords work with what kinds of thematic material, and which chord progressions do not work. * knowing how to weave your themes to fit into a chord progression * given a chord progression, what sort of themes can be produced. All of this is synthesized into a tapestry of horizontal vs vertical elements. You can, of course, set arbitrary rules for your musical structures, to provide higher hurdles. Again, this is developing you musical vocabulary to another higher level of expertise. **EDIT 2** If you want to blow your mind in this regards, check out the very skilled improvisations of Mr Richard Grayson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDxENJgT-Zs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH8AxdJEEyY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8mjikxCBQA

  211. musictheory 2012-06-18 09:04:36 chefericmusic
    One main rason for voice leading is to keep a melody intact while you play acompaniment at the same time, so all of the voices work together and you don't jump around . Remember the classical advice to " Keep the melody on the G string whenever possible" Pick a I IV V like A D E and play it in Parallel then oblique and you can start to make observations, to me personally, parallel sounds sweet and retro, cute , but you can and should use your own words to describe it. Some of the rules are so that there isn't a traffic jam in the orchestra pit, but in general it's a matter of how things sound organized in terms of motion.

  212. musictheory 2012-06-27 22:57:58 bobdylans49thbeard
    Understandable. I think a lot of guitarists (obviously including myself) tend to think "low to high' is immediately understandable because we're used to talking to other guitarists and know what string each note is played on, implying the octave. That said, my explanation is probably even difficult for a guitarists to work out, as I'm in a non-standard tuning (open CMaj). (When the CMaj chord finally comes in, you can definitely hear how loose that low string is, after being tuned down from E to C.)

  213. musictheory 2012-06-29 00:44:48 bobdylans49thbeard
    Once you understand how it's played, it will lose all of it's magic. Here's a quick tab of the basic chord shapes: -5---0---7---6---5---0---0---0---0---4---4- -3---2---5---4---3---2---0---2---0---4---4- -0---0---0---0---0---0---2---4---0---4---7- -4---3---6---5---4---3---0---3---0---4---4- -5---4---7---6---5---4---2---0---0---4---4- ---------------------------------0---4---4- I think that resolving CMaj is helped a lot by that low string ringing out open.

  214. musictheory 2012-06-30 20:29:49 Gerbergler
    They are the same note on virtually every instrument, with the exception of the voice, fretless string instruments and those that otherwise aren't limited to fixed semitones within the chomatic scale.

  215. musictheory 2012-07-01 00:42:42 Eltwish
    I don't know about fretless basses, but I've heard professional string players say they're aware that their intonation when playing in string quartets is different from when playing with equal tempered instruments. If you have the freedom to play your pitch without restriction of frets and you're good enough to be sensitive to the slight microtonal differences, it seems reasonable to me that your ear would lead you to adjust your temperament to the key if all the instruments you're playing with can do that too. I've also heard string musicians tend to make sharp leading tones slightly higher than the enharmonic flat in most situations. But I'm not a string player, so this might be all nonsense.

  216. musictheory 2012-07-01 03:41:37 tnova
    They're the same note on any instrument. But different players tend to say one or the other - horn and wind players tend to say "Bb" because they play in mostly flat key signatures, while string players might tend to say "A#".

  217. musictheory 2012-07-01 06:39:43 Ma8e
    If you play an instrument without frets, like a violin or trombone, they are definitely not the same. The the trained ear will hear the difference without any problem. I used to play the violin, and I can tell you that the first time you try to play with a piano it is a real pain, because you are playing the true intervals while the piano of course is tuned in the standard Equal Temperament, so everything sounds off. You get used to it and you learn to adapt to the piano, but it takes a few sessions. Now I'm mostly playing the guitar, and I don't know if I was "damaged" by playing the violin, but I definitely want to know what key I'm going to play in before I tune the guitar. In particular the G-string always seem to be off if I don't tune it for the right key.

  218. musictheory 2012-07-01 07:46:35 Gerbergler
    With respect, I disagree with you both. Even a professional barbershop quartet will unconsciously make adjustments against each other to form perfect consonances. Same with string quartets. Happens all the time.

  219. musictheory 2012-07-02 00:31:51 phrygN
    Sorry, but the theory of "undertones" is pretty ridiculous. It doesn't make any sense at all with our current model of physics. The frequency at which a string vibrates depends on its mass, its tension, and its length. These traits stay fairly constant over the course of a note, so it has one fundamental frequency at which it vibrates. There are other modes of possible vibration (overtones), but they are constrained by the fact that the string must remain stationary at each end. This limits its modes of resonance to integer divisions of its length. Because the tension and mass are set, integer divisions of the string's length result in integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. The underlying concept of "undertones" doesn't make any physical sense. You are just changing the fundamental by changing the length of the string. I can see a psychoacoustic effect with a vibrating air column, but I don't think they physically exist.

  220. musictheory 2012-07-02 01:17:11 phrygN
    That still gives no real explanation at all at how an "undertone" is produced. The term really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The "fundamental" is a relative reference point; doubling the length of a string would simply be changing the frequency at which that string vibrates naturally.

  221. musictheory 2012-07-03 00:39:40 PandaPlaysPunk
    I think what those pros are saying is that you can adjust your intonation to correct for other factors. For example, if my violin's A string goes a bit flat, I can correct for that and still (kind of) play. Alternatively, since brass/wood and string instruments detune in different ways, the ability to tweak intonation means that if, say, the trumpets are playing too sharp, you can still play with them (ish).

  222. musictheory 2012-07-03 22:46:02 guitarelf
    Wow...thank you Mr. IdRatherBeethoven...this is excellent EDIT: Haas string quartet may be one of the best things I've ever listened to

  223. musictheory 2012-07-05 04:35:59 reverend_dan
    It sounds nice, and the guitarist has a great tone. However, the guitar is really sharp and I'm pretty sure the bass is out a bit too. That's the only thing that makes it sound uncomfortable to me. If I was going to be critical about anything, I'd say just playing the root notes in the string part all the way through is a waste, when you could be playing some sort of harmony or counter melody.

  224. musictheory 2012-07-05 21:54:33 psychguy
    Agreeing with the other posts, try to learn music theory independent of any instrument. The guitar is not tuned in even intervals (the major third is the main issue), so the natural tendency is for people to learn the idiosyncrasies of the guitar, making more general theory more difficult to grasp. I would add just a couple things to what Panda, jimbo, and idmb said, which are specific to guitar: * Learn your scales in movable block positions, on each string by itself (i.e., the "unitar" -- playing all the way up the neck on one string smoothly), and in stretched blocks of 4 notes per string with a slight position shift each time you move strings. You should also try playing the above scales integrating open strings whenever they are available. * Concentrate on learning intervals and triads, and then using that knowledge to build chords. Whenever you learn a chord, make sure that you know exactly what intervals/notes are in the chord. * Realize how the guitar is not a piano, particularly when it applies to chords. You cannot play a 13th chord as a stack of thirds. Learn what notes are dispensable and learn how to use open strings to get otherwise impossible voicings for a particular position. Pay attention to tone and how it works for the music you are playing. For jazz chords, avoid open strings , use sparse voicings, drop the 5ths and roots when you can, never duplicate any notes, concentrate on the sweet spot in the middle of neck, etc. For celtic music and a lot of the newer acoustic styles do the opposite of all those things and drop the 3rds when you can. If you play the same G chord in bluegrass, rock, jazz, etc., you are doing it wrong.

  225. musictheory 2012-07-06 01:16:22 [deleted]
    I think a really big thing would be to learn every single note, cold. That is, be able to pick a random string (or several) and a random fret, and know (just from the sight or feel of that position -- NOT counting the frets) what note(s) you're about to play. And, to a degree, what it'll sound like. The rest is what idmb said. If you learn how to play the notes, the theory will tell you a lot.

  226. musictheory 2012-07-06 03:27:55 guitarelf
    Although I agree with idmb's statement that you should learn at a piano, I must say that for me, not learning on a guitar as well was hindering in some ways. See, a piano is not blank like a guitar. Each key (not black keys, obviously) looks different from the others. Yea, C and F look a bit alike, but one is next to 3 black keys, the other 2. The Guitar is basically blank, much like the violin and other stringed instruments. If you don't know the note names, there is really no visual guide besides some fret markers. Although you can learn theory on a piano, transferring it to guitar is a whole other skill set. So, I think it's important to learn your scales on each string and in each position. For scales: My best advice is to start out in Aminor/Cmajor, and learn all 7 positions/modes. As you do this, also play the notes of the scale starting with each open string. For example, EFGABCDE on the 6th string; ABCDEFGA on the 5th string, and so on. For chords: Using Aminor/Cmajor, learn all diatonic chords between the open strings and 12th fret (including the positions at 12). Start with a minor (open, 5th fret, 8th fret, etc.), then go to b-diminished, then C major, d minor, e minor AND major, F major, G major. By the end of this, you should be familiar with all the chords in those keys in all positions, and all the scales in either horizontal and/or vertical patterns. Here's some links for help: A minor scale: http://www.guitarforanyone.com/images/A_minor_guitar_scale.gif Chords in A minor (I couldn't find a diagram with vii dim, so it has bVII, which is wrong, sorry about that!): http://guitarteacher.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/majorscalechords.gif Once you have those down, start learning your diatonic progressions: Major: http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/Schecterwhore/MajorProgression.jpg Minor: http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/Schecterwhore/MajorProgression.jpg Hope this helps!

  227. musictheory 2012-07-06 05:04:44 keakealani
    I may be coming from a different perspective, but here goes: I was raised in Hawaii and my musical training thus far has been in Hawaii exclusively. I just finished up my third year as a composition major at the University of Hawaii, and although I'm moving to the mainland in the fall to transfer schools, I still think my musical idiom as a composer and musician has been pretty much informed by where I live. Here's why: The future of music, the way I see it, is in ethnomusicology. I mean, heck, it's a hit new phrase in the academic world, and everyone and their brother is going ethno, it seems. And being right in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, halfway between Asia and the US mainland, I think I've had a lot of good chances to see, at least from a student perspective, the growth of ethno-informed music, from both sides of the aisle. My two composition professors are both American, mainland white guy -- but they're here because they are interested in Asian-inspired music. We just hosted a virtuoso Pipa player, a Haegeum professor/performer, a Japanese fusion contemporary ensemble, a Korean contemporary ensemble, and many other Asian musicians who are involved in contemporary music, which gave students and professors alike a rare opportunity to learn about the styles and techniques involved in non-western performance with some of a growing community of Asian musicians who are trained dually in traditional/folk music and Western music (e.g., players of traditional Asian instruments who read Western notation fluently). I make this huge preface to point out that, in fact, I don't think the future, according to at least academic composers/musicians, is in pushing atonality any further, but instead reinventing the tonal idiom to account for other traditions, other instruments, and other types of form and structure. I think what we will see in the future is more hybridity; Western instruments imitating sounds of the East (recently heard a student composition for alto sax and koto, with the sax imitating the sound of a shakuhachi), or Eastern instruments introduced to western contexts (Gayageum sonatas, anyone?). I think there is a wealth of undiscovered territory in finding new ways to combine traditions not only from Asian music, but from around the wold, with the developments in Western music. And even from this, one could see the budding movements of things like neo-medieval, neo-renaissance, and neo-romanticism. Western music, too, can be looked at from an ethnological light. People are going back to look at the sociological influences on early music, and those influences can be reinterpreted and utilized in future musical exploration the same way people have begun to study non-Western music. As a choral musician, I have become particularly fond of looking at earlier choral music, especially Renaissance motets. The Catholic tradition now (for me, Anglo-Catholic) maintains largely the same form it did in the 15th and 16th centuries, and can still be a great home for music of that genre, written in a modern light. And I'm certainly not alone in seeing this trend - most choral writers nowadays have at least a couple pieces that are very neo-Renaissance in orientation, with lush polyphony and and emphasis on florid lines -- hallmarks of good choral music. Anyway, on a different vein, I also think there's another track that contemporary art music has been heading down -- not atonality, but microtonality. And if you think about it, actually in many cases this is an effort toward increased consonance, not dissonance. It seems to me that a lot of microtonal composers have been focusing on expanding the ideas of the natural overtone scales -- deliberately flat minor sevenths, and amplifying the areas of the overtone series we don't hear much. I think this is another way that people can move into a sort of extreme consonance - I remember an interim professor talking about a string quartet where the strings were essentially tuned microtonally to the cello's C overtone series. The dissonance occurs, then, as cognitive dissonance - the conflict between expectations of a even-temperament-raised audience, and the reality of consonance in terms of frequencies and physics. In the end, though, it's not to be deliberately jarring, as much as to utilize the natural order of things in a way that create hopefully pleasant sounds. At any rate, I don't think "abstract" is the way to describe music nowadays... rather the opposite, in fact. Music now is being driven by our evermore increasing understandings of the ins and outs of music. It's being driven by a pursuit of knowledge and order in a world of chaos and unlimited possibilities. The future of music is harnessing these patterns and idioms, I think. It's what Schönberg originally wanted to do with his 12-tone technique, but ultimately failed because it didn't make as much sense aurally as it did theoretically. But music now focuses both on sound and on theory, and I think that's what makes it really amazing and interesting.

  228. musictheory 2012-07-06 06:24:16 keakealani
    Absolutely. If you haven't already, it's important to know the letter names for the frets of the guitar - on standard tuning, know that the first fret of the E string is F, second is F#/Gb, and so on. Then if you know what key you're pressing on the piano, you also know what fret it would be on the guitar.

  229. musictheory 2012-07-06 09:16:14 keakealani
    Yeah, to be honest I haven't really gotten behind microtonality very much either, although I have to admit it still seems like a growing trend. The professor I was talking about is named Jeff Myers -- I'm not sure where you can get access to his music but I remember his string quartet being at least relatively interesting. He also wrote a piece for piano and soprano where the bass notes are actually used as harmonics, with a separate performer accessing harmonic nodes on the strings inside the piano. So in that sense it was microtonal because of course some of the harmonics aren't "in tune" with what we consider to be equal temperament. Experimentations like that, to me, are pretty run-of-the-mill and not too crazy, so if microtonality can keep to that sort of stuff, I'm cool with that! Haha. But anyway, I really do hope the future will go more toward blending of cultures and the resulting fusion-type music. Personally, I think this is the logical way of the future in other things, anyway. Genetic viability relies on variety of genomes, which can be translated in humans as interracial marriage/procreation. Same goes with a lot of philosophical viewpoints, where I think the trend is to incorporate thinkers like Confucius and Mencius with Westerners like Plato and Aristotle. Ultimately I think music, like many other things, likes to really come full circle... or multiple circles, as it were. (Deliberate) Atonality and serialism were established as a rebellion against what early 20th century composers saw as the excesses and lack of sense in late romanticism (Wagner and Strauss, Jr. are pretty good examples of that...) But then, people again went crazy and started making no sense with over emphasis on atonality and serialism... so then composers started rebelling against that, instead focusing on music as an art form, something the ears appreciated and understood. Rinse and repeat -- in another half-century or so, I'm sure people will be making crazy electronic post-tonal gamelan/african drum/orchestral hybrids, and then someone will go "wait guys, let's just only play C for twenty minutes!" Har har.

  230. musictheory 2012-07-09 08:42:07 xiipaoc
    I'm honestly confused by what is meant by "development". The truth is, I (well, the proverbial I; I'm not that great a composer) could write a string quartet in Classical style with some wonderful features and just not tell you that I did it, letting you think it was by one of Mozart's or Haydn's contemporaries. You would listen to it and enjoy it and say that it's a good piece. In terms of compositional technique, harmonic language, etc., I was completely unoriginal, and there's nothing essentially new in my music, except that the melody is new, the harmony is new, etc. Old genre, old conventions, old everything. However, without knowing that I wrote it in the 21st century, you think it's another wonderful string quartet, if you like that kind of thing. If I tell you it's days old rather than centuries, you'll say that I copied the Classical period. Classical composers copied the Classical period, too. They just copied it faster. Good music is good music regardless of when it was written or in what conditions. Enjoying the brilliance of the composer is like enjoying a painting more because the painter had no arms and used his feet to hold the brush. It's perfectly fine, but the brilliance of the composer and the armlessness of the painter are not part of the music or the picture! You seem to be equating "good" with "first in history". "Ah, Bach wrote mathematically interesting fugues in all 24 keys *first*, so therefore those fugues are great!" I honestly don't care that the Well-Tempered Clavier was written in the 1700's. I play and listen to music from a variety of time periods, and if the music had been written in 2005 instead, it wouldn't be any less good. As for John Williams, yeah, he's not very original, but his music is still pretty good. Then again, Haydn composed over 100 symphonies. You can't tell me they don't start to all sound the same after a little while.

  231. musictheory 2012-07-09 09:46:19 Mi_Contra_Fa
    When I supposed at the onset that the prime subject matter of art is life itself, I didn't mean to suggest *daily life.* There are plenty of mundane things in life that we never pay much attention to. My suggestion of *life* was really a suggestion of the fundamental state of man, sometimes called the "human condition," a phrase much maligned by practically every young person who managed to finish his copy of *Thus Spake Zarathustra.* It's certainly well-intentioned and -- as I see it -- correct to claim that daily life has changed consistently and dramatically during the XXth century. With that in mind, the daily patterns of the working man remain essentially unchanged from those of the Renaissance period, and the basic dyed-in-the-wool problems of human *Lebensphilosophie* will, I suspect, never find lasting consolation in technology or medicine; our condition may even be rendered less bearable by them. I agree that music is more abstract than literature the the visual arts, though in the past century the visual arts have undergone an immense transformation. The paintings of De Kooning, Rothko, and Pollock explore complex and suggestive geometrical and coloristic concepts that are often what a person might call "abstract." But even the word "abstract" has suffered a great deal in the past century. I don't have the space here to give a complete account. However, "abstract" really just refers to a thing with some quality removed. The quality is abstracted, and the object becomes abstract. A lot of what passes for abstraction in music arises from the simplistic observation that music is auditory and has no definite place in the surrounding air. Although it is, of course, interesting to note that most music seems to suggest actual physical movement, which points to something which vaguely resembles a *subject* in the sense of the visual arts. What's more interesting about the so-called abstract nature of music is that, whether tonal or not, it avoids the denotation of proper external meaning. A sentence means usually more than one thing; a musical phrase can't even attempt meaning. Elliott Carter once claimed in an interview -- from which I will paraphrase -- that he always found modern music more satisfying, more appropriate, than the musics composed a century or two ago for basically the same reasons you've provided: it more resembles what life is like in the present. Carter thinks that composers should seek to describe everyday experience since we developed things like airplanes and other complex machines. The older music is no longer applicable to our lives, and he thinks it will eventually drift into total obsolescence. Carter is typically intelligent and engaging, but this claim is simple-minded and simply incorrect. What he means to say is that all music is essentially programmatic. And of course there are *a few* pieces by Carter whose titles suggest things outside the music. Think of Carter's *Night Fantasies*, for instance. The score provides the performer with fairly light program notes on the first page. Without this introductory page, however, we have an interesting piece with an evocative title. Without the title, the piece is still very interesting and enjoyable. If we take a strictly musical view of the *Night Fantasies*, it shouldn't evoke anything extra-musical at all. Now consider Carter's claim in the light of music from the XIXth century and earlier. What elements of life from the Romantic period are strictly *denoted* -- not just implied in a vague metaphorical way -- by Chopin's preludes? By the Brahms symphonies? By Beethoven's late string quartets? By Mozart's horn concerti? By Bach's fugues? A vocalise of the choral parts of the *St. Matthew Passion* would fail to evoke the finer points of Lutheran Christianity. It seems to me that even program music carries with it only musical distinctions and tends to evoke purely musical responses. Schubert's lieder tend to be awful poems set to the most sublime music imaginable. And, predictably, when Schubert sets a very good poem to music, the piece tends to be unconvincing; the poetry gets in the way. Think of his setting of Goethe's "Wanderer's Nightsong." If you think the problem lies with Schubert, I'll ask you to hear the version by Liszt, which fails in the same uncanny fashion. I agree and observe what you've said about the overtone series demarcating only those intervals in the major mode. Taking C as our fundamental tone, it's interesting to note that the interval E-G doesn't sound minor. My point was not that the overtone series was the ultimate solution to the problem of natural music, but rather that it presents a great many interesting and variegated set of related questions. For example: why is the subdominant's move to the 6/4 chord so satisfying and, at times, so moving? It rather dominates in the arias of Mozart, Gluck and Verdi. I agree with Aristotle's position on inwardness and outer appearances in art. We consider a drawing or sculpture more artistic than a photograph because it reveals the inner nature of things. Truly great art must be testimonial not only of your time, but of all time.

  232. musictheory 2012-07-10 02:19:48 Megasphaera
    This is something I can do reasonably well already. I.e., seeing a string of chord symbols, I (mostly) already hear the chords in my head, and vice versa. I guess it's more the step going from scores to chords.

  233. musictheory 2012-07-10 14:29:57 Equa1
    Not at all. It's just, look at the visual cues on a fret board, then look at the keys of a piano. The piano has a clear visual pattern whereas the fretboard has frets, strings and dots. There is no immediate "pattern" if you will. A good example is to play any note on the guitar, without any theory and without hearing the notes could you tell immediately where a certain interval is on a different string? No, you couldn't. The visual is just not there - this is where my argument lays. The piano, with its whole tones and accidentals basically color coded, is easier for a beginner to learn basic theory on.

  234. musictheory 2012-07-10 16:06:11 Plokhi
    I didn't mean daily life. But our daily routine has changed our perspective on fellow men, on life itself, on death. > Although it is, of course, interesting to note that most music seems to suggest actual physical movement, which points to something which vaguely resembles a subject in the sense of the visual arts. People never seem to enjoy realistic representation of actual subject like in the visual arts. > it more resembles what life is like in the present. Carter thinks that composers should seek to describe everyday experience since we developed things like airplanes and other complex machines. The older music is no longer applicable to our lives, and he thinks it will eventually drift into total obsolescence. That's half true you know. The way we *consume* ~art~ has changed fundamentally as well. Or something made with a computer cannot count, because it has a basic technical requirement that has a bigger potential of not being meet in the future? Or couldn't be meet in the past? How is it timeless if you're not even able to consume it? >Now consider Carter's claim in the light of music from the XIXth century and earlier. What elements of life from the Romantic period are strictly denoted -- not just implied in a vague metaphorical way -- by Chopin's preludes? By the Brahms symphonies? By Beethoven's late string quartets? By Mozart's horn concerti? By Bach's fugues? A vocalise of the choral parts of the St. Matthew Passion would fail to evoke the finer points of Lutheran Christianity. It's not really about literally depicting your surroundings in your music. The fact is that the surroundings affect your mind in a conscious and subconscious level and purely from a technical perspective. Always in the history technical progress evoked something new in music, something composers either catalyzed our wanted to explore. When composers started to better understand underlying principles they had the craving to explore that. Not all of them of course. But honestly, most of them that mattered. >And, predictably, when Schubert sets a very good poem to music, the piece tends to be unconvincing; the poetry gets in the way. Think of his setting of Goethe's "Wanderer's Nightsong." If you think the problem lies with Schubert, I'll ask you to hear the version by Liszt, which fails in the same uncanny fashion. >And, predictably, when Schubert sets a very good poem to music, the piece tends to be unconvincing; the poetry gets in the way. I'll put this in brackets because it has nothing to do with what you said. (Listened to it. Honestly, I can't really enjoy classical type of singing. I'm too biased to make any valid opinions here, I like neither. [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8BPdiKzLeI) is one of the rare classical approach type songs that I enjoy. I don't understand the *need* of the vibrato, or why does it have to be performed as it was *supposed to be performed*, i find the excessive vibrato kitschy and completely un-appealing.) If I understood correctly, your point being that music has a hard-time reflecting even poetry of it's time? Sorry for simplifying it. >For example: why is the subdominant's move to the 6/4 chord so satisfying and, at times, so moving? That's a great question. But I'm still puzzled by the phenomena of the minor triad. The fact is, a major triad perfectly tuned really is a consonance (which can be proved physically with lisajous meters), but the odd thing is people like tension in music, so consonance is not really a good way to argument existence of tonality. Consonance being a *relief* and dissonance being a *tension* to create contrast, dynamics on a smaller level (and a global level, central part of many sonata forms is the dominant key). But as observed, there really is no real *consonance* and *dissonance* rather than a gradient scale that goes from *consonance* to *dissonance*. And our brain has developed greatly and it accepts a Major 7th or Minor 7th chord as consonant, although physically, it *really isn't*. Hence the development of music through ages (Single melodic line, parallel octaves, parallel fifths, etc and in the end emancipated 9ths, 11ths, 13th...). So looking at the overtone series itself you can pretty much write a year above every note when did it come in use, and another year when it became consonant. (That is if you discard the fact that it is in fact, not really in tune). Because while a stacked overtone series is *completely consonant*, it's not really pleasant to listen to. (Square wave is a completely consonant harmonic series.) I have once tested *why* major sixth played stretched (over two octaves at least) sounds so much more dissonant than a minor third, and saw that the first few harmonics don't really overlap, making more tension in the sound. If you use pure sounds, that's not a problem at all, a harmonically rich sound (like a piano) suddenly starts having a different effect when played in a very wide position. That's why I don't think conception of intervals in merely an octave (and a tad over octave) is *valid*, because physics don't really support that thesis. Mathematical overtone series is one thing, but we now have the means to analyze the *actual* harmonic series, and that can be used as means to create different consonant or dissonant sounds, effectively broadening our repertoire of sounds to create dynamics within a piece. The problem I find with *lots* of atonal music is that it doesn't offer the inner balance of *tension* and *relief*. Funny things is that these don't have to be major triads or anything reminiscent of yesterday, but lots of composers just don't offer a *relief* in their composition. This however I think is natural to make the listener feel good. Yeah, an all tension song does offer a good perspective on life we have now (we are all so very fast, tense, struggles all over the place- its not that that wasn't the case 200 years ago, but we didn't *know* about all that. The key lies in information.) but the problem is, life eventually cuts you some slack. And music should, too.

  235. musictheory 2012-07-11 00:31:09 Grieglet
    Take a look at the first movement of my string quartet: http://pdfcast.org/pdf/movement-1 The preface, and the piece itself of course, is a reaction to somewhat the same "problem" (if we could allow ourselves to call it that) you're adressing.

  236. musictheory 2012-07-11 23:20:17 fennelouski
    It all has to do with the age of the instrument. But first, let's think about string. tl;dr String instruments were tuned higher while brass instruments didn't change. Scores were adjusted instead of retraining the performer. Cat gut is weak and so it cannot hold very much tension. Have you ever played a stringed instrument where the strings were loose and flabby? Even if you compensate for the lowered pitch it still sounds poor. Beyond the poor quality of sound, there's the issue of how much smaller of a dynamic range you have with loose strings. You still have to reach a certain threshold of force to produce sound but you can't play terribly loud with out busting a string. And that just stinks. So science went to work (kind of, but not really). Strings started going through more processes to become stronger. They would be dipped in different substances to be able to resist more, woven with other, stronger materials, and would eventually be able to be tuned higher. With a higher tension they could be played louder, sounded better, and lasted longer. Lasting longer is better for the musician so that they don't have to fix their instrument as often; sounding better with a wider dynamic range means that it's now easier to convey subtle nuances in the music; playing louder means that more people can hear in a hall, court, chamber, or church. Then steel strings came to the rescue. They're strong, durable, sound well, resilient, consistent, and (somewhat) cost effective. With steel strings you can tighten your string even further and overcome the shortcomings of gut strings. Cool, why did I talk about string? Because of violins, violas, celli, and viols. These were the lead instruments of the day and the ones most affected by advancements in string technology. The strings were always tuned with the same nomenclature we use today but the pitches associated with each note moved up as the string tension could handle it. So, Mozart's A was somewhere between what we call an F# and a G. Bach, more like an F-F#. Renaissance and middle ages, depending on where you were and the weather, anywhere from D up to an F. As a lutier, this changes very little. You make the instrument the same and the player adjusts the tuning. As a maker of brass instruments, this is screwy. You've been making instruments the same way your father taught you and his father taught him. You use the same density of brass with the same thicknesses in the same place and the same measurements. You make the same instrument that has now been perfected. You're not suddenly going to change the design of what your family has done for hundreds of years because of string. So you don't. You let the player deal with the change. So now we're looking at brass players. Here they are with an instrument, let's say a trumpet, that cost a small fortune. He goes to play a piece with a string quartet (because every string quartet is looking for a trumpet player to join them). He looks at the music, it's a C. So, in his best tone he goes to blast his best C, and at the same time the strings play their C. The trumpet is a step off. They look at each other. It's awkward. The strings look at the trumpeter and ask why he played a Bb when obviously there is a C written down. He looks at them and asks why they played a D. Screw it, we'll do it live. The trumpeter is now looking at his music and transposing everything up to D. He's thinking that it would just be easier if the music was already written to compensate for this wonky new tuning. And so, music was transposed for instruments that were not redesigned for the ever increasing standard of tuning. Trumpets only had to move a step where as French horns (a much older instrument) had to move a fifth. The trombone, which was designed with a fundamental as the new Bb, we're not transposed. Because it was a new (enough) instrument, the players were to to deal with it. Saxes are a different story. The saxophone actually has a pretty neat history and birth which kind of explains why it has such odd transpositions. It really was designed for the player in mind.

  237. musictheory 2012-07-12 00:48:45 B_Provisional
    It depends on what you're after. If you want your guitar to sound like something a hyperactive 18 year old would patch on their pirated copy of NI Massive, well good luck. You'll need a lot more than just a tube amp. If however, you want your music to sound like EDM being covered by a rock band, then there's no reason to change you setup. Just learn the notes and rhythms of the music you're wanting to play. For example; [something like this, but with rock instruments rather than a string ensemble.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP_w_Mvh9tU) Edit: Also, wouldn't this question be better suited on a sub that focuses on music technique & gear rather than music theory? /r/WeAreTheMusicMakers, /r/guitar, or /r/EDMproduction all seem like better communities for answering this kind of question.

  238. musictheory 2012-07-16 03:57:11 brainiac256
    TET is a suffix, and is short for "-tone equal temperament", as in 12-TET for twelve-tone equal temperament, meaning that each octave is divided into 12 exactly equal intervals (semitones). A temperament is basically a compromise of "perfect" tuning allowing an instrument to play in more than one key. "Perfect" tuning is based on ratios between pitches, specifically on whole-number ratios: for example an octave represents a ratio of 2:1, meaning that 220 Hz is exactly one octave below 440 Hz. A perfect fifth that sounds absolutely in tune has a pitch ratio of exactly 3:2, a perfect fourth is 4:3, and so on in increasingly smaller intervals that occur more rarely in practice. Unfortunately, due to the way math works and some other definitely-not-ELI5 stuff that you can read about on Wikipedia, if you tune a piano starting with one note and making other notes in tune to it based on integer ratios to the base note, you will not be able to play in any other key than what you tuned it to originally. (Well *technically* you could but it would just sound bad, because the accidentals, while being in tune relative to the tonic, are not in tune relative to each other.) This "ideal" tuning I've just described to you is Pythagorean tuning. The Greeks had a massive hard-on for whole-number-ratios, to the extent that their number system did not allow the existence of irrational numbers, and this 'geometric' tuning was attributed to Pythagoras, who is supposed to have described it in terms of fractions of a string. (Depress a string in half and it sounds one octave higher, etc.) I think there's actually a segment about this in *Donald Duck in Mathemagic Land*, IIRC. Well, this method of establishing pitch was unsatisfactory to composers, beginning a few hundred years ago as they began to want to write things in more than just the two or three keys that sounded OK on their instruments. Many 'temperaments' were proposed and experimented with, which made various compromises at various interval ranges in order to produce instruments (specifically, pianos) with more playable keys so that composers could express their ideas fully without having to compromise based on the capabilities of the instrument. Nowadays you have 12-TET, or more accurately 12-EDO (for "equal divisions of the octave") which closely approximates just intonation with the benefit that (ideally) any lick can be transposed to any tonic pitch and sound reasonably identical.

  239. musictheory 2012-07-17 00:12:04 greenlady1
    I would recommend practicing all aspects separately and slowly, then put them together slowly - play along to your metronome at some insanely slow tempo, then bump it up one click once you feel comfortable. What do I mean by separate everything? Just practice bowings and string changes. Play your piece, but don't actually finger the notes, just "air finger". That way you can concentrate on your bow changes, string changes, and tone. Then, just play the notes. Don't worry about rhythm, don't worry about duration, just get the notes. Then, clap the rhythm. So much work and practicing can be done without actually playing the instrument.

  240. musictheory 2012-07-18 06:57:04 xiipaoc
    I'm really trying hard to resist explaining the normal modes of a string, which are sin(nπx/L)sin(wt + ø), where w is related to n, L, the string tension T, and the mass m by a dispersion relation that I can't remember, and... damn, I'm doing what I was trying to resist doing. ;p So let's talk about modes of scales rather than normal modes of physical systems. A **mode** of a scale is a transformation of that scale such that it starts on a different note, then that note is transposed to the original. For example, consider the harmonic minor scale, which, transposed to C, is this: C D Eb F G Ab B C. The fifth mode of this scale is the scale that starts on the fifth note -- G Ab B C D Eb F G -- transposed back to the original starting note, C -- C Db E F G Ab Bb C. This last scale is known variously as phrygian dominant, phrygian #3, or Ahavah Rabbah, among other names. You can therefore say that Ahavah Rabbah is the fifth **mode** of harmonic minor. The fourth mode, C D Eb F# G A Bb C, is dorian #4 or Mi Sheberach, and it's a pretty awesome mode as well. You can talk about the modes of any scale. People are usually familiar with the modes of the major scale. The first mode is the scale itself, also known as ionian; the second mode is dorian, the third is phrygian, the fourth is lydian, the fifth is mixolydian, the sixth is aeolian (also natural minor), and the seventh is locrian. The numbering of the modes has very little to do with the modes themselves, though, and it's not very important at all. The usual ordering is in terms of accidentals, and you'd get this: lydian (#4), ionian, mixolydian (b7), dorian (b7 b3), aeolian (b7 b3 b6), phrygian (b7 b3 b6 b2), locrian (b7 b3 b6 b2 b5). However, in older times, people didn't think of music this way. I don't know much about church chanting, but I do know a bit about synagogue chanting. In synagogue chanting, a mode is a set of melodic gestures, which looks to be similar to what church modes were. A particular section of a service is chanted in a particular mode, without a set melody; the cantor can chant whatever he wants so long as he stays inside the mode. Many of these modes, for example, are minor, but since they involve different musical gestures, they aren't the same: different notes are emphasized, different gestures are repeated, that sort of thing. It's fairly loose. Biblical readings also have their own modes, but, in contrast, these are more formalized: there is a very specific dictionary of musical gestures that must be strictly adhered to. There is a set of musical symbols, called trope (also known as cantillation), with meanings that are different in each mode but have the same general shape. The trope for reading Torah normally is all major, and for reading from the Prophets (Haftarah, which is a word not at all related to "Torah"), all minor. Oddly, the ending of the Torah portion is a minor cadence, since the blessings after it are in a minor mode, and the ending of a haftarah portion is a major cadence for a similar reason. Trope for Lamentations is interesting: each verse starts out in major and ends in the relative minor, which is supposed to represent sighing, loss of hope, or something like that. We have a modern way of thinking about scales that's very different from how other cultures -- including the Church -- have thought of it throughout the years. In addition to the church modes and synagogue modes (I wish I knew their names), arabic music (I wouldn't know about Muslim prayers and readings, though; I'm only talking about secular music here), has the maqam, a similar concept. The maqamat are especially cool because they involve microtonality (WHICH WILL ONE DAY BE IN [MY SYNTH](http://offtonic.com/synth), which you should play with). East Asian musics also have their own way of looking at modes and scales. Japanese music has some interesting pentatonic scales, while Chinese music has some interesting string instruments based on equal subdivisions of the *string*, so you get some nice music with septimal and undecimal overtones. There's a lot of really cool stuff out there.

  241. musictheory 2012-07-18 09:13:02 spencerbateman
    Yeah, I personally think it is overused... a lot. I have played with "amature" musicians who seem to vibrato at any chance they get (mostly string players). However guitarist seem to rarely vibrato. Just a thought.

  242. musictheory 2012-07-18 09:50:10 Salemosophy
    Okay, sorry, but there is plenty of misinformation here that needs to be corrected. First, vibrato rarely hides intonation problems. More often, it leads to more intonation problems than playing a static note with a stale air stream - if you can't trust a band director who teaches this stuff, who can you trust? Trust me when I say this, vibrato doesn't magically 'improve' intonation. Also, the emotional/expressive aspect of a note or phrase in using vibrato is a rather nice perk, but that's not really the primary reason for its use. There are really some practical reasons for its use, and here they are: Vibrato primarily helps with the resonance of the instrument, particularly with Flute where slight changes in the air stream help differentiate these higher pitched instruments from the resonance of lower-sounding instruments. With string instruments, there's a similar thought process behind it, but it's more about helping the orchestra sound "larger". Vibrato does nothing to 'hide' or 'correct' intonation problems. If anything, incorrect performance technique using vibrato will do more harm than good to the intonation of the ensemble. Correctly performed, vibrato will add color, balance, and blend to the sound of the ensemble. In a concert band, for example, you have a section of flutes playing against a section of everything else... it's very easy to lose the timbre of the flute in that mix if the air stream is static. This is such standard practice now that the tone color of the Flute should always incorporate vibrato unless written "no vibrato", which you might do in a solo or soft instrumental section. Vibrato essentially helps the flute voice emerge from the overwhelming sound of other instruments in the ensemble.

  243. musictheory 2012-07-18 10:05:40 listos
    Ahh this makes quite a lot of sense. I feel as if a good vibrato on a flute is very expressive and sounds excellent. Followup question: Are there times that you would argue a string instrument (chello, violin, etc...) should not vibrato? It seems they vibrato on every single extended note. Edit: To add another question: What about in solo pieces, should a vibrato be used in a solo performance on a not so commonly vibrated instrument like (the one I play) a trombone?

  244. musictheory 2012-07-18 10:22:31 Salemosophy
    >Are there times that you would argue a string instrument (chello, violin, etc...) should not vibrato? It seems they vibrato on every single extended note. You have to understand there's a difference between the color of a string instrument that uses vibrato and one that doesn't. Just sit down with a string player at a university and pick their brain about their instrument. Ask them to play notes with and without vibrato. Here's a good argument for no vibrato on cello - the Joker Theme from The Dark Knight. No vibrato, just a slow, agonizing, dry, nasal glissando. Eerie and bone chilling. >What about in solo pieces, should a vibrato be used in a solo performance on a not so commonly vibrated instrument like (the one I play) a trombone? If I, as a composer, instruct a performer to not use vibrato, it's because I have the intention of using the timbre in a compelling way. That said, music is a collaborative art form. If you believe, as a performer, that using vibrato in a particular passage is more convincing in performance or that not using vibrato would make the performance less interesting, you should consider your own artistic sense as a musician and make the appropriate judgment. It's entirely situational, and you're not going to want to take certain liberties without speaking with the composer first if you're premiering a new work. If it's a piece that's been around for a while (or a composer open to your interpretation of the piece) and you're expressing yourself in your performance, there's no reason not to consider using it. Just choose your battles carefully and don't take any risks on a jury or something if you're just not sure. Aesthetics take time, and you should give your teachers the benefit of their own experience in performance if you are the student.

  245. musictheory 2012-07-18 20:21:35 Salemosophy
    >But the discrepancies that are inevitably going to occur between two or more instruments—especially instruments like voice or strings, which were the kinds of instruments I had in mind while writing that response—are certainly made less noticeable when vibrato is being used. > >Also I was thinking of professional-level musicians, not a high school band. Even the best university band is going to face challenges with intonation, but it is not the practice to correct it or cover it up using vibrato. At the professional level, I don't know many musicians that consider vibrato to serve this purpose, either, and I know quite a few professional string, woodwind, and brass players. I can ask them but I'm pretty sure I know what they're going to tell me - the same thing I'm telling you. Vibrato isn't a corrective mechanism for discrepancies of pitch, no matter how subtle they might be. In fact, any audible discrepancy between two instruments playing the same pitch is going to create 'beats' that musicians are trained to listen for and correct while playing. Most professional musicians have such a superior knowledge of their instrument that they deal with those discrepancies in other ways - not by using vibrato.

  246. musictheory 2012-07-18 23:32:06 ofwab
    Vibrato means fluctuation of one or more of three parameters of sound: pitch, volume and timbre. This depends on the mechanics of the instrument and the choice of the player, so for instance on a flute it can involve all three, on violin it involves pitch and timbre, on an accordion it will be volume and timbre etc. On top of that the player can vary the speed and intensity (width) of the vibrato, so it is an extremely powerful expressive technique. On strings the vibrato alters the note between "in tune" and slightly flat, so it can't really conceal poor intonation. More of less continuous vibrato used in classical string playing may be a relatively new fashion, dating to the first half of the twentieth century, with vibrato used more sparingly before that; however it's difficult to determine to what extent this is the case based on the evidence of early recordings.

  247. musictheory 2012-07-20 03:25:14 johnoats
    Are you a guitar player by any chance? I notice this confusion a lot amongst guitar players. On string instruments like guitar we learn scales in different positions so that we can improvise anywhere on the neck and move from scale to another without jumping around the neck. Guitarists call these modes, but they'd only modes if the underlying harmony makes it so. I've often heard guitarists saying "you can play d Dorian of a c major chord" but it's not d Dorian unless the chords make it so, otherwise your just playing the c major scale in 2nd position. Hope that makes sense and is relevant!

  248. musictheory 2012-07-24 01:06:38 musicaficta
    I recently wrote a research paper for my Music History course on the emergence of our tonal system. One of my favorite topics I discussed in my paper was Pythagoras (mathematician, philosopher, ancient music theorist). Legend has it, that one day Pythagoras was walking through town, when he passed a blacksmith's workshop. He stopped to listen to the clanking iron, when he noticed something fascinating. When 2 different "clanks" would happen simultaneously, they didn't sound the same! He was hearing 2 different distinct pitches as the smithies were working. He went to investigate *why* they sounded different. Upon further examination, he determined that the pitch resounding depended on the weight of the hammer. So he began to play with this idea. After experimenting, he determined that 2 hammers, with one being twice the weight of the other, created a certain pitch interval. An octave. With one hammer being 2/3 of the weight of the other, a perfect fifth. 3/4, a perfect fourth. He discovered also that the same idea applies with string lengths! If you take these magical fractions and apply them to string harmonics, you'll find the same results (placing your finger halfway on the string gives you an octave harmonic). In the beginning of music, compositions were mostly based off of these perfect intervals, and as time went on, the sol-do relationship became highly popular for a solid "closing" sound. Eventually, composers (and sometimes performers) began to add half steps and dissonances at cadences to highlight the phrase endings, and it was highly effective. Fun fact: when performers add these half steps to compositions when the composer has not indicated to do so, it is called musica ficta (username!). These notes added by performers to highlight special points in the piece greatly contributed to the way us westerners perceive cadences and closings. I'll step off my soap box now, but my point is, our scale is based (mostly) on natural occurences of sound and wavelengths and perfect fourth and fifth relationships. As for the eastern scale, I'm not quite sure how their's was developed. But I am very interested if anyone has any light to shed on that. I didn't quite cover everything, but I hope this is enough to (sort of) answer your question.

  249. musictheory 2012-07-24 01:12:06 mutheoria
    That's an excellent question, and one without an easy answer, but I'll do my best. Let me first say that the system is not arbitrary, but rather emerged in the 18th century as the "best" way to accommodate current musical practice, instrument construction, and some fundamental facts about tuning and intervals. The "12 note system" you are talking about is called "equal temperament," wherein there are 12 equally spaced notes within each octave. To put it simply, the 12 notes emerged because it was the easiest way to accommodate a close approximation of all the important intervals used in Western practice. Intervals like octaves, perfect fifths, perfect fourths, major thirds—essentially the ones that make up "consonant" harmonies—are more or less "naturally occurring" intervals. They can be created using very simple numerical ratios (the ratio in string length, for instance, of the interval of a perfect fifth is 3:2), and they occur naturally within the overtone series. The equal tempered system retains many of these intervals, or at least very, very close approximations of them. If we were to choose, say, a 13 note equal tempered system, with 13 equally spaced notes within an octave, those "naturally occurring" intervals would be lost, and we would end up with intervals that do not sound as good in our ears. Of course, like most things, it's more complicated than this. But that should you get you started. You may want to check out Stuart Isacoff's book called "Temperament" too. I've suggested it on this sub-reddit before. It's a pretty accessible book that gives a little more historical background (and it's less dense than most music theory books).

  250. musictheory 2012-07-24 01:41:07 justasapling
    Resonance. It's physics. It's natural law, so sounding 'good' is inherent. Without any context, no song, no changes, imagine playing with differing string lengths. If you had one string just playing one note and you were changing the pitch of the other with some fluid mechanism (a fretless board or a crank or something, just no frets) you would notice where these perfect intervals were because they sound stronger, there's a very distinct array of overtones that are created by the resonance of the actual airwaves, there is a real, objective, cooperative relationship between the actual soundwaves because of their relative frequencies. We use the word 'good' when describing sounds to mean a unique relationship between two particular sounds that amounts to more than the sum of its parts.

  251. musictheory 2012-07-24 03:18:02 xuol
    > Legend has it Because this story is, unfortunately, just a legend and never happened. The string relationships part is very true, however. With that said, I'm going to go double-check my sources so I can make sure I get all my information correct, and then edit this comment with better information. EDIT: A History of Musical Thought just says that he found justification for consonance while experimenting with ratios of the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 on his monochord. A History of Western Music says almost nothing about Pythagoras, or anything important musically he did. Temperament calls the story "apocryphal" and notes that "the claim that those agreeable resonances can be produced by controlling the weights of hammerheads plays fast and loose with the laws of acoustics." For some reason I thought people accepted this story as fact more readily, maybe it was just where I went to school.

  252. musictheory 2012-07-24 03:27:13 m3g0wnz
    No, they used string ratios. (See the top comments.) It was not guessing, it was measurements and math.

  253. musictheory 2012-07-24 03:51:36 xuol
    Hopefully this'll make it through all the speculation to somewhere near the top where people will see it. Pythagoras noticed that when you pluck two strings whose lengths are half of each other, they sound similar - much more similar, that is, than two notes whose relative string lengths would be in any other proportion. This is, they were in the ratio 1:2, since the first was twice the size of the second. What this means for our math later is that any pitch gives rise to a similar sensation as any other pitch whose comparative lengths are a power of 2. That is, for any string, the lengths that make up the series ...1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16... would sound the same (they are the same *pitch class*). This is known as *octave equivalence*. Pythagoras was really interested in the interval that occurred when one of his strings was 3/2 the length of another string. And when he added a third string 3/2 the length of the second string, then third string would be (3/2)^2 the length of the first string, which means it would be 9/4 the length of the first string. This is considerably longer than the first string, but if you halve it, you get 9/8, which means that it would fit between the original string's tone and the tone an octave above that pitch. Of course, the string would now be below the string that's 3/2 the length of the original string. So, let's continue upward by multiplying the last string's length by 3/2 and dividing by 2 where necessary to keep it in the same octave: Tones* Ratio Decimal - 1 3/2 1.5 - 2 9/8 1.125 - 3 27/16 1.687 - 4 81/64 1.266 - 5 243/128 1.898 - 6 729/512 1.424 - 7 2187/2048 1.068 - 8 6561/4096 1.602 - 9 19683/16384 1.201 - 10 59049/32768 1.802 - 11 177137/131072 1.351 - 12 531441/524288 1.013 *excludes tonic Adding a 12th Pythagorean fifth above the starting tone gives rise to a note that is only 101.3% away from the original note. You can't really tell how close that is since this is all just decimals, but nowadays, the semitone is 1.06. Note that that's about where #7 comes in, and if you continue around the circle of fifths 7 times, you end up on the note that would be a half step above where you started. Anyway, the 1.013 on the table is much smaller than the 1.06, to the point where our ears hear it more as one out of tune note rather than two separate notes. As such, you can't continue adding any 5ths after 12, so we have 12-tone music. Also, [this book](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CGgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FTemperament-Became-Battleground-Western-Civilization%2Fdp%2F0375703306&ei=XasNUK-yO63g2wW0yoCwAw&usg=AFQjCNE360emfjQTErrbfrDiSNiVMW76ig&sig2=eIAaPoSGNh8AffjvQQPBfw)

  254. musictheory 2012-07-24 03:59:43 xiipaoc
    It's interesting to look at this from a mathematical perspective. First, check out this [microtonal synthesizer](http://offtonic.com/synth) I made and play around with some different temperaments. I've only coded a few in, but those include 7-tone equal temperament (7-TET) and 13-TET, and you can hear the difference. Of course, if you play around in 12-TET, the "normal" system (for Western music, anyway), it probably won't sound so pretty either unless you know what you're doing, and you're much more likely to know what you're doing in the familiar 12-TET than 7-TET or 13-TET. What is it that you're doing? You're not actually using the 12-tone system. You're using a 7-tone system, the 7 tones of which happen to be *in* the 12-tone system. For example, you might be playing in C major, so you get 7 different notes, C D E F G A B. In terms of 12ths of the octave, those notes are 0 2 4 5 7 9 11. The major triad is 0 4 7. You might alternatively decide to use minor instead. You still get 7 notes, 0 2 3 5 7 8 10. So why are there 12 notes rather than 7? First of all, there are infinitely many notes per octave, not 12. Say you start out with some 7-note scale that you think sounds good. Now, you want to take any note of that scale and start its *own* scale from it. Who says that the new notes will overlap the old ones, ever? Maybe they'll just make some pattern; who knows? It depends on whether the log base 2 of the frequency ratios are rational or not; in 12-TET, log base 2 of the half step is 1/12 and all intervals are composed of this half step, so they're all rational and they line up. But the problem with infinitely many notes is that you can't really put them all on a keyboard, so you choose some number and fudge the rest. For example, 12 is a nice, comfortable number, and when you get two notes that are very close but different, you just fudge it and make them the same note. I'll give examples of this later. Returning to the 12-rather-than-7 question, at some point there *were* only 7 notes. Look up musica ficta. Music would be written in the church modes, which were similar in a way to the modes of today but also had some melodic properties -- music in this mode has to end with these two notes, etc. Over time, some intervals, especially the tritone, became "bad", so they would be avoided by raising or lowering other notes. For example, if you were approaching the tonic from below, it was important to do so with a half step rather than a whole step, so if the music was in G (modern-day mixolydian) and you saw "E F G" written, you would raise the F to F#. Similarly, the whole step between the A and B in the key of D (modern-day dorian) was felt to clash with the F, so the B would be lowered to Bb. These changes would be made by the player and not written into the music. Today, when playing early music of this sort, publishers write the accidentals above the note rather than next to it to indicate that it's a performance practice rather than in the original notation, and some interpreters (like a choir director I had once) will opt to alter those accidentals to his own tastes. If you could raise the F to F# in the key of G, why not just play in G major, which is just like C major but centered on G instead, rather than the church mode? The next step was to play in different keys. Voices can do this naturally. So if you have a pattern for a major scale, you simply make sure that it can be played centered on any note. At the same time, composers writing for more than one voice at a time had long realized that some notes sound good together -- the interval of the fifth -- and some don't -- the interval of the augmented fourth, the tritone. Why? If you take a string and divide in two, you get an octave, which is the same note but higher. (By the way, the octave should not necessarily be assumed, but we'll do it here.) If you divide it in three, you get an octave and a fifth, and since the vibrations line up, they sound very much in tune together. If you divide it in four, you get two octaves; in five, an octave and a major third. Again, that sonority sounds good because of how the waves line up. If you reduce the octaves, you can use the frequency ratio of the fifth -- 3/2 -- and of the third -- 5/4 -- to create notes that sound good, rather than haphazardly choosing notes in the continuum of the octave (which is what the Indonesians do for their gamelan tunings, pretty much). Start with a C and you can get a G with a fifth, a D with another, an F by going a fifth down from C. You can go up a third from the F to get an A, a third from the C to get an E, a third from the G to get a B, a third from the D to get an F#. You can go a third down from the F to get a Db, from the C to get Ab, from the G to get Eb, from the D to get Bb. That's 12 different notes. What happens when you try to extend this? Go up a fifth from the D and you get A, but we already have an A. The problem is that this A is at a frequency of 3^3 up from C (27/16) and the other A is a fifth down and a third up from C, so 5/3. Those are different notes! But they're very close together; their ratio is actually 81/80, very close to 1. This is known as a [syntonic comma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntonic_comma). What if we want to go up another third from E? We get G#, 25/16, but there's already an Ab at 8/5. That ratio is 128/125, a [diesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesis), also close to 1 (though a bit less so). Since these notes are so close together, it makes sense to treat them as one. In fact, if you add a third or fifth in either direction to any of the 12 notes we already have, we get something close to, but not quite the same as, a note we already have. So, as an approximation of *this* particular system, 12 notes is a good compromise, because if you add more notes, you stay close enough to the 12 you already have. It doesn't sound that great when you do so -- if you try to play a D major chord, you'll have issues because the D and A won't make a perfect fifth -- but it's better than having infinite keys on your keyboard! Now, who says the music system needs to be based on the third? Why don't we get rid of that and use just the fifth? If we do this, we get [Pythagorean tuning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_tuning). Starting with Eb and going up in fifths, we get Eb Bb F C G D A E B F# C# G# D#... We can go more in either direction, but isn't Eb the same as D#? Well, a fifth is an interval of 3/2, so if we go up 12 fifths and return to the same octave we were in, that's an interval of 3^12 /2^19 ≈ 1.0136. That's a [Pythagorean comma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_comma)! D# is close to the same note as Eb but isn't exactly. The common way of doing Pythagorean tuning is to go from Eb to G#. This means that the perfect fifth between G# and Eb isn't so perfect -- it's called the wolf fifth, because it's out of tune, while all the other fifths are in tune (because that's how we constructed the scale). Note that the major third we were using, 5/4, has a particularly pleasant sound because of the way the vibrations line up, but the Pythagorean major third, 81/64, is not as pretty and sounds rather sharp. What do we do about that comma? Tempering! Tempering an interval involves fudging everything in the scale so that the interval is no longer problematic. For example, it's fairly easy to temper out that Pythagorean comma. Instead of using a fifth of 3/2, or 1.5, use 1.498..., 2^(7/12) . Basically, make every fifth a tiny bit narrower so that each fifth absorbs a bit of that Pythagorean comma. The fifth is no longer perfectly in tune, but at least that wolf fifth now sounds the same as all the other fifths. If you do that, and you make D# and Eb the same note, we get our 12-tone scale! Since every fifth is equal, this is an equal temperament. It also means that every half step is equal, so some call it 12-EDO, 12 equal divisions of the octave. This is the 12-tone scale we know and love (well, some of us love it). And it's good because everything sounds relatively consonant, and there's plenty of room for harmonic invention and for changing keys. Since B# is the same as C, for instance, if you go up four major thirds from C, you get back to C. If you go up five minor thirds from C, you get back to C too, and this is cool because it lets you use the symmetry of diminished chords. You can reinterpret the interval F B, an augmented fourth, as F Cb, a diminished fifth, and resolve it to Gb Bb instead of E C. You can do a lot of things involving enharmonic notes that you couldn't do if you used the infinite set of notes from the other system (called Just Intonation). In fact, sometimes singers of old music try to use the old tuning system, and their pitch ends up drifting around because of all the ambiguities in it. 12-TET takes away the prettiness of the major third (and also the perfect fifth, but it's so close to the original that nobody can really tell), but it's so wonderfully versatile. EDIT: Fuck, I made this too long. The continuation's in the reply.

  255. musictheory 2012-07-24 04:10:21 secher_nbiw
    The influence of Pythagorean, Platonic, and neo-Platonic thought is indisputable, although the modern system is based more upon medieval understanding (or misunderstanding) of the Greek system. Especially for medieval scale theory, only the first few string divisions are important, and they are also the same ratios present in the [tetractys](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetractys), 1:2, 2:3, and 3:4. From those three ratios, you get the octave, fifth, and fourth. The rest of the system is easily derived from those intervals. The distance between the fifth and the fourth is a whole step (tone). If one starts on C, then the octave gives a C an octave above. Again from the starting C, adding the fourth and fifth gives C-F-G-C, and the distance from the F to the G is a whole step. Filling in the remainder of the space with whole steps gives the 7-note diatonic system: C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C. The distance between two whole steps and a fourth is a half step (semitone). Actually, the half step from E-F, and from B-C are slightly different using this method, which, coupled with the problem of closing the octave (12 sequential fifths do not give an ending pitch that has an octave ratio with the starting pitch, e.g. C-G-D-E-A-... should come back to a C at the end, but it's "off.") mean that the semitones are necessarily unequal. That is, there is no enharmonic equivalence, e.g. C-sharp isn't the same as D-flat. Keyboard instruments, however, forced a compromise as they are the only instruments that can't create minute tuning adjustments to accomodate the slightly different half-steps. Two approaches were used, split semi-tones (having the key for C-sharp/D-flat split so that both pitches are available), or adjusting (tempering) the intervals to make things fit. Eventually, equal temperament won out because each key is equally bad/imperfect.

  256. musictheory 2012-07-25 21:34:21 chefericmusic
    12 notes = the chromatic scale = all the pitches in an octave. From there we have a formula 1 1 1/2, 1 1 1 1/2. This gives us a major scale from any note in the chromatic scale we apply the formula to. ( the actual major scale part of your question: a simple scientific answer is " when you start dividing a string and looking at the intervals, you arrive at the 12 tone system and the major scale" It's a bit more complicated , there is a question in this sub reddit right now about " Why 12 notes" -it explains all of the science part. Now as far as why. Well, the major scale allows us to get the basic chords of a key, form there progressions and resolutions and modes and everything. When you look at a major scale like this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1, then the chords in the key look like this 1 3 5 , 2 4 6, 3 5 7, 4 6 8 (1), 5 7 2 , 6 1 3, 7 2 4, 8 ( 1) 3 5.

  257. musictheory 2012-07-26 13:00:45 musiktheorist
    Oh goodie :) Chromatic sequences! There are a few examples that come to mind. Many composers broke it off after just a short while for several reasons, first and foremost that if they intended to stay in a key...going too far with a chromatic sequence would get rid of any sense of key. One example is the opening of Schubert's String Quartet No. 15 (starts around 0:30 in [this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1V_L30DpTI)) The sequence is very similar to the Pachelbel Canon descending thirds...just a little different (GM->D->FM->C->Eb...) Chopin's Ballade in Gm has an ascending 2nds sequence in measure 150 starting on Eb and working it's way up essentially an entire whole tone scale (pattern changes slightly). There are more examples in Schumann and Schubert if you look for sure. Another thing that might help are other types of symmetrical constructions (divisions by minor thirds, major thirds, and the chromatic scale). In this case, PLR transformations might be of interest to you. If you don't know what those are, I can explain those and how they "theoretically" work (quotes because its a theory that actually doesn't describe too much music well on the foreground). Anyway, hope that helps a bit!

  258. musictheory 2012-07-27 13:24:35 xiipaoc
    > but isn't its tone as a single note identical to Db? In 12-tone music, yes. But it would be an error to write C# when you really mean Db. Jazz music doesn't care, and you'll see #9's when b10's are meant, but technically, there's a pretty big difference when it comes to the *meaning* of the notes. See, the C# is the leading tone to D, and it's the supertonic to B, the submediant to E, the mediant to A, etc. The Db, on the other hand, is the downward leading tone to C, the minor submediant to Bb, blah, blah, blah. This is just a bunch of jargon, yeah, but the key point is that C# and Db mean different things even if they're literally the same note, and dissonances get resolved differently for each. Db usually resolves down to C, and C# usually resolves up to D. It seems a bit far-fetched, but you can actually hear the difference in context. That said, it's not necessarily *wrong* to do one or the other; it's only wrong depending on context. And in other tuning systems -- 19-tone equal temperament, for instance, or even when it's string players or singers aiming for just intonation -- C# and Db are actually different pitches. As another example, consider the augmented 6th chord. In C, that would be Ab C F#. It's enharmonically equivalent to a dominant 7th chord, Ab C Gb, but the augmented 6th chord resolves out to G B G and the dominant 7th resolves in a V-I progression to Db Db F. A common trick for modulation up a half step is to reinterpret the augmented 6th chord as a dominant 7th and resolve it unexpectedly. So you can see that spelling it as F# gives one result while spelling it as Gb gives another. It turns out that, over a C major chord, C# gives a pretty terrible result (in my opinion) and Db gives a good one. Hope that answers your question!

  259. musictheory 2012-08-01 08:56:01 manolololo
    that's what i was thinking as i continued my research... i don't think it'd be possible for a song to be entirely atonal, but for instance wouldn't the string section in A Day in the Life by the Beatles be an example of atonality?

  260. musictheory 2012-08-04 00:12:12 tnova
    Don't worry about theory - it doesn't really matter for an undergrad audition. They'll probably give you a placement exam, but it won't have much affect on whether or not you're accepted. It's all about the performance. What instrument are you planning on auditioning on? If this is like most conservatories, you can't audition on electric bass, it has to be double bass, and you can't audition on electric or acoustic steel string guitar, it has to be fingerstyle/classical/nylon string.

  261. musictheory 2012-08-05 13:37:08 ywkwpwnw
    yes. imagine a service where you can take key words from your lyrics, listen to them and build your song around the string of notes. play what you say, say what you play. take your name or another's and render it. their name is expressed musically. drag and drop a song into the program to find hidden words come through the strings of notes. imagine a therapeutic use of this tool for autistic people that could play melody to convey their desires.

  262. musictheory 2012-08-06 11:24:42 chefericmusic
    Think of it this way , E blues = E G A Bb B D = 1 b3 4 b5 5 b7 relative to the E major scale. then C# minor pentatonic ( which can be thought of as C# blues without the flat 5 C# E F# G# B Which is 1 b3 4 5 b7 relative to C# BUT we are interested in how it relates to E so C# minor pentatonic relative to E = C# 6 E 1 F# 2 ( 9) G# 3 B 5 , so the 2 guitars are each featuring one of these scales at the same time, but really it's just pattern 1 stuff nd 2 note licks and purposely sloppy bends and the 4 bend up to b5 back to 4 b3 1 b3 start at fret 14 on the G string Keep in mind this all assuming it's in the Key of E, it may very well be somewhere else so think of it this way Play the blues scale and juxtapose it with a blues scale 3 fets down , but the same pattern ( but different resolution points -think of that as places where you stop or come to rest). then I think play as few notes as possible and as tight and rough a rhythm as possible.

  263. musictheory 2012-08-06 18:51:34 musiktheorist
    Yeah...I was thinking of a string pad in the upper range. Totally get what you're saying :)

  264. musictheory 2012-08-07 13:01:12 chefericmusic
    no it would not, the string section in " A day in the life " was an outseide job done by the london symphony with no real written instructions beyond, we want strings and they should climb ( I'm paraphrasing but it wasn't written and it wasn't intentionally composed with the piece, I'm not even sure if the conductor or the composer of the violin score even heard the song the strings were going over.

  265. musictheory 2012-08-07 19:04:49 xiipaoc
    I know there are different opinions here, but now that I've read the comments and discovered that this is for guitar, I'm going to say definitely the first one. The bottom voice is the second string and the top voice is the first (or so I assume), and the first one makes this clear. The second one is more confusing, because you might assume that the third triplet should also be played on the first string along with the other E's.

  266. musictheory 2012-08-07 21:08:28 xiipaoc
    I wouldn't reverse the D and E on the last note because it appears that the D - D# - E - D line is meant to be played on the second string, the B string, and the E's are meant to be played open on the first string, the E string. It's actually very easy fingering to play D - D# - E - D quickly on the B string; the triplet can be done without rearticulating. This is one of those cases where, even if a melody of D - D# - E - E made more sense, I'd still write it that way to clarify the technique. The guitar is one of those instruments where playing the same note multiple times at once makes sense (Villa-Lobos even has an étude that uses three different strings on the same note: first string open on E, second string at the fifth fret, and third string at the ninth fret), so when a line is meant to be played on a particular string, it's usually given its own voice when it makes sense to do to.

  267. musictheory 2012-08-14 09:26:57 m3g0wnz
    This is definitely a legitimate thing to do! Most undergrad programs require an orchestration class (or more) for composition majors. Orchestration is a *huge* part of learning how to compose. An old song from an NES game is a good way to start, but that will actually be a little easy, since even in 8bit tracks there is already some orchestration involved. Using a piano piece and scoring it for a small ensemble will give you more of a challenge. Always start learning orchestration by scoring for smaller ensembles (brass quintet, woodwind quintet, string quartet, etc.) rather than diving right in to large ensembles. Study the works of great orchestral composers like Stravinsky, Bartok, Berlioz to get an idea of creative ways to use instruments. I used the Kent Kennan orchestration textbook when I was an undergrad, but there are probably others. I am not a composition student so this is not my area of expertise.

  268. musictheory 2012-08-14 12:17:14 Felt_Ninja
    I'm not going to lie to you - I'm an awful composer. I despise my ideas with a passion, and don't think I possess the ability to create anything that's truly worth listening to in such a way. But... I'm a capable arranger/orchestrator. If I'm given a simple idea to work with, I can spin in whatever direction you want. I'll make a German folk song into an atonal orchestra piece, an old-school reggae tune, a hip-hop version for string quartet, or a British-style march for a wind band. I see more possibilities with everyone else's material, than my own. This is how I learned to arrange, and to some extent, compose. ...I still hate my compositions.

  269. musictheory 2012-08-14 14:08:17 [deleted]
    In drop D tuning you tune your E string down a whole step from E to D (as you know). To compensate for this you can play all the notes on the detuned string 2 frets higher than written in the tab. There don't appear to be any notes played that string though, so you don't need to change anything. Personally I'd leave it in standard and play as directed.

  270. musictheory 2012-08-14 14:29:00 Piernitas
    Playing it "in drop d" will have no effect on the key of the song, usually. I only say this because as a guitar player, I looked up the guitar tab and the guitar shouldn't be playing the lowest string either anyway... Not to sound demeaning or anything, but you were seriously over thinking this thing. You can just go by the bass tab that you have now without any transposition.

  271. musictheory 2012-08-14 14:35:52 disaster_face
    Drop D isn't a key but a tuning. Though, often it used so that songs in the key of D or Dm can be played lower, so you'll sometimes hear guitarists refer to a song as being in drop D. It's not a key, though and doesn't mean anything for non guitar/bass guitar instruments. You are correct that tunings and keys are different things. The main reasons to use it are: the lowest D isn't all that low in standard tuning, so songs in the key of D, or with lots of D chords can sound a little wimpy when played in standard tuning. Also, when in drop D, a guitarist can play power chords extremely easily (just barre the 3 lowest strings at any fret). These reasons are why drop D is especially popular in hard-rock/metal. In order to play in drop D tuning, you just have to remember that all the notes on your E (now D) string, are 2 frets up from where you normally expect them. The other 3 strings are unchanged. You mentioned that the song you have tabs for doesn't even utilize the lowest string, so you don't have to play it in drop D anyway. To read a tab that's written for drop D tuning, you would read it like any other tab. tab only refers to hand positions, regardless of how the strings are tuned. In order to play a standard tuning tab with a drop D instrument, you'll just have to add 2 to any number on the lowest string. Also, you may want to drop some D and Eb notes (and maybe phrases that contain them depending on context) down an octave, just because you can now. Also, it should be noted that just because the guitars are tuned to drop D, doesn't mean you have to. For some stuff, you'll definitely want to (like metal riffs that incorporate lots of the low D,) but for lots of stuff, it's perfectly acceptable to play certain notes or riffs an octave higher so that you can stay in standard tuning.

  272. musictheory 2012-08-14 15:51:39 dendar
    Regardless of the tuning of your instrument, the key would remain the same. Just because you've tuned to D doesn't mean you can't play in E, even if you play on the 'D string'.

  273. musictheory 2012-08-14 16:18:52 descartesbedamned
    On the contrary, theory is much easier on stringed instruments than woodwinds, brass, etcs. Need to transpose a song from one key to another? It may be as simple as literally just shifting everything up a few frets, with no adjustments to the shape or pattern of fingerings. Drop D just changes the playable range of a single string. For this song, it doesn't make a difference. If you were to want to embellish, then you would need to become aware of the positions of the notes on the low D (which just so happen to be identical to the octave D, two strings above).

  274. musictheory 2012-08-14 16:24:19 xiipaoc
    Your bass guitar's strings are tuned to E A D G, right? You can tune them to something else instead if you want. Drop D means tuning them D A D G. The regular guitar does E A D G B E, so drop D means D A D G B E. I've even seen a piece that does D G D G B E, dropping the A string a whole step too. This has nothing to do with music theory, though. It's just what notes get played on the guitar!

  275. musictheory 2012-08-14 20:33:20 destroyeraseimprove
    well it's more application of theory, rather than the theory itself theory is the underlying concept i find that string players often have a more natural understanding of intervals due to thinking of everything in semitones though

  276. musictheory 2012-08-15 03:03:19 cyancynic
    Move everything on the low E (now D) string up 2 frets. If you've got tabs, add 2 to every number on the lowest string. Done. Transposing is easiest on stringed instruments. Just move stuff.

  277. musictheory 2012-08-15 05:39:52 drdausersmd
    If you wanted to play a minor third from the 14th fret of the D string, you'd actually play the 12th fret of the G string (E and G). If you move that G down an octave, and keep the same E (A string - 10th fret, D string - 14th fret), you'd be playing an interval of a major 6th, which is a very different sound than a minor 3rd. The technical term for this is **interval inversion** Harmonizing a melody with diatonic 3rds or 6ths is fairly common in music. If any of this terminology is confusing to you, I'd recommend checking out some of the "beginner's resources" in the sidebar of this subreddit.

  278. musictheory 2012-08-15 05:56:33 spherenine
    > If you wanted to play a minor third from the 14th fret of the D string, you'd actually play the 12th fret of the G string (E and G). There's nothing wrong with playing three frets up on the same string. Playing the seventeenth fret of the D string is perfectly correct. And OP, as far as harmonizing in diatonic sixths, Iron Maiden actually does it in "The Trooper" (0:13) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTaD9cd8hvw

  279. musictheory 2012-08-15 08:48:12 ZodiacSF1969
    May I ask what's wrong with playing the G on the D string to harmonize as opposed to the 12th fret on the G string? I'm guessing because you are talking about harmonizing and so the notes should be played at the same time?

  280. musictheory 2012-08-15 21:49:59 nokes
    **Polymeter** As a composer polymeter is one of my favorite devices. **Examples of Music that uses polymeter**: Brahms - *Waltz Op.39 No.1* (left hand in 3/4 right hand 2/4). Stravinsky - *Histoire du soldat* Stravinsky - *Le Sacre du Printemps* Stravinsky - *Les Noces* Brittian - *Peter Grimmes* (see interludes) Charles Ives..... Lots of pieces... but checkout *Symphony 4.* Bartok - *Music for Stringed Instruments. Percussion and Celesta* Hindemith - *String Quartet no 3* see 2nd movement. Elliott Carter - Lots but check out* String Quartet 1.* (Carter turns a 104 this year and just had a premier by NYphil. Amazing.) Copland - Check out *Dance Symphony*, and I'm pretty sure *Rodeo* uses it as well. (Forgive me for not knowing Copland that well, we don't get along) Messiaen - Lots but checkout *La Nativité du Seigneur.* Nobukazu Takemura - *Scope* Terry Riley - *In C* (Not really polymeter in my opinion, but people could make an argument for it) Boulez - No piece comes to mind but I'm sure I remember him using this device in some of his pieces.

  281. musictheory 2012-08-16 01:30:34 nokes
    Yes. The guitar string riff is in 3/4 drums vocals are in 4/4.

  282. musictheory 2012-08-16 03:06:07 AndrewT81
    There are a couple pitfalls to worry about here. First off, if you've never studied classical 4 part harmony writing, I would suggest you do that. Obviously you don't need to follow it to a T in pop music, but some of the basics like avoiding parallel 5ths etc. can make the difference between something that sounds amateur and something that sounds professional. From an orchestration point of view, I would avoid ever having the cello play the tonic of a chord. It's not here as a bass instrument, you want it in it's mid to high register where it really sings. Cello is great for countermelodies, think of it as writing a vocal duet with the cello as the lower voice. If you're going to record this with just one player to a part, then I would keep the violin in the lower register so that it pairs well with the cello. Violins in the high register sound amazing when you have a whole section playing together, but with just one player it's going to sound lonely and not nearly as epic as you probably hear it in your head. The lower strings on violin have great personality when played soloistically. Violin and cello in octaves (or even unison if the ranges work out) can be very beautiful and intense, but don't over-use it. Save that for the high point of the piece. If you need to use the strings harmonically, I would suggest having them focus on the extended chord tones of your harmony (7ths and 9ths etc) instead of 3rds and 5ths. You want to use them to accent their differences from the piano-- strings have infinite sustain, so any dissonances in your harmony can stay poignant and even intensify as the chord rings. If you want a section that feels particularly fragile or vulnerable, tremolo can be extremely effective in pop music. And as always, make sure that the piano gives room for the strings, especially cello. Strings take up a lot of bandwidth in the frequency band, so if the voice and/or piano are all playing notes in the same range as the strings, it's going to sound muddy. Hope this helps, and let me know if you have any further questions, I've done quite a bit of pop string arranging.

  283. musictheory 2012-08-16 10:18:16 [deleted]
    It's for extended range bass, if that's of use to you. Basically, the idea is that you pick a jazz standard, start with a chord voicing, and find another voicing for the next chord that uses the same bass note, or the one closest to it. It's a lot like the approach piano players use, but applying it to a "shape based" string instrument really opens up a lot of possibilities. I've already started using it to voice chord melodies, and to solo on then a la Joe Pass.

  284. musictheory 2012-08-18 10:40:15 camillemai
    Right now the cello and violin are doing a lot of melodic stuff, with the violin only appearing in the second half of the song though. By "support the bass line?" do you mean play the same notes as the bass? (I'm also gonna have a bass guitar part.) Also for "effective voice leading," is that the way the string melodies fit into the song's chords? I just started studying theory so hopefully a lot of this should make more sense soon! I don't have anything cleanly scored just yet but if I could ask you some questions when I do it would be great (:

  285. musictheory 2012-08-18 10:57:07 SinisterMinisterX
    What do you like to listen to? Playing is most fun when you can sound like what you want to sound like. Maybe think in terms of instrument family (strings vs woodwinds vs brass maybe) first before picking one to focus on. As a string player, I can say that strings are tactile instruments - it's all in the hands. If you like feeling your music by that particular sense of touch, strings are a great way to go. I'm sure there are elements of wind playing that are just as delightful that I myself can't describe...

  286. musictheory 2012-08-18 12:38:15 AndrewT81
    For cello registers, the two highest strings are probably what you want to use to avoid too much competition with the bass guitar, i.e. the D below middle C up to the A above middle C (you can go higher than the A if you have a professional player, but with an average player, the intonation above that won't be reliable). The highest string on cello (A below middle C and up) is particularly rich and cuts through a mix well-- youtube The Swan by Saint-Saens for a great example of the cello in this range. For violin, when it's in a supporting role, the range will be from the G below middle C to about a D an octave and a whole step above. Higher than that, and the violin is a little bit weak sounding without support (either more violins in that register, or another voice doubling in octaves). Obviously that's not the case if the violin has the theme, but I would avoid the top register in accompaniments. As for how to envision the sounds in your head, the old masters could do it because they listened to the instruments every day :) I'm sure most of them went through a lot of trial and error before they started writing pieces that are known today. Singing the parts is a great way to write for strings, though. Bowed string players model their sound after singers, so any kind of inflection or subtlety you want to put in the part, a good string player will be able to mimic. If you're not sure how to notate those subtleties (writing in articulations etc. can be a daunting task if you've never done it before), don't be afraid to just sing the part to your musicians, and if they're experienced they'll be able to copy you.

  287. musictheory 2012-08-18 13:18:35 tubadude86
    Sure, I would love to help you out. As for supporting the bass line, you don't have to double the bass line, but you can write in some lower stuff to add some depth, perhaps harmonizing with the bass line. Not all the time, but it helps to add contrast. When working with pop styles it can be a challenge to avoid becoming repetitious. Changing the register (how high/low they play) can create contrast because string instruments sound different in different registers. Up high they get kind of piercing, the timbre is a little more thin. In lower registers the timbre is more mellow, better for blending. Effective voice leading just means that you have created harmonies that sound good (not parallel 5ths for example) that are relatively easy to sing/play (for example, it is hard for vocalists to accurately make large leaps, octaves aren't so bad, more than that is hard). Think of it as taking the voices by the hand and leading them safely from beginning to end. Anyway, feel free to contact me with any questions.

  288. musictheory 2012-08-18 14:59:26 japaneseknotweed
    If piano sightreading comes slow to you but you're good at all the other ear/eye stuff, the you might be having a hard time maintaining two separate hands - so pick a single-line instrument. If you're that good at pitch, it's probably because you instinctively enjoy it, so I'd say skip the fixed instruments (piano, drums, vibes/xylo, organ) If you enjoy singing, then you want something that can be sustained, doesn't decay, so no piano, harp, or guitar. How much does pop/jazz/rock matter to you vs classical? Playing with other people vs playing alone? If you want classical more, head for the string family and pick the range that feels right. If pop, lean toward the brass/winds. How much time do you feel like spending on physical coordination before hitting entry-level sound? The less you want to spend, the bigger the muscle groups. Bass and trombone will be useable before cello or flute, and violin and oboe are going to be the least accessible of all. If I had to pick for you I'd say sax, but really, only you know which instrument feels like your true voice. And even if you don't know yet, you'll recognize it when you try it. Trust yourself.

  289. musictheory 2012-08-18 17:08:37 sbassoon
    I don't know of many studies about this, but I think you can logic your way through a few of these. [redacted--see keithb's post on volume] Tuning is fairly obvious. The more string players you have, the closer you get to that strange ocean of sound that an orchestra has. Anyone who's been to a symphonic orchestra concert knows what this sounds like. It sounds like quiet white noise behind the orchestra, because each little tuning imperfection between each player stacks up, including all of the harmonic overtones of the imperfections, and this creates a sea of white noise that the orchestral ensemble floats in. The more players you have, the larger this noise sounds, but it won't overpower the strings because the volume is much, much stronger than tuning error (hopefully -- if the tuning error is too large, the orchestra will merely sound out of tune). As for smoothness of bow changes, ideally these would be exactly the same between performers. This is the one thing that good orchestras are expected to have almost completely unity in, because the subsections of the orchestra typically function as unique voices, so you don't want your violas sounding like 10 violas -- you want them sounding as one viola voice, very loud, with that slight white noise that you get when large string sections are close to being perfectly in-tune. I don't think I'm too far off-base, but if someone can actually find a study about these matters, that'd be awesome. I'd love to check it out as well.

  290. musictheory 2012-08-18 17:24:39 keithb
    I can only speak to volume. Our perception of the loudness of a sound depends on a bunch of things (including pitch and duration) but mainly on the energy carried by the vibrations in the air. Each string on your violin converts energy from your bowing it into energy in pressure waves in the air. It turns out that our perception of loudness, as with many other perceptions, depends on the energy of the sound in a non-linear so–called “power law” fashion. This is why we use deciBels, as they have that power–law (or rather, it's inverse) built in. So, without you playing there would be a very small diminution in volume. Without your desk the diminution in volume would be slightly more than twice as big, and so on. _Very_ roughly speaking, about ten times as many instruments played at the same level sound about twice as loud as one.

  291. musictheory 2012-08-19 00:30:29 naringas
    How is lightning like a violist's fingers? Neither one strikes in the same place twice. What is the definition of a cluster chord? A viola section playing on the C string. How was the canon invented? Two violists were trying to play the same passage together. and there're many more: http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/jokes/viola.html

  292. musictheory 2012-08-19 00:42:27 johnmadison
    Learn everything you can. Don't stop at just one instrument. Unfortunately, you started on an instrument that limits you on other instruments. If you had been a string player, everything with strings and frets should come easily (except for bowing/picking technique). I say guitar or bass is a good starting off point to learn the rest of the pop instruments. Then move on to drums. If you can play piano, bass, guitar, drums, you shouldn't have a problem getting work. If you have the time after that, learn a wind instrument. Clarinet is easy to start and then you can work your way to Saxophone. Or if you'd rather start on trumpet and work your way to baritone and finally trombone.

  293. musictheory 2012-08-19 04:43:31 frankster
    to extend your point, but I guess the number is based so that strings can stand up to brass or oboes. Personally, I find the tone of multiple violinists extremely lush. Similar to detuning oscillators on a synth. So there is the aesthetic appeal of that sound at play as well. Though as you state, its hard to imagine that once you have 10 violins, +- one violin isn't going to change the tone that much, so it perhaps comes down to ensuring the string section can stand up to the brass.

  294. musictheory 2012-09-01 19:35:01 [deleted]
    Because a bagpipe is constantly expelling air, it can't simply repeat a note in the way that a woodwind or string instrument can. If you want to repeat a note, you have to throw in a grace note to break up the flow of air.

  295. musictheory 2012-09-02 08:15:26 m3g0wnz
    Perfect intervals are perfect because way back when we were using Pythagorean tuning, they are produced by very simple ratios of string lengths. A P8 uses the ratio 2:1. In other words, two strings with lengths in the proportion 2:1 with one another will vibrate an octave apart from one another. P5 is 3:2, and P4 is 4:3. Perfect intervals use multiple ratios or superparticular ratios (google those terms if needed) that do not use numbers higher than 4. The distinction "perfect", in other words, is kind of a historical relic. Also, perfect intervals are the only quality of interval that invert to the same quality. P4s invert to P5s, and P8s invert to P1s. By contrast, major intervals invert to minor intervals, and augmented intervals invert to diminished intervals.

  296. musictheory 2012-09-02 10:35:42 drukq
    Check out [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_tuning), specifically the table column, frequency ratio. In plain terms, if you have a string (say, piano string) of a constant diameter/tension/material/etc, and one is twice as long as the other, when you pluck/hit them, they will create an interval of an octave, hence 2:1.

  297. musictheory 2012-09-02 23:45:53 Trioptio
    Heeey and... could we publish OUR compositions? for them to be played around the world by anyone that wants to? For example, an string quartet by X... that normally would be palyed a couple of times by his string quartet, could also be played and heard in china or US or anywhere!! Isn't there a subreddit for that? We should make one.

  298. musictheory 2012-09-03 01:51:31 CamQTR
    Wow! Thank you for detailed explanation! I agree that if I write out all anticipations on every beat, it begins to sound just as square as if it was played as even duplets. The problem I (string players) have with your example 8zFGn is that a string player would just interpret it as sets of quarter + eighth, which would sound more like a lilt. Thank you for your insightful feedback, etc. I have an idea now, I'm going to look for scores by Gershwin and Ravel. I remember a Ravel piano concerto that was very jazzy sounding. I will post again if/when I get some kind of brilliant idea.

  299. musictheory 2012-09-04 11:56:57 allshallend
    Bass clef unite! Cello and bass myself. Both are usually more mellow tones, except when cello gets on to the whiny A string.

  300. musictheory 2012-09-05 08:17:14 m3g0wnz
    I don't know if it has to be really original, but ancient Greek music theory is all about science, namely string ratios and the intervals they form...I don't know where I'm going with this, but I'm just throwing this out there.

  301. musictheory 2012-09-05 10:36:03 allshallend
    I can honestly cop to not knowing much Ligeti or Xenakis, and just looking them up for the sake of the comments. Distinct clusterfucks, but clusterfucks nonetheless. Usually there's either too much or too little going on and it has too much of a disconnect to really string together any sort of really coherent images for me. For me, structure has a big influence in how I see things, and the lack of a somewhat apparent structure tends to throw me. A solid example is that when I listened to [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZazYFchLRI), the biggest thing I got was all sorts of weird mushy colors everywhere, like a bad trip or something. Part of the reason why a lot of 20th century stuff never really appealed to me (notable exception do exist).

  302. musictheory 2012-09-11 10:13:11 descartesbedamned
    I think it's more root, 5th, octave below (not sure if there's a better way to put it). They like the pseudo-seven string sound that shape gives. Source: some GuitarPlayer interview hah

  303. musictheory 2012-09-11 21:03:52 lord_azael
    I think there is a strong case for arguing for a classical influence in death metal composition. There are certainly many metal bands that model themselves after classical sound textures. Its not really the form or content that draws the comparison but the sonic orchestration. Unlike many modern, western music genres, one could argue that the singer is not the primary instrument in the composition. Typically, the guitar or synth play the main melody and progress the "story" of the song. More often than not, metal bands use screaming or spoken word vocals which adds more of a rhythmic element than a melodic or harmonic one. The guitars tend to follow the trends and styles of the string instruments in an orchestra. (think of solos like the violin and viola voices and the rhythm strumming like the cello.) The themes in metal music are usually grandiose and epic in about the same realm as Bach or Beethoven. I think really the important concept to grasp is there were metal musicians making classical music before there was metal music.

  304. musictheory 2012-09-12 01:16:43 JayC777
    Yeah. Major triad, minor seventh, and major ninth. You play a string of Dominant Ninth chords in parallel motion and you'll think "Whoa! I sound like Debussy now". I wish I still had the handout he gave us, there was lots of interesting stuff about the harmonic language of the Nocturnes on it!

  305. musictheory 2012-09-12 04:00:00 m3g0wnz
    If you just want general beginner-level Roman numeral practice, I actually find hymnals a good place to start. The texture is simple so that you don't have to worry so much about "what are the chord tones?", and modern hymnals are easier to analyze harmonically than Bach chorales. People often think that Bach chorales are great to practice RN analysis, and while they can be, they are definitely more of an advanced level. Bach does a *lot* of unconventional things in his chorales, including voice crossings and bizarre progressions/modulations/cadences. So I would stay away from that. If you are beyond just simple homophonic texture, I'd agree with you that common practice will be best. Instead of Baroque music though, I'd stick with Haydn or Mozart piano sonatas, or maybe string quartets if you're not afraid of C clefs.

  306. musictheory 2012-09-15 03:20:44 Oda_Krell
    good call, sorry, should have been more precise: (please keep in mind that I lack formal music education, so if my question, which is entirely based on intuition, turns out to be meaningless itself, that's entirely possible) that said, darknessvisible's answer makes some sense to me, I can see how the part I mentioned has some "irregular rhythm" (that's how I understood mixed meter, correct me if I'm wrong). But what I had in mind more than the meter was the piano (or rather midi "piano") voice that sets in at 0:27. The voice seems to somehow complement the main (low string) theme, without really doing so. It almost sounds like an improvisation, but at the same time, it seems to fit. I realize it would probably really help if I could think of another piece that seems to use a similar pattern... I'm trying to come up with one.

  307. musictheory 2012-09-15 04:39:49 kruksog
    I actually played an arrangement of this for string quartet once. To this day I cannot forget the mantra of **1** 2, **1** 2, **1** 2, **1** 2 3, **1** 2, **1** 2, **1** 2, **1** 2 3, **1** 2, **1** 2, **1** 2, **1** 2 3, **1** 2 3, **1** 2 3, **1** 2 3 As someone so used to western classical music, it took a really long time to get that counting into my head. I played this piece, lets see...6 years ago, and I still remember counting this vividly.

  308. musictheory 2012-09-16 11:50:09 musicneuroguy
    Well, for one thing, what prevents you from writing the F# as Gb? Without some sort of chordal guidance, it's difficult to say whether one enharmonic is optimal versus the other. Even if you're going without a key signature - which is fine from what I've been taught, the fact that you're properly notating at all is good enough. Yes, try not to mix sharps and flats, and notate for the musician's benefit when it comes time to scoring - on your master copy, feel free to notate as any applicable theory would lend - since all but a few string players can differentiate C from B#, or even F# from Gb, it won't change the output greatly.

  309. musictheory 2012-09-16 12:47:25 japaneseknotweed
    Note to everyone: if this is for a string player with facility in shifting, it actually works quite well. There are rules for *ease of understanding the structure,* and then there are rules for fast accurate *playing*, and those rules can change from one instrument to the next. For string players, especially those who can work their way up and down the fingerboard easily, the most important thing sometimes can be the relationship between *the note you just played, the note you're playing now, and the note you're playing next.* It's actually quite ok to use both enharmonic names for the same note in the same measure as long as it makes functional sense. It's not the same rules as piano or voice, but it works. OP, I could sightread that without a blip, except maybe put in a courtesy sharp in the 3rd measure, on that 3rd F.

  310. musictheory 2012-09-16 12:54:55 JayC777
    This is for my girlfriend, and I'm not sure how much she has as much facility in shifting as you *(note, not being a string player, I'm just going to pretend that I know what you're talking about here xD)*. We mostly talk about what we're going to eat next.

  311. musictheory 2012-09-19 06:01:17 jac32067
    You can harmonize the major scale using block 4ths chords. Another way to figure it out is to transcribe Wes Montgomery's solo's especially on "Round Midnight" and "Missile Blues". For example a C maj 6/9 chord can be harmonized and run up a major scale. 33 22 is the tabbing [3(first string) 3(second string) 2(third string) 2(fourth string)]. Just take that shape and move it diatonically using diminished chords when appropriate.

  312. musictheory 2012-09-19 23:56:43 chefericmusic
    I would like to suggest that one easy way in to this is to take a song you know really really well, isntead of a jazz tune that you dont know well. If you took a nursery rhyme song or a pop or rock piece and did it as a ballad, you might only need simple majors and minors to work with, but the idea that you play the melody on the top with the chord on the bottom sinks in much faster than trying to play dolphin dance or fly me to the moon or whatever. Christmas Carols and happy birthdsay are really good for this as well, beatles tunes and 50's tunes. So after you have a simple song, then you can start to see that by moving something like a D chord, between the 2nd fret form, the 5th fret form and the 10th fret form ( the 3 basic inversions), that it is possible to play the melody note while you are playing the chord at the same time. The really heavy chord solo stuff tries very hard to keep the classical tenet of always playing the melody note on the G string whenever possible.Try taking something like jingle bells or happy birthday and you can start to see for yourself without an entire chemistry lesson on chord substution and the piece will naturally be more interesting to you. From there, then go to more difficult pieces but try to play pieces that you really know the melody and chords to very well, that way you can start to see the harmony and the positions much sooner.

  313. musictheory 2012-09-20 06:56:09 giraffe_taxi
    One useful exercise for learning which notes are where is to call a note and find its location on every string. Repeat until you don't have to think about it. For learning scales, I'd recommend *singing* the names of the notes (at the pitch of the note) as you play them, rather than just saying their names. It will help you internalize the sound, rather than just the name.

  314. musictheory 2012-09-21 12:33:21 musicneuroguy
    The reason they may have sounded dissonant is that in both cases, the B string is playing a higher note than the E string. Given the voicings you've mentioned, there's no actual dissonance between them - first thing I suggest when something sounds odd is to double check your tuning. Especially if "normal" sounded awry.

  315. musictheory 2012-09-21 12:59:46 ChosenByFate
    I will freely admit that I know little about music theory, as I stopped playing in my high school band after my freshman year, but I don't think it matters whether, as in the first case, the b string played the F and and the e string the E, or if it were reversed. Playing both E and F in the same chord, particularly in the same octave, sounds off to me. They are separated by a single fret. Similarly, I enjoy playing the Explosions in the Sky Song "Your Hand in Mine". The third movement of the song is rapidly picked single notes, but the chords are very interesting. Two chords in particular stand out to me [7 x x 8 7 0] and [ 7 x x 8 0 0]. Picked as they are, it sounds beautiful, but playing them as chords sounds very dissonant. Again, the D♯/E♭ sounds off next the the open E.

  316. musictheory 2012-09-21 13:02:47 ChosenByFate
    Hmm I see now I confused the B string with the G string. I mean to say that the dissonance seems to come from the interplay of the G string and E string in the first chord.

  317. musictheory 2012-09-22 00:52:10 replicating_pod
    The first chord is Dm9 with the 7th omitted. It's extra ominous because the 9th is played on the open e, putting it a semitone away from the f played on the 10th fret of the g string. So you've got a minor 9th chord with no 7th, which is dissonant enough, but you've voiced it so that it has a very tense minor second between the f and e. So yeah, dissonant chord. Though possibly not according to how music theory textbooks define dissonance. But to me, if you have a m2 interval in your chord, it's dissonant. The second chord is really just some voice movement on the 1st chord. What you had playing the 3rd and 5th of the chord each took a step down to the 2nd and 4th. So it's just a little melodic movement in the first 5 notes of the accompanying minor scale. Dark stuff.

  318. musictheory 2012-09-22 02:49:20 SchadeyDrummer
    Did her viola have an extra B string?

  319. musictheory 2012-09-23 23:02:38 Nova_lis
    Unless you're Carter; he wrote around 2000 pages of sketches for his Second String Quartet alone.

  320. musictheory 2012-09-25 09:33:27 banjoman63
    The a, b, c, and d that I've referred to are all separate melodies, and often have their own key areas as well. Check out one of the most classic minuets [here - Boccherini's Minuet and Trio in E, from his 5th String Quintet.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AZOknKotVc) You can look on with the score [at IMSLP](http://imslp.org/wiki/6_String_Quintets,_G.271-276_%28Op.11%29_%28Boccherini,_Luigi%29). I realized that I led you astray - I was giving you the form for the Minuet *and Trio*. Minuets and most often followed by trios; in fact, most of the time, they're written together as a single piece. But if you really just want to analyze a minuet, they are binary form on their own, as m3g0wnz and behindtheaegis say. So, for instance, looking at Boccherini's Minuet & Trio. Meas. 1-9 are the 'a' part, meas. 10-13 are the 'b' part, and meas. 14-21 are the 'a' part again. This means that that section can be written as a b a b a or, you could write it as ||: a :||: b a :|| OR, as m3g0wnz pointed out, you could write it as ||: A :||: B :|| Which refers to the way that elements are grouped *within the repeats,* rather than by their melodic line, texture, or key area. You can simplify that down to AB, as m3g0wnz did. What I was getting at with my c's and d's was the Trio - which in Boccherini's piece, begins at meas. 22. I hope this helps to clarify things.

  321. musictheory 2012-09-27 04:12:31 kilometres_davis_
    Anytime lol. You're right, it would change it. This is the thing with music, it all depends on the colors you want to get with your solo. One of the best ways to turn heads is to a play a note that people don't expect– and when playing an a minor to f major, outside notes definitely wouldn't be expected. The trick is to write out scales, all the major scales, and say "okay, where can I find this chord in all these scales?" and then use the corresponding scales. My best advice would be to use non-chordal tones (the other notes from a c e and f a c) as flavor. Those triads are your identity, but you can add a ton of spice with unexpected notes, or even just play melodically and add some nice long tones on the 9 and 7 of either chord. One cool riff would be to hold a long note on your high a (14th fret on g string) and just wank on it while the band changes chords around you. That's something similar to what I would play for a middle-late solo lick over that sort of progression.

  322. musictheory 2012-09-27 09:11:35 theOnliest
    There are, as I see it, three big classes of degrees: education, performance, and academic. Exactly what the degrees are depend on where you are, what program you're in, etc. Here's a basic overview. * **Education**: Exactly what it sounds like. This category includes future band directors (BS/BM Music Education, wind/percussion emphasis), choral teachers (ditto, voice emphasis), string teachers (ditto, strings emphasis), elementary educators (depends: BM Music Ed., general emphasis, or sometimes BS Elementary Ed, music emphasis), and other things of that ilk. Here, you'll take classes in all sorts of music fields, but also probably in the Education school to get certified and whatnot. * **Performance**: People specializing primarily in playing an instrument. Composition might fall in here as well. Here, the degrees are mostly BMs in ______ Performance. Things like Jazz Studies fall into this category too. You'll spend most of your time practicing, in lessons, in ensembles, and basically keeping your face on the horn (or whatever metaphor you like). * **Academic**: The rarest in undergrad programs. This includes things like music theory (whoo!!), music history, and ethnomusicology. Here you'll spend a lot of time in classes and reading, and perhaps less time actually playing. No matter what category you're in (these are my categories, btw...not at all standardized), you'll take a some theory classes, some music history classes, and probably a handful of other things (conducting, world music, etc. This is where the difference in schools is most apparent in the coursework). What you want to do really depends on what you're interested in, or what your goals are. The nice thing about most music programs is that if you get there and change your mind about exactly what you want to focus on, you can! I went to undergrad thinking I was going to be a high school band director, and after I took one education class, decided that wasn't for me. Now I'm a music theorist (and, ironically, spending a whole lot of time teaching), though I still play from time to time. I hope this helps! I'm happy to answer anything else as well. I've been in school for a long time... Edit: So I (of course) left some people out, but certainly didn't mean to. The three categories I mentioned are ones you'll likely find at any school that offers music degrees, but there's also a handful of other categories that have come up in the thread that I'll add here into a category called... * **Other**: Here's where I'd put everything else. Music Technology, which includes things like recording, audio production, sound design, and things of that nature (see mythicalbyrd's response in this thread). Music therapy is something I know literally nothing about, but it's also an option (I won't attempt to say what it entails here). Finally, Music Business is also something I know very little about, but is also a degree offered in some places, and has to do with (I think) things like contracts, copyright, managing artists, and other business-y things (if anyone wanted to throw in some help on this, that would be awesome). Lest I forget someone else, there's also the Arts Administration route, which often have to do with things like managing orchestras, non-profit administration, and whatnot, but they often have to take some music classes as well.

  323. musictheory 2012-10-01 12:18:09 --Petrichor--
    Depends on how advanced you are. Haydn and Mozart tend me be a little more straightforward (though can still be plenty complicated). I'd take a look at their String Quartets. If you want something a little more advanced, the Beethoven Piano Sonatas or String Quartets would be good. Even though the early quartets are *fairly* straightforward, they definitely have a little more ambiguity. Schubert songs are good also. Honestly, I would just do whatever you enjoy listening to. Analyze your favorite classical piece of music.

  324. musictheory 2012-10-02 00:08:07 [deleted]
    >(As it happens, on non-equally-tempered instruments such as the violin, D# and Eb can actually be different frequencies as well - the Eb that is the flattened seventh of F major is a different note to the D# in E major. because of physics, but that's a whole other discussion...) I've always heard that, but as a not-string player, I've never really understood what it means. Can you go into a bit more detail?

  325. musictheory 2012-10-02 01:10:40 JohnStow
    It's all to do with the difference between [Just Intonation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation) and [Equal Temperament](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament), which in turn is to do with the [Harmonic series](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music\)) - taking a fixed-length string, or column of air (or ruler on a tabletop or whatever) and producing different notes by vibrating it at different speeds. The simplest point, and lowest note at which it vibrates is the *fundamental*. Vibrate it twice as fast (by 'overblowing' it if it's air, or playing only half the length if it's a string), and you get a note an octave above the fundamental. Three times as fast produces a fifth above that, four times as fast another octave, five times as fast a major third above that, and so on. Using this process, we can create scales that are 'perfect', based on neat ratios (3:2, 4:3 etc.) The trouble comes when we try to change key - the notes produced by starting from one root note are slightly different to those produced by another. The simplest example is with fifths. If we take a 'C, and multiply the frequency by 1.5 to find a G, that's great, and "perfect". We can then take that G, and multiply by 1.5 to find a D, then use that D to find an A and so on. The trouble is, 1.5 * 1.5 * 1.5 ... will never make a perfect multiple of 2, so by the time we get back to C again, we've produced a *different* C from the one we started with. (This is the reason that piano tuners tune using slightly flat fifths). It's an enormous topic, but hopefully this gives you an idea.

  326. musictheory 2012-10-02 10:19:25 [deleted]
    Memorize the pattern in the circle of fifths: F C G D A E B then note that each those same letters repeat with one more sharp or flat, to the right or left respectively: Fb Cb Gb Db Ab Eb Bb F C G D A E B F# C# G# D# A# E# B# etc. Finally, note that ANY diatonic scale can be derived form a 7 note string, starting anywhere on that chain of fifths. Put those note names in alphabetical order, and bam, you just derived a scale without memorizing that scale specifically.

  327. musictheory 2012-10-03 03:05:58 musicneuroguy
    Ab is played slightly lower than G# by extremely good (and precise) string players. It's not madness per se, just different ways of approaching temperament prior to the development of equal temperament, where each note is the twelfth root of two away from the next semitone. This is also why certain sections of the early orchestra would kvetch if you wrote in a key that their instrument wasn't optimally designed for.

  328. musictheory 2012-10-03 05:40:14 [deleted]
    As a string player, I can confirm. Usually we have different fingerings for enharmonically-equivalent notes, and in *tonal* context, we play our thirds a bit flatter, our leading tones a bit sharper. In atonal music, especially in solo literature, we can emphasize certain intervals by widening or narrowing them, In a piece I'm preparing currently, Bb and A are played together; I play the major seventh very wide to emphasize the dissonance.

  329. musictheory 2012-10-03 07:22:56 KingInternet
    I'm just wondering here, because I never knew that string players did that, how different will a piece sound when two different string players play it? Let's assume 2 violin (or any string instrument, this is just an example) players who would be considered equally talented by most musicians today. Let's assume that these two violin players are extremely good. Player 1 plays a piece for solo violin, and Player 2 plays a piece for solo violin. Let's assume that the piece has many tempo/dynamic markings, and no tempo rubato. The piece is pretty strict, it doesn't allow much interpretation. Now, how different would the piece sound being played by Player 1 and Player 2? Would most of the difference come from how sharp/flat they play their enharmonic notes? If this were repeated with different but similar pieces, would you be able to recognize which player was playing the piece just by listening? This is really interesting. I play the electric bass (lol).

  330. musictheory 2012-10-03 15:37:44 keenanpepper
    I think most of the time G# would be lower than Ab (in accordance with meantone temperament rather than Pythagorean). But more generally, ensembles of flexible-pitch instruments like orchestras and string quartets always deviate from equal temperament in an adaptive way to make chords closer to just intonation. To say nothing of barbershop quartets!

  331. musictheory 2012-10-04 06:48:03 Bravo0884
    I agree the bond sound is quite peculiar. A) Here is a a non-bond song that i feel has some of these charachteristics that make a song "Bondish" i believe it has to do with the voicings on the string arangement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2FNByoRGjY&feature=youtube_gdata_player While i agree that definitely the chromatic movement of parts of the melodies helps create this effect there is some harmonic tensions that i hear in the string arrangement that i dont hear that often. I also get this feeling ( although less) in the guitar solo in Toto's song "I wont hold you back" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDPGimsivZM&feature=youtube_gdata_player Let me know if im alone in this.

  332. musictheory 2012-10-04 11:36:26 DrTribs
    As a generic term: work, piece, or composition. There are others as well, but I encourage students to be more specific than that. String quartet for example, or symphony, or tone poem. Calling the music what it is shows that you're thinking about what it is.

  333. musictheory 2012-10-05 07:34:28 liquidtension
    That's a cello, though that piece can be performed with any string instrument. The harmonic rhythmic is similar to the slow pace of switching chords, but it also determines the regularity, just like any other rhythm. It can be considered a kind of "macro rhythm" if you will. I've always been of the opinion that the long bar of 6 lends itself to peaceful, dreamy thoughts, too. Long, slow bars are themselves a device of expression.

  334. musictheory 2012-10-05 07:43:25 KittensNWeed
    Also, I've been doing some research, and it seems that (correct me if I'm wrong), Most their songs are in (what would be) the key of F (if we're assuming standard tuning just for ease). Is this because it allows you to use the open string as well (seeing as how E is the flatted 7th of F)?

  335. musictheory 2012-10-05 10:30:23 KittensNWeed
    I used to play a lot of stuff in drop, id kinda killed my musical knowledge, for whatever reason. But I'm back into playing it again, and yes, that album is C standard. So you're saying the open string 'wants' to resolve to the first fret? That makes sense.

  336. musictheory 2012-10-05 11:18:05 Yeargdribble
    Scoring pretty much nailed it. Individual keys have nothing particular about them given a top notch ensemble aside from voicing on stringed instruments. For less stellar groups there are a lot of idiosyncrasies to various instruments that affect how difficult it may be to play in a certain key or in certain tessituras. Since you're asking about giving weight, what really does that is color. Synths are bad at helping a person understand this. When an instrumentalist hears a synth of their instrument, it becomes very apparent that much of the characteristic sound in a given register is lost. The thick, rich, woody sound of a clarinet playing in the chalumeau register tends to be lost when played as a synth. That's just one example, but it's true of almost anything. You're right that the weight is in the orchestration and the important part is understanding the instruments well, what they sound like in a given register, and what particular sounds you want for a given section. The oboe example Scoring gave is perfect. You need to know what an oboe actually sounds like in a particular register played by a competent player and how that color blends with a given support of other instruments in their various registers. A violin in the extreme upper register can sound either shrill and horrible, or can move you to tears. That has a lot to do with voicing and movement between strings, sometimes even noting that you want a particular note played on a particular string simply because it gets a different characteristic. So I guess in a simplistic way the key can matter as you have to write instruments within a certain key to keep a given melody in a certain range, but generally I think it's more instructive to focus on color and how it works with instruments across their register. This is something that's hard to do without just spending time with a lot of good musicians and doing a lot of listening.

  337. musictheory 2012-10-07 05:12:50 Marco_Dee
    Ernst Toch has an interesting story, a variation on what you suggest: he first learned composition using nothing but a pile of Mozart's string quartets. First, he simply copied them down. Then, as he started to get acquainted with the string quartet form, he would only read and analyze a first portion of the composition so he could attempt to compose the second part of the composition himself, trying to follow the string quartet form, and finally he would compare with the original. This way, it was as if Mozart himself was telling him "no, I would've done this way here".

  338. musictheory 2012-10-08 11:45:02 dergster
    music theory certainly extends to communicating what we like to hear, but physics (acoustics) and neurology are certainly behind a lot of it, if not most of it. i know pretty much nothing about the neurology part, and i'm pretty sure music in neurology is largely a mystery, but from my understanding patterns of frequencies (tones) are pleasing to us because of how our brains work. Major and Minor scales are just a series of ratios of frequencies which we find pleasing, which is where the physics comes in. A fifth of any note is produced by an oscillation 3/2 time faster than its root (G is produced by a string oscillating 3/2 times as fast as C), an octave has twice the frequency of its root, etc. (of course the tempered scale changes these ratios very slightly to accommodate all 12 keys, but those ratios are still the basis of 12-tone music). Chords exist as root, 3rd, and 5th because those ratios heard simultaneously sound good to us. The 7th is raised in minor keys (and some modes) because having a smaller difference in frequency between the 7th step and root of a scale creates pull going up from 7-1, helping us recognize 1 as the tonic of that scale/key. V in major and minor keys leads to I (or i) because it contains the raised 7, which has a smaller difference in frequency from the tonic than any other note of the scale, which creates pull towards it. Secondary dominants work the same way, by having a chord tone close in frequency to the note they are tonicizing, thus functioning merely as an approach to that note. This further is the basis of some voice leading rules in harmony, such as scale step 4 resolving to scale step 3 (in major keys) because there is a lower difference in frequency between 4 and 3 than 4 and any other note in the scale. Frequency ratios between tones are the reason for their characteristics, which are important in shaping how music is made. There are probably a lot of things in music theory which are not explained by acoustics, but a lot of things 'sound good' to us because of acoustics, and how they act on our brains (i have no idea how the latter works)

  339. musictheory 2012-10-10 07:45:21 nilajofaru
    It denotes a flageolet/harmonic. On a stringed instrument there are nodes at certain points on the string which when touched lightly (as you pluck or bow the string) will force the string to vibrate in halves, thirds, etc. [here's an image](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moodswingerscale.svg). This will produce notes an octave, an octave+a fifth etc above the pitch of the string. The notation for the flute denotes the same thing, but my grasp of wind instruments is to tenuous to give any details about technique.

  340. musictheory 2012-10-10 11:05:23 yellowhatb
    jonny greenwood had a huge part in writing the arrangements and orchestrations for ok computer, as well as all of the band's subsequent records. as told in [this new york times article from earlier this year](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/magazine/jonny-greenwood-radioheads-runaway-guitarist.html?pagewanted=all), greenwood has been particularly influenced by the work of krzysztof penderecki -- an influential polish composer who experimented with atonality and tone clusters. notice, for example, the [closing string arrangement for 'climbing up the walls'](http://youtu.be/qbtZyuOMdHI?t=4m19s). for this piece, greenwood utilized a technique popularized by penderecki in his landmark work ['threnody for the victims of hiroshima'](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzOb3UhPmig), where he wrote cacophonous string figures, with 60 instruments playing notes quarter tones apart. the close tones seem to shimmer because they resonate dissonantly against one another, creating a deeply disorienting and unsettling soundscape. this was a perfect match for a song [thom yorke described as 'scary' and 'about the unspeakable'](http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=848). greenwood's deeply experimental orchestration exists throughout the record -- and indeed, throughout all of radiohead's catalog -- but on ok computer, when coupled with more-or-less straightforward rock songwriting, created a very unique sound. thom yorke mentioned that the members of the band listened to "i am the walrus" constantly during the session, and that is an apt note for this discussion, as the beatles were another major band to effectively incorporate contemporary classical "textures" -- in their case the work of luciano berio -- to their music.

  341. musictheory 2012-10-11 14:42:48 tomthirtysecondnotes
    sorry that didn't come out like i wanted it to. string order: eBGDAE

  342. musictheory 2012-10-11 23:38:15 Salemosophy
    This is a good place to start - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noh The codification of Noh is left up to absolutely no interpretation or innovation of any sort, unlike present-day performances of Bach. Regarding popular music, I really don't have very much time to debate with you on its merits. Here's a short synopsis of what I would otherwise elaborate on in the discussion: * The primary focus of popular music is on the lyrics - specifically, the flow of the words in relation to the melodic line (read up on Sondheim for more details on this aspect of music composition). * The quality of a song is intrenched in its efficiency, when it achieves a memorable aspect that is both simple and compelling enough to remember. These happen on opposing extremes as well - the song needs to "hook" the audience and vary only enough to keep them interested for the duration of the song. The success of a popular song depends entirely on the ability of the listener to remember it - word of mouth is the most powerful marketing tool, after all. * Production aspects of popular music are far more important and need to be understood for appreciation to really grow. There is meticulous attention to detail in the recording of a popular song - unlike in classical music where production of a recording is far less involved as it is not necessarily an aspect of the compositional process (in exclusively instrumental music). * Syndication of popular music is not exclusive to the radio or media. In fact, a great deal of syndication of popular music happens with groups who cover the songs they like and arrange them based on their own sense of aesthetics. This is usually not the case with classical music, although there are groups out there that have crossed the threshold of this stupid boundary between classicism and popular music - look up the Metallica String Quartet for an example. That's all I have time for now. You can certainly disagree all you want, but what you can't ignore is the prevalence of popular music or the arrogance of those who claim it's just a fad (or who credit a "dumber society" for the prevalence of popular music). It's just simply not true, not by a long shot. Any argument that presumes it's society's fault doesn't acknowledge that it's a redundant point - because society is going to change and part of what we do in music is change with the times.

  343. musictheory 2012-10-12 02:38:58 pedroflfernandez
    Nobody has mentioned this explicitly yet, but it's very important to remember that when you read the chord name Cmaj9 you absolutely must include a major 7th. C9 implies a flatted seventh, and acts as a dominant chord. So the 9th is a nice color, but if you're reading a chart, or song written by someone other than yourself, they are assuming you'll add the appropriate 7th. Most commonly guitar players will drop the 5th and spell a Cmaj9 C-E-B-D. Starting on the fifth string, it lays very nicely on the fret board.

  344. musictheory 2012-10-13 13:27:51 [deleted]
    Wow, you really, really need to take your own advice. I wouldn't enjoy reading this, and it doesn't look professional. In fact, this looks like a rough draft. Review the notation for artificial harmonics, and don't clutter your score with unnecessary courtesy accidentals (especially cross-part ones - those are absolutely superfluous). Don't write minor seconds as augmented unisons, and don't change clefs every 2 eighth notes like you did at 312. At first, I wanted to ask, how did you get into a graduate program without knowing how to write string harmonics and L.H. pizz? But after looking through the whole score, I feel compelled to ask how you got into a graduate program at all with such a lack of basic notational skills. If someone had to edit your score to get it to this level, I think you should stop wasting people's time. Edit: You ***paid*** someone for this?!

  345. musictheory 2012-10-14 03:21:20 [deleted]
    > instruments have a slightly detuned harmonic series Are you talking about using harmonics, such as lightly touching a string to make it resonate an octave higher than its length/tension would suggest? Or are you talking about the multiple pitches inherent in natural complex tones?

  346. musictheory 2012-10-14 03:58:35 ThomyJ
    For the parts that fiddles play: become comfortable with your double stops (a lot of parts are either a rhythmic/chord thing playing lots of beat two and four, or playing a melody on one string while droning a second one). As for songs; there a lot of three chords songs (I, IV and V) in the key of G in bluegrass. You should start there. You should also learn some G licks; just type g licks into youtube and you'll have dozens of bluegrass guitar licks that you may be able to transfer to the violin. The best way of course is to listen to a lot of bluegrass with fiddle players and figure out what they do. Remember that there are different functions of the fiddle: it may be part of the rhythm section (playing the backbeat, or two and four like the mandolin often does), playing a lead part (lots of double stop melody/droning), or playing a a solo part (playing one note at a time, eighth note melodies that outline the chords, often improvised).

  347. musictheory 2012-10-14 08:08:44 [deleted]
    Surely! >Although inharmonicity is bigger at the moment of strike, it's not completely gone when the material starts to vibrate. The link you gave me describes the inharmonicities of a piano string, which is still excited via a strike (not a sustain), and so yes, it will have inharmonicities even after the initial excitation. If, however, you were to take that exact same string and run a bow along it, it **will** have perfectly harmonic overtones. The exact loudness of those overtones will be determined by how close the string's normal overtones are to the harmonic series. Still, the actual overtones that are sounded will all be perfectly harmonic. >The harmonic content of vibraphone doesn't change fundamentally if you bow it I believe this is incorrect. If you bow a vibraphone key, it *will* have perfectly harmonic overtones, though they will not be efficiently excited (that is, be very loud) because the natural overtones of the bar will not be close to harmonics. >Getting that out of the way, that's why I said an augmented chord could sound consonant even on an equally-tempered instrument, if the material would have detuned the harmonic series in just the right way. This is an extremely true statement! I'm very impressed you came up with it yourself, as this method of creating consonance at specific intervals by adjusting the overtone structure to reduce beating has been described in great detail only recently. Check out [this link](http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/consemi.html) In it he describes just as you describe: adjusting the pitches of overtones to make chords that are normally dissonant very consonant. Check out this song he wrote in 12 tone equal temperament of 2.1 (that means that you stretch the entire scale so that the "octave" is at 1284 cents!). First here it is using regular, harmonic timbres: http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/mp3s/simptun2.mp3 ^Yuck! Now here it is using timbres with modified overtone structures: http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/mp3s/simptun3.mp3 The timbre are weird and bell-like, but it is much more consonant!

  348. musictheory 2012-10-14 16:08:13 Plokhi
    >it will have inharmonicities even after the initial excitation. If, however, you were to take that exact same string and run a bow along it, it will have perfectly harmonic overtones. The exact loudness of those overtones will be determined by how close the string's normal overtones are to the harmonic series. Still, the actual overtones that are sounded will all be perfectly harmonic. Ah, that actually makes perfect sense! I will look into it though because I haven't looked much at the exciter part of the sound production. Thank you for pointing it out! >I believe this is incorrect. If you bow a vibraphone key, it will have perfectly harmonic overtones, though they will not be efficiently excited (that is, be very loud) because the natural overtones of the bar will not be close to harmonics. And thanks for pointing this out! That would then explain why vibes if bowed has such a pure tone - none of the overtones are actually close enough to the mathematical harmonic series to be excited loud enough, right? >This is an extremely true statement! I'm very impressed you came up with it yourself, as this method of creating consonance at specific intervals by adjusting the overtone structure to reduce beating has been described in great detail only recently. Thanks! I've been working on a project that involves traditionally struck piano harmonics (and analysis of these), and have come across that problem so I started analysing the timbre of different pianos and harmonic series across the keyboard. I then proceeded to make such measurements on other struck/plucked instruments, like vibes and marimba, and found out that not only that harmonic series isn't always "detuned" by a fixed ratio, but that vibes has a series that goes against harmonic series altogether. Was mesmerised because I was always taught that the timbre is defined by the amount of overtones (which are whole-multiples of fundamental). They often even forgot to mention their development over time. I have since dabbled in Max/MSP to construct various additive synthesiser with "ratio" de-tuner and microtonal intervals to explore that phenomena. I wish I had more knowledge of physics and mathematics though, sometimes I struggle. edit: Also, I'm already reading that link from Sethares, thank you very much for it!

  349. musictheory 2012-10-15 04:44:31 SerendiPetey
    The "sul G" indication is present for the top note of the triple stop only. Clearly the lower two pitches are open strings. Now, considering the rounded bridge, the ONLY way to perform this chord is to play the highest note on the G-string, otherwise the chord would have to be broken (with the highest note sounding on the A-string), or the G-string would have to be damped with the left hand, still requiring a broken approach to the chord. I'm sure most Violists would recognize this without the "sul G" indication, but I put it there to be certain. Regarding this score, keep in mind two other things: 1. OP erroneously posted the non-final version 2. This is a reference score only. It is not meant to performed from; there are parts.

  350. musictheory 2012-10-15 06:18:13 [deleted]
    > otherwise the chord would have to be broken (with the highest note sounding on the A-string) So... the Ab played on the A string? You definitely thought this through. The D and Ab stopped on G and D wouldn't need to be broken at *fortissimo*. At any rate, I think you've identified the biggest problem with this score. It's full of superfluous shit and cluttered as hell. I really can't believe you'd make someone pay for this.

  351. musictheory 2012-10-15 07:58:00 SerendiPetey
    Clearly the A♭ cannot be played on the A-string. In that regard I misspoke. As to the broken chord, I'm aware that at *fortissimo* this isn't an issue, but I was referring to non-adjacent strings. Again, being the A♭ must be taken on either the D or G string, that's not a concern either. The point of indicating "sul G" on that triple-stop is to use the open D-string and a stopped G-String. Otherwise, the player might stop both strings, playing the D on the G-String, and the A♭ on the D-string. This, to my understanding, was not the composers intent.

  352. musictheory 2012-10-15 20:42:21 chefericmusic
    The nomenclature will come back to trick you. When you lift your finger off of the Octave C and play a B note on top of your C chord C E G B = C maj7 the natural I chord of C major. See what happens when you play a Bb note instead, C E Bb C E = C7 ( just put finger 4 on the third fret of the G string on the Bb note). When we add tonal embellishment, we can add the note name to the chord C chord with a D note = C add 9, So there are basically 1 3 5 7 then what was 2 4 6 8 when you go up an octave becomes 9 (2) 11(4) 13 (6) then if you have a non diatonic tone it becomes a bit more difficult to analyze. If you have no melody, there isn't so much to talk about -or another way to say it is, the note choices frm the background will start to limit or color the melodic choices. Where as if you work from the melody first -those old boring chords with a little bit of rhythm and syncopation might sound fine. Stand by me = G Em C D repeat.

  353. musictheory 2012-10-16 08:16:00 theOnliest
    This story is apocryphal, and not actually correct at all. If you try this, you'll find that it doesn't work. This story was repeated for more than a millenium before someone (Vincenzo Galilei, father of the famous astronomer) decided to actually try it out. The reason is that string tension is not linear (I forget exactly what it is and don't have the book handy, but I wanna say it's logarithmic). If you hang a 2-pound weight on a string, it will *not* be twice as taut as it would be if a 1-pound weight were hanging from the same string. This story also gets told with Pythagoras walking by a blacksmith's shop, and realizing that the hammers sound a perfect fifth (or something), and then Pythagoras weighs them and discovers these ratios. In case you hear that version...it's wrong too (for similar reasons). Even if it were true, Pythagoras wouldn't have described the major third (5:4). The numbers 1-4 were really important to Pythagoreans for a lot of reasons (Aristides Quinitilianus has a really nice description of why, and a bunch of different tetraktue), and so having the number 5 in his intervals wouldn't jive with that. Nobody talks about the major third until more than 1000 years later (again, don't have the book on me, but I want to say it's not until Humanism comes along in the early Renaissance). There's a lot of Greek theory, and not any of them talk about thirds: they weren't foundational to the Greek musical system as they are in ours (fourths were, however). What the ratios **do** describe are string lengths. If you have a length of string and divide it into to two equal parts, the longer one is going to be an octave lower than the shorter one. Likewise with the fifth (3:2) and fourth (4:3). Anyway, this has been a (helpful, I hope) brief from the exciting world of History of Theory!

  354. musictheory 2012-10-16 13:24:02 darknessvisible
    It might be worth examining the scores of some of the notorious virtuoso piano works that were consciously composed with the intention of testing the boundaries of the possible at that time e.g.: Liszt - Transcendental Etudes Balakirev - Islamey Ravel - Gaspard de la Nuit (particularly Scarbo) Nowadays pianists have to not only be able to cope with pretty much anything technically, but they also have to look damn hot while doing it (Yuja Wang, Valentina Lisitsa etc.). However, as m3g0wnz points out, pianists will take a dim view of music that is difficult to perform because it is unidiomatic - this instantly indicates to them that the composer has not done the required homework to understand how to write for their instrument so they will be thinking why should they bother to go to the trouble of learning something difficult that's not worthy of their time and effort - same goes for music that is simply showy without having any type of musical value. I was once at a string quartet workshop with the Arditti String Quartet who were given a silly obfuscatory piece by a talentless French composer to play. In an uncharacteristically diplomatic statement, Irvine Arditti said that the piece was too difficult for them to play. That is clearly absurd - they have premiered all of the Ferneyhough quartets. What he meant was that there was not sufficient value in the composition for it to be worth their investing their time and expertise into giving a performance.

  355. musictheory 2012-10-16 22:28:38 Yeargdribble
    I'd say keep things to the octave unless you have a very good reason to write a 10th or don't mind the spot being rolled. Please don't write a 10th in a spot that's difficult to roll. While a 10th isn't an uncommon reach, you're still excluding a fairly large number of pianists (myself included with only a 9th). Also, be aware of certain speed limitations. I you're writing repeated notes where one hand has to play more than one note repeated, just be aware that it is very taxing, difficult, and not many people will be able to play it. The Erlking is annoying. It's playable, but don't do that and certainly don't expect it to be played very very quickly. Another one is parallel 3rds and 6ths. 3rds are more reasonable, but still have limitations. 6ths (often seen in string reductions) are difficult to pull off quickly and almost certainly not smoothly. Of course it goes without saying that running parallel triads are probably a bad idea. Also, general comp/arranging advice, write conservatively. You might not always know who you're writing for so write for everyone within reason. When you know the person you're writing for, push the limits and keep a dialogue with them about it. As a trumpet player, playing for scoring classes was annoying. Yes trumpet can hit whatever that high note is you're writing... sure a good one can play it quietly... no it's not a good idea to have them hold it, quietly, and in tune for 4 bars. No it's not a good idea to have them repeat that note as some sort of descant continuo for the entire piece. If something looks difficult or if it looks sustainedly difficult, consult someone. You can always post here or to the various instrumental subreddits (or send me a private message. I'm a brass/piano guy and my wife is a woodwinds specialist and we have lots of string friends we can consult at a moment's notice). Oh, and if you do decide to write two notes for one finger (or thumb), be nice and bracket it so I don't have to. (A chord like C D G C). Likewise for writing something at the top of the bass clef you intend to be played with an included group of notes in the right hand. A bracket makes life easier. It's just an editorial thing, but musicians really appreciate an arranger/composer who is knowledgeable enough to throw certain courtesy stuff at them. For strings this virtually never includes bowing. For brass players with mutes, a nice warning that a muted part is coming up saves us from having to write it in (and make sure there is enough time for the change).

  356. musictheory 2012-10-17 04:34:13 Bromskloss
    The _string tension_ is the force with which the weights are pulling the string, so twice the weight means twice the tension. The _frequency_ with which the string naturally vibrates is proportional to the square root of the string tension, so there comes the nonlinearity. Perhaps this is exactly what you mean. I just figured someone might need it phrased differently.

  357. musictheory 2012-10-17 09:00:59 Yeargdribble
    Well that's why 10ths in certain types of passages are something I won't write and discourage people from using. Sure, if it's a big chord you're landing on on a strong beat, that's one thing, but if you're expected to a lot of movement around it, it's just not going to happen for someone like me with a 9th. I also agree with that 3rds are okay, but just that tempo has to be taken into consideration. Most people can play a single scalar line much faster than that same line in 3rds (assuming they are doing the 3rds with a single hand). I guess I've run into situations where this has not been considered... once again, string reduction are terrible for this.

  358. musictheory 2012-10-18 08:52:38 chefericmusic
    Emaj7 , then it's sort of an E maj7 with the 7 in the bass or Emaj7/D# it's a little hard to pin down because you're picking the nots not playing the chords so you might continue descending by playing D note then C# note with the same figure over the top. Or it could go to B7 directly or throught another chord such as A major. You will rarely see the note at the 8th fret of the G string ( D# ) in the Key of G major ( it happens but only when we go to E harmonic minor from there or G augmented,maybe a couple other examples -but usually not in a diddle

  359. musictheory 2012-10-25 20:18:41 m3g0wnz
    Yeah, it's not about equal-temperament actually, but it goes all the way back to using string length ratios. The ratio for a major 3rd is 81:64, and for a minor 3rd it was 32:37. Back then people preferred the intervals that were closer to the 2:1 ratio, so since 81:64 is closer to 2:1 than 32:37, it was preferred. So you were kind of right—it does have to do with intonation. Later on it also becomes so solidified in church music practice that for Bach in the late Baroque, it was just a concern with not ending church music with a minor sonority.

  360. musictheory 2012-10-26 08:40:07 tomthirtysecondnotes
    If you want a consonant sound, you should resolve phrases to the chord tones: D, F, A, (C). Of course this is assuming the key is D, not A minor. What are the changes? The main dissonance in the dorian mode is the tritone between F and Bnatural. This is why landing on the B has a harsh sound. But, if you use the B as a passing tone primarily, you can still conjure up a Dorian sound with limited dissonance. In jazz in general and especially over a chart like Minnie the Moocher, you want to string together 8th note phrases to construct the solo. So, for example, if you play a line of 8th notes like - D, E, F, G, A, B, D, C, B, A, F, A, G, F (ascending to D, then descending), you will get a pretty good sound. This like sticks to scalular patterns without too many jumps and only uses to B as a passing tone and not on accented beats (two and four of each measure).

  361. musictheory 2012-10-28 15:55:00 adamup27
    Honestly, music theory isn't important. It is an answer for musicians who want to know why it works as opposed to how it works. You can play guitar without knowing why and what makes a chord. You can just know first string, fifth fret and second string, seventh fret. But by learning theory you can understand that in ever basic maj/min chord. The 1 and 5 of the chord a prominent so when put together they create a pleasing open chord (open meaning could attribute to being major or minor, not like a G maj). All in all, theory is for the people who are very technical in how they think.

  362. musictheory 2012-10-29 05:26:17 mastablaze
    I mean Pythagoras developed early string ratios, The octave, P5 Etc, so if you are using those as a fundamental for your scale system, it is hard to not derive a western sounding scale.

  363. musictheory 2012-10-30 21:31:55 riffmasterflash
    Definitely. I'm starting to see piano as the clear choice. I haven't always wanted to play cello, but ever since starting to really study music, I've fallen in love with the sound of a string quartet, from Shostakovich to Beethoven. It just looks like the instrument is so beautiful and fun to play. Not to say that piano is not, though, just has tickled my fancy.

  364. musictheory 2012-10-31 10:31:16 RockstaRoman
    I also study guitar and am currently in my 2nd year of university, slowly I have been learning the Piano and hopefully soon the saxophone. I suggest going for piano and a cello is still string based and you will be able to pick it up fairly quickly. I suggest piano because it may be out of your comfort zone which always helps strike a challenge.

  365. musictheory 2012-10-31 22:25:02 apzimmerman
    I wouldn't aspire to answer such a complicated question but I will make 2 quick points. There is a mathematical basis for things that "sound good together". The most consonant interval, the octave, is created by doubling or halving the frequency of a pitch. If a string is vibrating at 400 times per second, and then another string is vibrating at 800, they will form an octave. The second most consonant interval is the fifth, with a ratio of frequency at 2:3, the third most consonant is the fourth at 3:4. These three intervals form the basis of most music, especially pop music. The origins of western music are in this mathematics, the rules of renaissance and baroque counterpoint are based on dissonance and consonance. Second, what sounds good to us today probably wouldn't have sounded good to people 100 years ago. It is people stepping outside of the realm of what has been done before, outside of what "sounds good" that creates new and interesting music.

  366. musictheory 2012-10-31 23:03:48 bennwalton
    I don't disagree with that! Although to write orchestrally is pretty tough, but a string quartet or something? Perfectly feasible!

  367. musictheory 2012-11-02 18:39:14 theamazingtoad
    Honestly, writing wasn't doing shit but prolonging the learning process and really does not help in adding the tonal patterns to "muscle memory" so to speak. You need to master tonal gravity. What kind of instrument do you compose on? Piano? I mean honestly I find whistling the correct pitch of each note, makes it much easier to commit the tones to memory. I have played music for 27 years, starting on and still playing the piano, then focusing on orchestral trumpet for 5 years, and the past 24 as a guitarist, mandolinist, really mastering string theory, and the multitude of fingering styles, scales, modes and tunings. I have found the guitar the best instrument to use for me. I started out simple. I would commit to memory one key at a time as it allowed me to break down all the notes in a fashion/pattern that related well to me, and I would write hooks that used the notes in the key so I could easily pick and identify the tones and the keys associated to them. I did this in every key using all 7 modes, in their natural order from ionian to to locrian. I used to hum, or try to memorize the notes played and an exceptional bass player and friend clued me into whistling the notes.

  368. musictheory 2012-11-03 08:00:55 blueleo
    Well, string instruments vs. keyboard instruments do develop different sides of the brain. You have to wonder about somebody like McCartney that plays both fairly well. Just searched, the title is How Smart Can we Get, and is apparently available to view online.

  369. musictheory 2012-11-03 23:29:02 [deleted]
    Hearing tonal progressions is not very hard once you have mastered them, perfect pitch or not - and most of my fellow ear training students, when identifying heavily altered/extended 9th and + chords, had a lot of trouble. Instead of quasi-instantly recognizing the sonority of the chord, they needed time to process each individual note, and then deduce the chord quality afterwards - a vastly inefficient way of proceeding. For them, perfect pitch was like being able to detect every brushstrike in a painting instinctively, without being able to look at the "big picture". Their aural perception was so intensely focused in on the note names that the actual global sonority of each harmony, the direction of the harmonic progression seemed not to have been percieved very well. Of course, that may very well vary for those who have perfect pitch. The definition of perfect pitch itself is also a very touchy subject. Because I am a string player, I've essentially memorized most of the pitches playable on the instrument, thanks to intense exposure. A440, the note we tune to, is a note I have completely internalized and can recognize anywhere, simply by having been exposed to it. From there, I can deduce other sonorities. And, as a composer, I am developing the ability to hear and memorize the tone of pitches on various instruments - especially given that, in contemporary music, tonality and chord progressions are decidedly not widely used. So... in the end I do not think the term "Perfect Pitch" is an effective. Rather, the terms I like to use are **relative pitch** and **absolute pitch**. Relative pitch is trained by every musician to some extent - identifying intervalse, recognizing rhythms, patterns, etc. Absolute pitch can also be trained, although it practically never is. Some people are born with an innate capacity to identify absolute pitches, while some people (taking myself as an example) were born without any conception of absolute pitch, but an innate ability to reason using relative pitch (when I started reading music, I could hear "how a piece was going to sound" abnormally easily). Now, why would I want to train absolute pitch? As composers, we all need to develop the ability to write in complete silence. The piano is a nice tool, but we need to know which sonorities we want, and be able to hear it internally before ever needing to clear up a few things using an instrument. This goes triple for atonal music. That having been said, absolute pitch is always dependent on the culture to which it is attached. Baroque tuning and transposing instruments seem to make a lot of my colleagues with innate absolute pitch cringe, as well as intonation other than equal temperament. Playing a Bach excerpt in lower tuning, and with pure 3rds and other inflected intervls sounds very nice, but it seems to destroy absolute pitche's use, because we develop absolute pitch using our 12TET system almost exclusively. This raises the point that you can't rely on innate absolute pitch to giude you through a musical journey. Relative pitch needs to be trained, and perception of larger pitch-relationships and "the bigger pitcure" needs to be learnt. The problem was, in my colleague's case (in my opinion), that they thought their "perfect pitch" was sufficient to understand music. It wasn't.

  370. musictheory 2012-11-04 02:23:30 beyondtheportal6
    G# and Ab are enharmonic equivalents. However, they are not necessarily tuned equally. For example, string players will play sharps a few cents sharper than flats because of their nature as tendency tones. Sharps want to resolve up and flats want to resolve down.

  371. musictheory 2012-11-04 10:26:33 jimmythe2piece
    We need to approach this from the opposite angle as well. PP can be a serious disadvantage to many musicians. As mentioned in the OP, PP often gives the individual the ability to perceive things from its basic components, then from that, construct (if they have been taught how) the larger picture. Coming from the other direction, we have relative pitch. This is the skill possessed by the majority of high level professional chamber and orchestral musicians. What this means is they perceive the large picture and then from that, can break it down to its small components. Although PP is a fantastic tool to have, in many cases it can become quite a hindrance. For the sake of explanation and to keep some level of consistency with the OP, lets talk about an individual with PP having links between individual notes and various memories, thoughts stories, colours and feelings. The issue is, that most often the B or C or G# or any other note will be the same B or C or G# or any other note no mater the context. By context, I mean harmony, timbre or any other extra musical factor that is in play constantly during the musical process. Musical pitches are not consistent. A '***b***' in a G major chord is not the same note as a '***b***' in a E major chord, and those ***b's*** are different notes from the ***b*** that is the 7th in a C# dom7 chord. They are different notes all together. For someone with PP, this is often very hard to cope with. PP is more often than not centred around equal temperament. This is why the afore mentioned problem arrises, as ET assumes that all notes are always the same and always equal. They are not. Equal temperament gives rise to another issue. It is also about context, once again. On a piano, G# and Ab are the same note. In the real world, they could not be more different. To a person with PP, these notes will usually be the same thing. These are just two of many reasons that musicians with PP are so often frustrated when they play in orchestra, string quartets, wind quintets or any other ensemble that does not use equal temperament. Not even Piano Trios play in ET. The OP is right, students with PP do need to be taught in a much different way from students with relative pitch. It is all to common to see very talented string students with PP enter their 1st year of conservatorium music education at the top of of their class, and by the end of the 2nd year, they have been surpassed by the mass of students who do not. Quite often, it is just little things. Like not being able to understand that Bb and A# are different notes, or that an E is not always an E. This wall they hit can be very damaging to their technical, musical and cognitive development as musicians. I was lucky enough to have an aural studies teacher who understood this. Our 1st year was dedicated to destroying perfect pitch (which somehow, he managed to do to everyone), then rebuilding with a string sense of harmony and context. Without this help, many students with PP simply cannot function in the professional musical world. Sorry for any silly grammar and spelling mistakes. Writing very quickly before dashing out the door to rehearsals.

  372. musictheory 2012-11-05 04:03:24 lucw
    Some string players do play Ab and G# differently, but on any other instrument Ab and G# are identicle. In the context of other notes, such as in the key of Ab and G#, those notes may be more commonly related to certain moods, but to say those two individual notes "sound" different is incorrect.

  373. musictheory 2012-11-05 09:22:19 hurricane658
    Knew this was Two Steps From Hell without even following the link. This style of movie music is probably the most frequently used today (see Hans Zimmer). I've done a little independent experimentation to figure out how this works. Basically it's your typical pop music setup, set in a minor mode without the leading tone. The i-VI (or vi-IV in major) progression is very uplifting, and it is a staple of the four chord song. The melody is simple with a common motive, and the progressions are advanced by adding the leading tone to create the major V in minor. It's orchestrated heavily with horns, high strings, and choir to invoke a dramatic setting, almost like frightening church music. The increase in intensity is achieved by adding percussion, adding flowing string lines, and getting progressively higher. TL;DR it's a combination of simple progressions highlighting the i-VI in minor and dramatic choir/brass-centric orchestration.

  374. musictheory 2012-11-05 20:14:22 noahsyc1
    Show them how to play arpeggios with the open 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th strings using different picking patterns. This is an e minor chord in its simplest form. The first chord you learn can consist purely of open strings. Add some musicality by introducing a second chord shape in the left hand, G Major or C Major using the exact same picking pattern in the right hand for all changes. Get them to think (or verbally communicate) the name of every note they play. Make sure they know that every time they pluck a string it's a note with a specific name. Soon they'll recognize that whenever they play that e minor chord chord they'll be playing either an e, g or b note, the same goes for when they change chords. Guitar teacher here:-)

  375. musictheory 2012-11-05 21:59:21 Sugarlips_Habasi
    Since I tune my guitar to the A string, it only took me a couple years to develop relative pitch since I've specifically listened to that pitch over and over every time I pick my guitar up.

  376. musictheory 2012-11-05 23:45:33 tejaswidp
    Do you mean you memorized the frequency of the A string? Is this different from having perfect pitch?

  377. musictheory 2012-11-06 00:48:21 Sugarlips_Habasi
    Basically. I can just think of how my A string should sound and it's usually spot on. Relative pitch means that since I know that 'A sounds like this, C should sound a minor third higher.' I cannot deny that perfect pitch could be innate for few people, but I do believe that it's possible for perfect pitch to be obtained in cases like pianists starting at a very early age. I don't know; I haven't looked into it-just a speculation. But yeah after hearing a certain frequency and tuning other strings to that frequency for like 20-30 seconds every day, it gets ingrained into memory.

  378. musictheory 2012-11-06 01:12:36 mikeoquinn
    I've received this request several times. The first time I tried, it was a miserable failure - I tried to teach like I learned, which was not as effective as I'd hoped. **Me:** Hi. Put your guitar away for now - let's cover some basic theory that you'll want so that I don't sound like I'm speaking a foreign language. **Him:** So when do I start learning chords. **Me:** When you can chart them on your own. Here's a composition notebook to keep notes and charts in. So we'll start by defining the note names and intervals... Needless to say, this didn't work out well. Sadly, since I had taught myself entirely using this method (I learned music theory passively from my musical family, so when I decided to learn to play guitar, I read just enough chord charts on songs to know how they were drawn, then bought a composition notebook and started charting chord patterns for any key/chord I could think of, then went home and practiced those), I didn't know another way to teach it. I didn't know how to explain _WHY_ a Cmaj chord sounded best if you omit the low E string, sounded _okay_ if you fretted the G on it, but didn't really sound 'resolved' if you played the open E without being able to explain inversions, and therefore intervals and the like. Later, someone asked me to teach them specifically because of this, and I filled half of a blank composition notebook with my thoughts and ramblings on the math of music as pertained to mandolin (her chosen instrument), and discovered that there was a TON that I thought was really critical to understanding an instrument before you ever hold it that most folks who play come by naturally as a result of playing by rote. I don't know if any of this actually helps. What I eventually found was that I had to find out where the student came from and what they were expecting to get out of it, and tailor the material to their needs. For someone who comes in just wanting to be able to play along with Hotel California, bar (barre?) chords and strumming patterns. For someone who doesn't know what style they want to play, or even if guitar is 'their instrument', I go into a bit more instrument-agnostic theory. www.garagebandtheory.com is also a great reference. No, I didn't write it, and the author wouldn't know me from Adam, but I point a lot of folks to his work, since it conveys a LOT of theory and understanding in layman's terms.

  379. musictheory 2012-11-06 07:54:00 reddell
    So you can't identify when a scale repeats just by hearing the notes? So if i payed a low c you wouldn't be able to pick out a higher c from a string of notes?

  380. musictheory 2012-11-07 15:44:18 Steviebee123
    Are you talking about guitar lines? One tip I would suggest is to think about inversions, which guitarists sometimes tend to ignore. To take a simple example, say you had a C followed by a G - most guitarists would instinctively play both as open chords with the roots as the lowest note of each chord. You could make it more interesting by inverting the G so that the lowest note is the B on the fifth string (the third of the G), which gives you a chromatic movement between the roots of the two chords. You can invert chords so that any note of the chord is the bass note. You play G7, for example, as G/B, G/D, G/F (the note after the slash is the bass note), and make a simple progression something a lot more interesting. One of the best purveyors of slash chords is Brian Wilson, and the album Pet Sounds is a masterclass. Radiohead do it well too - for instance, on Karma Police. Other ideas: * Try every tonic major chord as a maj7, a 6, a 6/9 or a maj9 (let your ear guide you to see what fits). * Make every minor chord a min7, a min9th, or a min6. * Try playing major IV as a minor, or going from major to minor as part of the progression. * And try every V chord as a 7, 9 or 13. If you want to get more advanced, make it a 13b9, or a aug7. Just throwing in one of these can add a whole lot of character. For instance, I was playing *Easy* by the Commodores earlier, which is a very simple chord progression made a whole lot more interesting by a little bit of colour. It is based on Ab-Cm-Bbm-Eb, but is played as Abm-Cm7-Bbm-Eb9, and that little bit of colour makes the progression instantly recognisable.

  381. musictheory 2012-11-14 05:35:41 ralphstrickerchapman
    Villa-Lobos doesn't really get enough attention. His string quartets (17 of them) are among the best of the 20th century, and they are worthy of comparison with Debussy, Schoenberg and Bartok. Britten's novel and stylistically complex approach to opera is still being reckoned with, and his chamber music is awesome--lots of fun to sight-read. Samuel Barber is one of my favorite 20th-century American composers, and people unfairly pidgeonhole him as an archconservative.

  382. musictheory 2012-11-16 01:20:37 Scoring
    Ah, C-Wahine tuning. Love that tuning. Nice and open but that dropped string makes certain non-major chords so much easier than open G. Anyway, you can use this link: http://www.jamplay.com/tools/guitar-chords/8-c-wahine Just click the name of the chord you want, and it will take you to a page where you then click the quality of the chord. It will then show you every voicing of the chord in that tuning. Since you can't always have that chart around though, its always best to find some basic chord shapes that are movable (barre chords and the such) and learn enough chord theory to modify those standard chords when you need something different. It just makes everything so much easier to learn 5 shapes and 5 or 6 alterations instead of having to learn hundreds of chords.

  383. musictheory 2012-11-16 11:39:25 [deleted]
    Find a program with a string music industries studies program. One where you can chose between studying recording, management, etc. I know there are a few places out there with this degree but I don't think that UIUC is one of them. I know Appalachian State University in North Carolina has a highly rated and diverse industries degree. This is really the path it sounds like you are wanting to go down.

  384. musictheory 2012-11-18 23:42:51 gandalfbeatsvader
    CCM is pretty amazing, the musical theatre department is like a direct ticket to broadway and every other department has some extremely talented people involved. Downside is its enormous. I didn't see CIM on here and Im a little shocked...lately pretty much every string quartet has spent some time either there or at NEC

  385. musictheory 2012-11-19 00:14:05 hornwalker
    No one seems to be giving their personal experiences, so I'll throw mine out there. The University of Minnesota-Twin Cities has an *excellent* program. Great teachers and you will be studying with members of the Minnesota Orchestra(IMHO one of top 3 American orchestras). The school doesn't attract the greatest musicians in the country because its not a conservatory, and also because of that you will find that you are taking other classes as well-some interesting, some not so much. But I do believe its healthy for musicians to be well-rounded and the school shares that belief, hence the lib arts degree. The New England Conservatory is one of the best in the country, up their among the top conservatories in the US. Especially strong string department. BSO is right next door, as well as competing music programs(Berkeley, Boston Conservatory, BU, etc.). NEC is the top for classical music though in the area. Cons- for both, make sure you either have a really good scholarship or you are getting a minor in something that will be more lucrative than a career in music.

  386. musictheory 2012-11-20 05:18:30 Bitterfish
    Same three chords are used over the [end solo of Starship Trooper by Yes](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DKftiJS30Cs#t=340s). (Actually this song uses G Eb and C, but the idea is the same). The relationship between these three chords is simple - they are three major triads with a common tone. In your case it's C -- it's the root of a C chord, the third of an Ab chord, and the fifth of F. Using only major triads, these are the only only three chords that share that note (the chords used in that Yes song are the three chords that share G). (if you play any guitar -- the chord voicings in the end of Starship Trooper *depend* on this common tone - the g string is played open throughout the progression, which gives the chords a really beautiful resonant quality to them) In some sense, this is the most important feature of those chords - its a very simple unifying property. You can provide a roman numeral analysis, as well, but this common tone feature won't necessarily be obvious. I think the chords F Ab C would be *most* at home as IV bVI and I in C (because of the common tone property -- the note C is constant), but you could definitely contextualize them as being in F (the note C is propably the second most important note in an F scale, being the fifth) as well, as I bIII and V. In both cases you are borrowing chords from the parallel minor. There may be other ways to use those chords, as well, but I agree that C and F are the most obvious contexts (and I haven't even thought about other modes, yet, but it sounds like you have). There are tons of ways to extend this progression, but here's one that's intellectually satisfying (but may require some work to find something that sounds good): try using other chords that continue to share the C common tone. Like, a Bb chord with the C as a ninth. A D chord with it as a seventh. Minor chords, half-diminished chords, go nuts!

  387. musictheory 2012-11-20 05:43:11 Epistimi
    Haha, this is brilliant. I will do some experimentation, see what I can come up with (and check out the open G string, I should be able to get my head around that, even though I am a pianist first). Thanks a lot!

  388. musictheory 2012-11-21 13:08:58 bennwalton
    Minor 7th chords definitely help, I would look into using rhythm to achieve what you're looking for. Rhythm can help make music not only upbeat, but maybe angry, scared, & other emotions that aren't "sad". The shape of your melody can also impact the way a piece can sound; a soaring melody with a lot of powerful intervals can make a melody sound triumphant, while smaller intervals can sound weepy (a descending chromatic line is what I'm thinking of). *Just as a slight digression:* That being said, using the pentatonic minor scale (or the pentatonic major) can take out a lot of the color of the scales, leaving out some of the dramatic scale degrees. You could consider these scales as well. Also, instrumentation can play a big role. A delicate violin melody over a pizz. string quartet is going to sound sad 98% of the time if it's in a minor key. However, take that melody, play it on a brass instrument, and give it a fuller orchestration (perhaps modifying the harmony)? I think then you'd figure out what you're looking for.

  389. musictheory 2012-11-23 13:15:14 nmitchell076
    Sure, I'll give you a couple spotify links for a lot of the stuff I mentioned. The difficulty with 12-tone music is that we are not used to it, so the techniques I described are sometimes very hard to hear. For example, it is easy to pick out a sequence in common practice music, but much more difficult to audibly pinpoint a RICH chain in Webern. Nevertheless, I'll throw you out some examples. First is what is probably my absolute favorite piece of atonal music: [the third of Webern's Five Pieces, Op. 5](http://open.spotify.com/track/3y3G0OzH5PgsfLzahshFxR). This shows how short free atonal pieces are, especially in Webern, who tended to write lots of short pieces. The rest of these will follow pretty much in the order in which I gave them: An early tonal piece by Schoenberg: [String Quartet in F#m Op. 10](http://open.spotify.com/track/7FFCNNkdnmvMfSqpuf39eO) An example of Ligeti's Music, [Lux Aeterna](http://open.spotify.com/track/2d25N6GvoROKmiTqErY9Tn). Yes, that is all real people singing, no electronics. Incredible, haunting, and absolutely gorgeous. You can't go wrong listening to Ligeti. An example of Spectralism: Kaija Saariaho's [Pres](http://open.spotify.com/track/2YLzwX7s05zLb9esG5lr14) An example of Alban Berg's 12-tone language, notice the frequent traditional triadic structures in this music: [Violin Concerto](http://open.spotify.com/track/2d0xfqWHtandFMPXx1kHca) Webern's [Cantata No. 1](http://open.spotify.com/track/0xylP83CVYehk5e7GS7CsL) Schoenberg using 12-tone technique to create a Sonata Form in his [String Quartet No. 4](http://open.spotify.com/track/2kXNABWArEnumwquUBDywG) its interesting to compare this with his other string quartet that I posted. Here is an Example of later serialism: Milton Babbit's [Composition for Four Instruments](http://open.spotify.com/track/3s0Q6NC8hVHIBNE12RtV0R) Here is an example of Stravinsky's use of Serialism. In his [Requiem Canticles](http://open.spotify.com/track/0l4RByuGfMY0kfcArQAeFu). Being Stravinsky, he of course uses his own HIGHLY unique 12-tone language and uses many techniques that are completely idiosyncratic. Finally, lets look at some contemporary 12-tone music. After the 70's its not as strict, and is probably closer to free Atonality, but it has some definate 12-tone characteristics: Benjamin Broening's [Third Nocturne](http://open.spotify.com/track/5YYkz2p5YMDVxkDdi3TtoW) Side note: Benjamin Broening taught a composition seminar at my university and may just be the single coolest individual I have ever come into contact with.

  390. musictheory 2012-11-27 04:48:14 disaster_face
    No, that's not what's happening. There are no frequencies present below the fundamental in most cases. Definitely in the case of a vibrating string. Even if there were, the pitch you are describing would be well below the range of human hearing. What's likely happening, is that since you are playing the first two overtones of the super-low A, you are tricking the brain into thinking that it is present. As for why this works so much better on the low notes, my only guess would be that it's because of the inharmonicity of the low notes on a piano (their overtones aren't in tune because of how thick the strings need to be).

  391. musictheory 2012-11-27 07:26:32 hornwalker
    Well in the case of a vibrating string, you are correct. But aren't there objects in the room that will sympathetically vibrate? Or do you think this is actually just the aural equivalent of an optical illusion?

  392. musictheory 2012-11-27 13:06:09 AndrewT81
    With some instruments the lower notes have fundamentals that are quieter than the overtones. That's why the lowest string on a violin sounds so different from the highest string on cello, even though the violin string is lower pitch.

  393. musictheory 2012-11-27 22:12:59 xiipaoc
    At the risk of repetition, here's a brief tutorial. Find a metronome online. Set it to 60 BPM. This means 60 beats per minute, which is one per second. This means that every second you'll hear a click. Set it to 90 BPM. Now you'll hear a click 90 times a minute, which is more clicks so it's faster. That's all it is! A beat is just a click of an imaginary metronome. If everyone in the band hears this metronome inside at the same rate, they'll play together. One of the reasons orchestras have conductors is to make sure everyone can *see* the beat; without a conductor, people just have to use their ears to figure it out. It helps when there's a drummer to give the time, because then it's easier to hear, but if the beat is *constant*, it's not hard for people to play together most of the time. Now, the black circles with stems (but without other stuff like flags, little lines hanging from the stem, or beams, lines connecting it to other notes) are called quarter notes and they are 1 beat (I'll revise this in a moment). If you see four quarter notes in a row, you play them in order, one on each beat. Practice: "cha cha cha cha", each on the beat. Half notes -- white circles with stems -- are 2 beats each, so you hold them for two beats, and on the third beat you go to the next note. Whole notes -- thick white circles with no stems -- are 4 beats each, so you hold them for four beats and on the fifth you go to the next note. (You have to wait for the 5th beat; don't cut off too early or you won't give the note its full 4 beats!) How about those flags and beams? If a note has 1 flag or beam, it's an eighth note and it lasts for half a beat. Usually, these come beamed together in pairs or fours to make it clear where the beats are. Alone, it'll have a flag; if there are two *on the same beat*, they'll be beamed together (this is a horizontal-ish line connecting notes). To practice them, say "cha-ka cha-ka cha-ka cha-ka", with the "cha" on the beat, making sure that each syllable is the same length. If a note has 2 flags or beams (even if its a partial beam), that's a sixteenth note and it lasts for a quarter of a beat. That means four in a beat. If you see four of them together -- remember, they're double-beamed -- that's pretty fast, and it's four in a beat. To practice, say "cha-ka-ta-ka cha-ka-ta-ka cha-ka-ta-ka cha-ka-ta-ka", with the "cha" on the beat. Don't rush (go too fast) or drag (go too slow), but keep the tempo constant! This is hard to do. So these are the basic notes, and they come in a variety of combinations! Of course, you don't always need to be playing. Sometimes silence is written in: rests. Those are just like notes except that you *think* them and don't play them. Look them up to figure out what they look like, since they're hard to describe, but they work just like the notes, just silently. Then there are tied notes. A tie, which is just a curve between two notes of the same pitch, means that you *combine* the notes into a larger one. So if you see a whole note tied to a quarter note, the whole note is 4 beats and the quarter note is 1 beat, so that's 5 beats. Usually you articulate each note -- you pluck a string or sing a consonant or something. You don't do this to the second note in a tie; you just pretend like it's one long note. There are also dotted notes. A dot *next to* a note means to make the note one and a half times as long. So a half note is 2 beats, and a dotted half is 3. A quarter note is 1 beat (which is 2 eighth notes); a dotted quarter is 1 and a half (which is 3 eighth notes). A dot *above* or *below* a note means something else (staccato), so don't confuse them! By now, you're wondering what those numbers at the start of a song mean and what those vertical lines mean. *If you get this, you get rhythm.* That's the *time signature*, and it tells you the *organization* of the music's rhythm. 4/4 means that there are 4 quarter notes in each *measure* (also called a *bar*). So if you see quarter note = 120 at the top of your music and the time signature says 3/4, then the music is organized into groups of 3 beats, going at 120 beats per minute, each of which is the length of a quarter note. You count it 1 2 3 1 2 3... instead of "click click click click click click..." When you're playing the music, then, you always know what beat you're on. This is very important, because it's easier to know what beat you're on than to measure note lengths. If you see a dotted half note tied to a half note followed by a quarter note, the tied notes are 5 beats long, but it's much easier to realize that it starts on beat 1 and the next note is on beat 3 of the next measure. Counting beats in a measure gives each note a sense of *place*. This is why measures are important! You'll sometimes see other time signatures with other stuff on the bottom. For example, 2/2 means 2 half notes in a measure. What's the difference between 2/2 and 4/4? Honestly, not very much. It's just how you feel it. They both have the same number of notes in each measure, but the beat is long in 2/2. This is important, because you usually make each beat stand out a bit when you play. If you play in 2/2, you do it twice a measure; if you play in 4/4, you do it four times a measure. Some composers have a preference for what you should do, so they write that in! Also, if you were to take a song in 2/2 and make all of the notes half as long and change the time signature to *2*/4, it would sound exactly the same. A very common signature which is a bit different is 6/8. You'd think this means 6 beats of eighth notes, but this usually means 2 beats of 3 eighth notes each, and they'll be beamed in threes instead of twos. The dotted quarter note gets the beat, oddly enough! Row, row, row your boat is in 6/8. This is useful for songs that get *subdivided* into triplets instead of duplets. *Don't* count it 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6... Instead, count it 1 and a 2 and a 1 and a 2 and a... MUCH easier. The time signature tells you how to *feel* the rhythm of a song. 4/4, also known as common time (so you'll sometimes just see a C instead of 4/4), is -- duh -- the most common. The first beat is strong, the third is medium, the second and fourth are weak. 2/4 is strong-weak. 3/4 varies, but usually it's strong-weak-medium or strong-weak-weak. 6/8 is just like 2/4, except that it's subdivided differently. If you see any other time signatures, try to figure it out from context, but usually, the beaming gives you a big hint! Playing in odd meters like 5/8 is a bit beyond this basic tutorial, though. So yeah, this is about all. I recommend finding a basic book on rhythm -- a snare drum method book would be useful, for example; just ignore the parts about how to hold sticks -- and practice practice practice!

  394. musictheory 2012-11-29 04:45:02 justasapling
    And obviously I know some people enjoy that sound, but I literally cannot figure out why entire songs are accompanied by it. Not only entire songs, but multiple entire genres feature a consistent and largely unchangeing, dominant bass/drum quarter note pulse. More often than not, these 'drum tracks' don't feature any emphasis on any beat. No downbeats, no backbeats, no syncopation, just literally a consistent, metronomic, never-ending 4/4 fist-pumping beat. Why not utilize four-on-the-floor for the biggest moments in a song? Why does it have to be a never-ending string of undifferentiated WUMPs? They sweep it out literally just for the builds, but why not, instead, drop the four on the floor only after the biggest builds? My leading theory is that most people are weak-minded, easy targets for rhythmic hypnotism. If not for the resultant trance-state, I don't think anyone would willingly subject themselves to it. My competing theory is that white people so thoroughly lack rhythm that any more complicated beat disables them from moving in time, while a consistent straight, unemphasized, unsyncopated beat allows them to either jump or pump, in time, without feeling out of place. EDITED FOR FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a drummer and a bassist. I cream my pants for complex, ghost-note laden, shuffley soul grooves and funky, emphatic basslines. My favorite kinds of electronic music are very heavily focused on drum samples. I stand so far to the other side of the opinion/taste spectrum that house music quite literally baffles me, like an aging fundamentalist Christian grandma trying to fathom technical death metal. It misses the point for me so thoroughly that it does not compute. Forgive my hardline perspectives, I know it's all about taste, but I really want to have this discussion with people who love electronic music AND have any kind of formal relationship with music as an art form. I happen to feel rather strongly about it.

  395. musictheory 2012-11-29 05:23:16 siouxzanne
    I'm a composer, coming from being a classical violinist and then a raver (dancing to the metronomes for 6 hours straight). When I compose, it is essentially the same process when I write a string quartet, a folkrock tune, or make dnb on a computer. I experiment, I listen to what's in my head, I transcribe what my brain hears, I edit and edit and edit. Music theory is automatic for me, when something needs a thicker voicing, I add more voices/chord tones/fuck with some 9s and 13s. There's no divide in my head.

  396. musictheory 2012-11-30 05:27:41 MrTwan
    in context it doesn't seem right to me. but I dunno. edit: In tab form - from the A string to the B string the frets are 5,4,4,3. Play it and tell me that doesn't sound major with the progression.

  397. musictheory 2012-11-30 10:41:36 _zoso_
    So for a guitarist a semitone is just a fret, and a tone is two frets. You no doubt know some scales? See if you can find the tone-tone-semitone pattern in the major scale on the guitar. That would be a good start. I'm also a guitarist, trying to learn piano now too. Guitar is a very hard instrument to translate theory onto, on the piano everything is very clearly laid out in front of you. Edit: sometimes I like to think of the guitar as six little pianos stacked up on top of each other, each offset by a fourth, and that one pesky little third (G-B strings). On a single string, theory is easy and clear. Combine six of them with a little offset between each? Forget it.

  398. musictheory 2012-12-01 22:23:59 Salemosophy
    Here's a chart. String parts don't transpose (except the Double Bass sounds an octave lower than it's written). http://www.teoria.com/articulos/transposition/01.htm For Eb instruments, I just get my note names from thinking about the bass clef (a 'C' written in the treble clef is some kind of 'E' on the staff in the bass clef), so when I'm looking at Alto Saxophone or something, that's how I remember what pitch sounds. A C# (treble clef) sounds like an Enat (bass clef), a Cnat sounds like an Eb. That's how I remember that. For F instruments like French Horn, get really comfortable with perfect fifths. Every note written is a perfect fifth above the pitch that sounds. So, just think, "this F would be the fifth of a Bb chord," or "this Enat is the dominant of Anat." Things like this help me figure it out quickly. Bb instruments like Clarinet and Trumpet just take some getting used to. They're a whole step above whatever note that sounds, except Bass Clarinet and Tenor Sax, which you also have to factor in an octave plus that whole step to figure out what note will sound. So, there you go. Any particular instruments you're having difficulty with?

  399. musictheory 2012-12-02 05:36:59 [deleted]
    I'm gonna condense a bunch of points here: 1) If you are reading scores along with the music, transposing is less important than tracing the elements (melody, rhythms, etc) through the score. 2) As a string player, here's my best explanation of transposition: at one time, horns only played in one key, due to the lack of keys or valves, and fixed physical limitations of the length of the tube. The next step was for horn players to add extra lengths of tubing during a performance to change keys. Horn players would carry around different lenghts of tube for different keys, and add them in as needed. As far as I understand, they were still playing the same as they would on the unaltered horn, but the pitches came out transposed. To make it easier for them to read, composers wrote the parts in the untransposed key, with indications to change tubes to the new key. As horns and winds developed valves and keys, it became much easier to change keys, but the original convention of transposing was kept intact. What I've never been able to figure out is why modern players just don't dump the transposition idea, as it's possible to play in all keys now, and most of them can read in C anyway. I've never got a satisfactory answer on this, so maybe some horn or wind player can chime in on this. 3) In the case of instruments like bass and guitar, octave transposition is used to keep the notes on the staff and to avoid excessive ledger lines. Same goes for clef changing instruments like viola and cello. 4) The easiest way to learn transposition is to do it old school: Take a part you want to read,and rewrite it by hand in C (transposition, not the key of C). After awhile, it becomes second nature. I'll be the first to admit that Finale has made me lazy on knowing my transpositions by heart like I used to...

  400. musictheory 2012-12-02 06:15:01 m3g0wnz
    Everyone's advice is golden. I just wanted to throw in that for common practice era scores, you can also mostly ignore transposing wind parts and pay the most attention to the string parts, which are of course in C. The winds very often are doubling the strings. Just using some common sense really expedites the score reading process.

  401. musictheory 2012-12-05 12:26:59 CoryGM
    Sounds like a string theory question to me. Hehehe, buh dum tsshh!

  402. musictheory 2012-12-05 13:35:56 nmbrowne
    No, that is precisely the answer. What you're seeing is the string vibrating, which is what produces sound.

  403. musictheory 2012-12-05 14:25:22 scoooot
    Strings wobble. That's why a violin doesn't produce a pure [sine wave](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_wave). The string vibrates at a bunch of frequencies, as you can see [here](http://hil.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/topics/SpecmurtSamples/violinC4E4-spectrum2.jpg) A string on a guitar wobbles in a different way than a string on a violin does, which is part of the reason why a guitar sounds like a guitar and a violin sounds like a violin, even if they're playing the exact same note. The rest of the reason they don't sound the same is because of the attack, sustain, and decay of the sound.

  404. musictheory 2012-12-05 14:28:58 dreamkonstantine
    It doesn't create another sound or effect. It creates the one you're hearing. It's not like the violin has a speaker through which it plays a pitch when you strike a string with a bow. The sound you're hearing is produced by the vibration you're watching.

  405. musictheory 2012-12-05 15:01:28 mercurialohearn
    presumably, you could answer the OP's question, then. the phrase "another sound or effect" implies that a primary sound is being created by something other than the vibration of the string, but every sound emitted by a violin is the product of the string's vibration. overtones and timbre are influenced by a multitude of factors, including the materials of both the violin and the bow, not to mention the player's own skill on the instrument. to elaborate on that second point, the amplitude of the wave is directly influenced by the force with which the player plays, and at greater amplitudes, certain overtones will become more apparent. how apparent, and which overtones, depend (again) on the skill of the player, and the quality of the violin. the vibration of the string itself is the sound itself, regardless of the specific qualities of the timbre. without this vibration, there is no sound at all. in other words, the answer to the OP's question is "yes," because every sound made by a violin is dependent upon the vibration of the string, unless you're simply striking the body.

  406. musictheory 2012-12-05 15:03:22 scoooot
    I don't think OP is using the word "wave" to mean "vibration". I think he is talking about the way the string is seen to be wobbling. >presumably, you could answer the OP's question, then. The only thing being presumed here, is that I haven't already. ;)

  407. musictheory 2012-12-05 17:09:38 roylennigan
    Because the [vibration of a string](http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/string/Fixed.html) creates a [transverse wave](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_wave), creating oscillations which move not only in the direction of energy transfer, but perpendicular to it as well. [This animation](http://physicsclub.net/images/wave_anim.gif) is a simplification of what it looks like. Following any point of energy along the path creates a kind of corkscrew pattern, moving in the direction of energy transfer. Like others said, all these attributes of the string waveform contribute to the character of the sound.

  408. musictheory 2012-12-05 19:03:21 patman023
    It's also a major characteristic of certain distorted guitar tones - if you play an inverted 5-1-5 Power Chord, and your tone is dialed in right (or your wah is swept perfectly), you'll often perceive the root tone below the lowest fingered note as if it were being played on a lower string. Saves lots of money on buying a 7-string, that's for sure ;-)

  409. musictheory 2012-12-05 22:21:13 QAOP_Space
    Because it is vibrating with a combination of fundamental frequency and one or more harmonics. If it were vibrating with only the pure fundamental frequency, it would be shaped like a perfect sine wave. The perception of a point moving up and down the string is called a 'Helmholtz corner'. [More info](http://plus.maths.org/content/why-violin-so-hard-play)

  410. musictheory 2012-12-05 23:45:39 rAxxt
    There is a way to quantify this kind of behavior (I am repeating your explanation, scooot, which some more mathematical detail). Any kind of wave can be described by a (large) set of single-frequency sine waves -- this is called Fourier expansion. If you recall that a single frequency sine wave is a pure tone, then you realize that mathematically, even the most complicated violin string wave (like the ones in the video) can be understood as a collection of pure tones. Some of these sine waves will be LOUD while others will be quiet. The dominant sine wave is that of the actual *note* the violin player is playing. The less dominant sine waves contribute to the character (timbre?) of the sound. This explanation is a little abstract, but it is truly how the phenomenon works. I can explain further if anyone is interested.

  411. musictheory 2012-12-06 00:54:58 heshl
    Yeah, a bow changes the waveform because it "resets" the wave, sort of like hardsync on a synth(but that's more like the scratching ghat not enough/too much pressure creates). Also, the different bridges change the dampening as well as the sympathetic resonance of the smaller string. And the different shapes of the body mean different resonant modes change the timbre the most. Envelopes really can't encompass the large number of variables that acoustic instruments have.

  412. musictheory 2012-12-06 00:58:42 mercurialohearn
    as it is with any acoustic stringed instrument. that doesn't change the fact that the vibration of the string causes the body to resonate.

  413. musictheory 2012-12-06 01:02:29 [deleted]
    He's talking about the mini propagation up and down the string, not the side to side wobble

  414. musictheory 2012-12-06 01:06:12 heshl
    But if you're talking about the vibration of the string, that's not what makes the sound

  415. musictheory 2012-12-06 01:15:54 mercurialohearn
    when i rap my knuckles on my desk, the resulting noise is not the sound of my knuckles, which don't make any sound by themselves. likewise, the desk doesn't produce any sound at all. it is my knuckles, striking the desk, which produces the sound, just as it is the vibration of the string, resonating through the body of the violin, that produces the sound. the string produces the sound. that's its entire reason for being. however, this is irrelevant. another redditor, more astute than i, has helpfully provided a link to the following article, which makes the OP's question clearer and provides a solid answer: http://plus.maths.org/content/why-violin-so-hard-play

  416. musictheory 2012-12-06 01:33:15 anton_jerkoff
    Actually, the string transfers its energy to the bridge, which in turn transfers its energy to the body, which transfers most of the energy to the air.

  417. musictheory 2012-12-06 06:47:07 uraniumballoon
    go here: http://www.falstad.com/loadedstring/ check the sound box pluck the string with your mouse. see how it sounds different depending on where you pluck it.

  418. musictheory 2012-12-06 06:55:09 AJJihad
    This is why reproducing the sound of an acoustic (or really, any instrument) instrument on an electric keyboard is so difficult. Also, when plucking a string extra hard, it can be noticed that the pitch takes longer to sort of 'even out' and produce the desired note. I'm no expert on waves and strings and all of that jazz, so please, take what I say with a grain of salt since I have no link-able source.

  419. musictheory 2012-12-06 07:09:51 Sailer
    You're the only person so far to demonstrate the correct understanding of how the instrument produces the sound. It is, indeed, the bridge which carries the sound from the strings not only to the upper body of the violin but then, via the sound post inside the body which transmits the sound to the lower body of the violin. It is the sound inside the body which is carried outside the body which we hear. String instruments are quite complex instruments. It is the characteristics of the wooden body of the violin, viola, cello & double bass and the way that their 'bodies' turn the vibrations into sound which provide what we hear.

  420. musictheory 2012-12-08 00:39:21 m3g0wnz
    Hmm, I can't really address that...I'm a pianist myself and I have no experience with string instruments at all. So I'll defer to someone else.

  421. musictheory 2012-12-08 00:47:48 [deleted]
    That's one interpretation, certainly. Some recordings have it played like that, some don't - it's up to you what you think sounds best. Bach wrote a lot of works for organ, in which you can have separate voices on separate manuals, but sticking strictly to that is limiting in a way that Bach wouldn't have appreciated - if you look at any of his four- or five-part fugues for keyboard, you can see that often a voice will pass from one hand to another, and with the more complex ones this becomes a necessity. I can't see Bach strictly writing one voice per string, is what I'm saying, I guess. It's up to the performer how best to emphasise the interaction and separation between the voices - splitting them between strings is one way to do that, but not the only way.

  422. musictheory 2012-12-08 03:17:47 secher_nbiw
    I don't think the two are necessarily incompatible. Different bowing (or as suggested below as well) playing on a different string would help articulate the compound melody. A disruption in the stemming also does communicate a likely point of articulation to the performer… same result with a different origin. ("What does this notation tell a performer to do?", followed by "Why would Bach have wanted that effect?" vs. "Why would Bach notate like this" and then "How would one perform in light of that?")

  423. musictheory 2012-12-08 04:44:54 Best650IEverSpent
    Indeed. I was trying to provide a kind of explanation that would lead OP to that conclusion; I agree with m3g0wnz that the typesetting may simply be awkward. I would have to point out that, in the solo string works that I'm familiar with (Sonatas and Partitas, Cello Suites), the implied four-voice texture being created by the solo performer is not stemmed as such. It wouldn't be possible to notate in that fashion on a small staff, anyway. [BWV 1007](http://conquest.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/8/87/IMSLP36903-PMLP04291-Bach-BWV1007klengel.pdf), specifically the Prelude, is probably a good example of this. The piece very clearly implies four voices, but the stems are geared towards readability for the performer. The A pedal near the end of page 2 sounds, to me, similar to the OP's example, though it is typeset differently. I do not mean to patronize, at all; I realize that you know a lot about this material. For the benefit of OP and others who might be confused, however, I've explained my whole thought process. We likely agree on a large number of things :)

  424. musictheory 2012-12-11 22:45:28 m3g0wnz
    I agree with your overall point but I just want to clarify: >There was a time before the concert tuning became standard, when the keys actually could differed. Yes, but this would only have been true of keyboard and fretted string instruments, not vocal music. >It has also been suggested that the Well-tempered clavier was a way for Bach to highlight the differences between the keys, however, the intended tuning is not known and many believe that he was actually using something close to our concerto tuning. I'm pretty sure the tuning system it used was well-temperament. :P It's true that there are some variables in well-temperament, but you're right that it is pretty close to modern 12 tone equal temperament.

  425. musictheory 2012-12-12 03:45:46 MediocreJokerSmoker
    A la your roommate's idea: I mostly agree. However I have a set of keys and certain characteristics I like about them RELATIVE to my instruments: keyboard and guitar. For example, piano is "easier" for most people with fewer accidentals, but depending on one's piano, certain keys might have old strings and sound more resonant, sharp etc and work great in chord x or y that happens to reside in key singature z. Same goes for guitar. If I am going for a "big" chord I might drop the low string to d and add the low d-a-d power chord beneath a Dmaj,Dmaj7,Dm7 etc. for epicness. And I might just happen to like the way my certain set of strings or acoustic/electric guitar sound playing those chords. For me C minor sounds great on my piano and it aligns well with a drop Cguitar playing so I can go between instruments and cross-write. Pretty nifty. One other consideration. Perhaps keys are relative to the human ear as some form of "middle C" like on a piano. We might intuitively know a good "middle" note from which other notes extend and chord voicing with its bass note voiced might be too high or low above or below this middle note and give us a natural preference for a key that brings it to a relative point above/below the "middle" note we have mapped in our creative ears.

  426. musictheory 2012-12-12 04:03:40 tnova
    It totally depends on the ensemble written for. Most brass instruments sound better playing in keys like Bb and Eb, and thus a lot of brass music is written in Bb and Eb. String pieces tend to be in keys like E and A because of the open strings.

  427. musictheory 2012-12-12 04:49:46 mta89
    First, Mezuzah: You're ignoring how keys feel physically and how they're set up theoretically, which I think is the main basis for key preference these days. My favorite keys are D major and minor, because D is the white key point of symmetry on the keyboard (Ab major and minor aren't quite as fun). Its accidentals also feel 'right.' Major thirds are spiky sounding, so it makes sense to have the major third as the black key F# while the minor third is the softer white key F. The other note relationships can be justified similarly; even B and Bb feel 'right' to me, because I tend to think of the flat 6 as a modification of the Dorian. I love how the D keys correspond visually to their theoretical function and this makes them a zillion times easier for improvisation. I think of other keys as more or less bastardized transpositions of this basic arrangement. > Yes, but this would only have been true of keyboard and fretted string instruments, not vocal music. Nevertheless, much vocal music (even 16th c. sacred music that we usually think of as a cappella) was performed with instrumental accompaniment, particularly the organ. Sometimes the organ even filled in voices that were not sung due to practical limitations. In these circumstances the voices tuned to the tuning of the organ. You're right though that theoretically vocal music was not key-colored, though Willaert wrote a piece that -- when sung justly -- deliberately wanders away from the starting pitch, demonstrating the need for temperament even in vocal music (though certainly more flexible than on keyboard instruments).

  428. musictheory 2012-12-14 03:35:35 Syric
    Are you talking about ear training? Or do you just want to be able to answer "What is an E in G major?" -- "The 6th"? If it's the latter, as a guitar player, I know all my intervals by the physical relationship of the notes on the fretboard. For example, a fifth is one string up and two frets right. A major sixth is two strings up and one fret left. And since I know every note on the fretboard, that means that I know all my intervals instantly.

  429. musictheory 2012-12-15 10:12:38 ReinH
    > Brand new strings and worn out old strings are notoriously difficult to tune. This is because the partials produced by the string are not in their ideal positions relative to the fundamental frequency. Miso Strobe Tuner's strobe simulation allows the user to tune each of these partials independently to achieve perfect intonation, as well as see when it's time to change strings. My bullshit detector is going off.

  430. musictheory 2012-12-16 02:13:18 TremendousPete
    For a blues guitar solo, it is super classic to use a "blue" note. Take the minor pentatonic scale (lets says is an A). Play a D on the G string (7th fret) and bend it about half way up to a D#. Or if you have even more emotion pull a clapton play it up on the high e string on the 10th fret, add a tiny bit of a pinch harmonic and a bend into the note from the original D. Bam. That is how you play the blues.

  431. musictheory 2012-12-16 04:43:30 gtani
    In addition, pianos and guitars have systematic and noticeable deviations from equal temperament, piano's due to inharmonicity/"octave stretching" (thick gauge, short scale strings under high tension), guitar problems are mainly that they are sharp near nut, which people have tried to accommodate with adjusting string scale at the nut and frets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inharmonicity http://www.truetemperament.com/site/index.php

  432. musictheory 2012-12-16 06:31:27 [deleted]
    Not a music theory professional, but the physics seem pretty simple. The string vibrates back and forth, meaning that it's coming to a stop twice for every one time it vibrates. When the string bends away from you, the tension makes it decelerate down to 0, then accelerate back through its original position to bend towards you, then stops again, and so on until the energy is lost to the surrounding instrument and environment. As the string is constantly accelerating and decelerating, we hear the pitch of the rounded average note, which the string is tuned to. I might be totally wrong, and it's much harder to explain than it seems in my head, but this is my general comprehension of it.

  433. musictheory 2012-12-16 06:44:15 Syclops
    [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3HLqCHO08s#t=31m45s) shows a diagram of how it vibrates. Essentially, a string vibrates at more than one frequency of a time. If that kind of movement can be confusing, imagine the object (i.e. string) moving on more than one axis, where each vibration can coexist with each other, similar to how you can both spin a ball on the x and y axis simultaneously.

  434. musictheory 2012-12-16 06:49:13 Syclops
    This doesn't quite answer his/her question. His question is about overtones and how they look on a string that is creating a tone. The truth is that the string not only vibrate as a full tone, but also at a half length, and a third length, and any kind of divisible you can think of, with each higher frequency becoming more and more faint, yet higher and higher in pitch. These same frequencies in a note ( for C2 they would be a C3, G3, C4, E4) are what make major triads sound so perfect. In a chord like that you are simply recreating the frequencies that would already be present in the tonal note.

  435. musictheory 2012-12-16 06:51:44 [deleted]
    [This video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqpU1t2cCxk) shows sort of what's going on (super slow-mo, and with super-loose strings so you can see it better). Basically, the string doesn't vibrate cleanly like the video you linked. The vibrations all stack on top of each other and create weird patterns in the string movement. I saw a better video recently, but I can't find it right now...

  436. musictheory 2012-12-16 06:59:11 polar_rejection
    Along with the string, the instrument is vibrating as well. As many frequencies are coming out of the instrument, the instrument vibrates(oscillates) in a manner corresponding to the tone being produced. [Here is an image of some of the modes a violin will oscillate](http://bsfp.media-security.ru/school5/images/Image412.gif) Look up books on the acoustics of musical instruments to dive deeper down this rabbit hole.

  437. musictheory 2012-12-16 07:06:40 ColaEuphoria
    Oh man, I love this topic. First, we live in an imperfect universe; there is no such thing as a "perfect pluck" which will make a string vibrate at only its fundamental. The only reason such a perfect representation of fundamental pitch works in that video is because the string is being fed a constant velocity; but in the real world, there is just a pluck, and the instrument goes off on itself. There is a reason as to why overtones exist. Imagine you have a jump rope with one end attached to a wall. If you just randomly violently shook the end you were holding then stopped, you'd feel a bunch of jerking motions and it would stop awkwardly; however, if you shook it up and down like a typical jump rope, it feels more natural and the rope seems to almost move by itself. When a string is plucked, the chaotic motion of the initial pluck will vanish and only the motions which are ratios of the rope's length will survive. Also, if you were to move the rope at twice the speed, the rope would split off into two vibrating motions, shown [here.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n1d1rycvj4) [Slow motion vibrating string](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X72on6CSL0) Overtones of tonal instruments follow a pattern, called the harmonic series. All overtones in the harmonic series are simple ratios of the fundamental. Let's assume we have a string tuned to C. Fundamental: C (1:1) 1st Overtone: C (8ave) (2:1) 2nd: G (3:1) 3rd: C (4:1) 4th: E (5:1) 5th: G (6:1) 6th: Bb (7:1) 7th: C (8:1) 8th: D (9:1) 9th: E (10:1) 10th: F# (11:1) 11th: G (12:1) and so forth. Also I should note that the overtones aren't diatonically tuned so things like that Bb would be slightly off pitch. An instrument's tonal quality relies on how loud each overtone is and how the loudness changes over time, which is why a clarinet and trumpet sound different even if they're playing the same note. but this is only for instruments that have even order harmonics; most percussive instruments have odd order harmonics, which is why you can't tell what note is being played; only noise with ambiguous sound. This is more of a science-related thing. If you want to learn more about it look up the Fourier series and harmonic series.

  438. musictheory 2012-12-16 07:31:16 PotatoMusicBinge
    >there is no such thing as a "perfect pluck" Interesting. In theory would a perfect pluck of, say, a guitar string, result in only the fundamental? Are overtones an artifact of instrumental and mechanical imperfections? The rope video is very interesting. I guess what I'm really looking for is something to help me visualise the actual physical motion of a string, and how it corresponds to the overtones produced.

  439. musictheory 2012-12-16 07:52:58 xiipaoc
    It's somewhat difficult to explain, but when a string vibrates, it vibrates in several *modes* at once. Let me try to give you an example of what that means. Say you use string to hang a ball, and you give it a light push. It'll swing back and forth depending on how hard you push, right? That's all it does. It moves back and forth. (If you give it a very heavy push, other things start to happen, so let's focus on light pushes.) Say you hang another ball on a string, same as this one, and you give *it* a light push, too. It'll also swing back and forth depending on how hard you push. So if you think about the two balls as one thing, the total motion is one ball swinging and the other ball swinging, maybe at different times and to different heights. Now, what if you join the two balls with a spring? When you give one a light push, the other moves too, since they're on a spring. These two balls are now *coupled*. How does this system move? It turns out (I'm not going to go through the differential equations here, but they're not very complicated as these things go) that there are two different ways in which the system moves, and the total motion is the sum of these two different ways. One of these ways is the two balls swinging together: same rate, same time, same direction. The other way is the two balls swinging together, same rate, same time, but in opposite directions -- and it's a different rate from the one where they're together, since now the spring matters! No matter how you set up the system -- no matter how you push each of the balls (as long as it's light enough) -- there'll be two components of the motion, the same direction component and the opposite direction component. We call these two components **normal modes**. (Don't confuse them with the modes of a scale like the phrygian mode; this is physics, not music theory!) A playable string is basically like these two balls on pendulums with a spring between them, except that there are a whole lot more of them, and there are some additional constraints (for example, the two ends of a string don't move). The pieces of the string move just like the balls connected by springs, but since the string is tight, they move pretty quickly, and the swinging back and forth is so fast that it makes a sound in the air. The string, too, has a whole bunch of *normal modes*, each with its own shape and frequency. No matter how you pluck it (or bow it), the resulting motion of the string will be the sum of all of these normal modes. The first mode is a big bump and has some frequency f. The second mode is two big bumps in opposite directions, and it has frequency 2f. The third mode is three big bumps in alternating directions, and it has frequency 3f. And so on. When you start a string vibrating, each of these patterns starts going off and doing its own thing, and the sound you hear is their combination! You can actually affect how strong each of these modes is. Notice that when there are an even number of bumps, the point right in the middle doesn't move at all. So if you pluck right at that point, you're not going to get any of the even modes! If you do this on a guitar, the sound is almost electronic -- try plucking an open string at the 12th fret. Now if you instead hold that point lightly, so that the other vibrations don't stop, and pluck the string, you'll get *only* even modes. This is the second harmonic, the harmonic at the octave. Just like you can do this with strings, when you change vowels, that's the same as altering the proportions of those modes. Each timbre has a particular signature in terms of the strengths of the normal modes of the sound waves used. The clarinet has one set of mode strengths; the oboe another. If you're interested in learning more, look up Fourier analysis. (: Good luck!

  440. musictheory 2012-12-16 07:53:38 ColaEuphoria
    You probably could say overtones are an artifact of imperfections. Any "perfect" pluck would make a waveform of only its fundamental, which is a sine wave. [This](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZKvLnf7wU) video can really help you show how any sound created is just made up of sine waves at different pitches (the harmonic series). You're going to hurt your brain thinking intricately about the physical motion of a string; the best thing to visualize the timbre of an instrument is to look at it through a frequency spectrum analyzer. It splits the sound's overtones into their respective frequency bands so you can see them individually. The X axis shows the frequency logarithmically from 20 Hz (left) to 20 KHz (right), and the Y axis shows the amplitude of each overtone. The video I linked has a simple spectrum analyzer. [Here](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s5c08t_bBw) is another video showing the physics of sound.

  441. musictheory 2012-12-16 14:48:54 suono_reale
    Uh there's a Japanese string player that has "discovered" what you describe. She calls them sub-harmonics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mari_Kimura If I remember correctly, their explanation has not been totally demystified, yet. EDIT: Here's some youtube videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPTt5u681so http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0dgtW49wNs

  442. musictheory 2012-12-16 15:05:00 libcrypto
    > Oh man, I love this topic. First, we live in an imperfect universe; there is no such thing as a "perfect pluck" which will make a string vibrate at only its fundamental. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that you attach very tiny pistons all along the length of a string. Imagine that these pistons have negligible air resistance and that they can move the string up and down at the rate of 440Hz. NOW suppose that they are programmed to move the string in such a way that ONLY the fundamental oscillation of the string is realized. Thus, there are no waves that propagate down the string, or if there are, the pistons do not permit harmonic oscillations. What does this string sound like?

  443. musictheory 2012-12-16 15:25:33 MysteriousPickle
    It would sound like a sine wave at 440Hz. That's assuming the pistons are actually driving the string in a sine wave. In your thought experiment, you're technically listening to the pistons, and the string is simply acting as a pretty inefficient transfer mechanism to the air. You didn't specify if this was a musical instrument or not, so let's assume it's got a perfect electronic pickup of some sort (to avoid questions about resonance of the instrument). In this case, you could put any tension on the string you want, and as long as your pistons are strong enough to overcome the natural resonances of the string, you will essentially hear whatever frequencies the pistons put into the string.

  444. musictheory 2012-12-16 18:19:58 PotatoMusicBinge
    >I contest (as a math graduate) that the mathematics of vibration is actually very elementary. Haha, I wish I could say the same! That diagram is very interesting. So if you were to vibrate a string (electronically or with pistons at the ends or something) with a combination of the fundamental, the 5th and the 13th, any one point on the string would map out a series of up and down motions in time corresponding to the shape of that graph?

  445. musictheory 2012-12-16 18:21:39 adrianmonk
    It's fairly clear how a string can vibrate up and down, with the whole string moving one direction, then the whole string moving the other direction. What's less clear is how half a string can do it. When the whole string is doing it, the string moves one direction, then reverses its motion because the further away from the center it moves, the more tension is created. Why is tension created? Because the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. When the string is a curve (no longer a straight line), it is stretched over a longer distance. Stretching something out (especially metal, like many strings!) increases tension. That means there is a force working against the string's attempts ("string's attempts" == momentum) to stretch itself out. So, back to the question: how can half a string do this? When the whole string moves to one side because of momentum, it has the two fixed ends (tuning pegs, whatever) to pull against, and those pull it into an opposite motion, so that it can go back and forth. How can that happen with half a string? The answer is that if one half goes one direction, and the other half goes the other direction, the two halves are pulling against each other. Or at least each half is pulling against a fixed point on one end, but on the other end (of that half) it is pulling against the other half. This is similar in principle to two people standing up facing each other, holding hands, and then leaning back. They don't have a poll or other fixed object to hold them as they lean backward, but if they hold each other, there is still something to hold. The weight of each one offsets the weight of the other. And so it is with a string that is vibrating where one half of the string is moving one direction while the other half is moving the opposite direction. It works the same way with 1/3 of the string. Each segment of 1/3 that is on the end is pushing partly against a fixed point and partly against another segment that is moving opposite of it. The segment in the middle is moving against no fixed points and just the other two segments. As long as it is possible for this kind of motion to be established, it can be stable, because everything is entirely symmetrical. So if it is established, it will continue, at least as long as the string is still moving. :-)

  446. musictheory 2012-12-16 18:33:13 PotatoMusicBinge
    I was imagining the shape of the vibrating string to be sort of lumpy, with different parts moving in different directions, but would it be more accurate to think of the shape as being smooth (like in the video I posted) with the whole string moving up and down in unison? It that case I would imagine the overtones to come from the size of the up-down movement of the string, which would vary against time. Does that sound right?

  447. musictheory 2012-12-16 18:54:44 PotatoMusicBinge
    There really is a massive amount of depth in this topic! When you pluck a string, would the whole string move up and down in the same direction all the time, with the overtones being created by different amounts of up and down motion in succession, or will different areas of the string be moving in different directions at the same time?

  448. musictheory 2012-12-16 19:18:50 PotatoMusicBinge
    I had just about decided that the whole string moves in unison, but now you're telling me that in fact different areas of the string can be moving in different directions! Hmmm

  449. musictheory 2012-12-17 00:10:44 libcrypto
    That's rather missing the point of my thought experiment. The question I'm asking isn't "what does a sound without overtones sound like", but "is there any 'string sound' left when you remove overtones?"

  450. musictheory 2012-12-17 00:22:11 ColaEuphoria
    No it wouldn't sound like a 'string' anymore, because what we recognize as a string sound are the sum of the amplitudes of its overtones over time. Remove those overtones, and it sounds like a generic sine wave. If your question is "would we even be able to hear it," well, humans can hear oscillations between 20 Hz to 20 KHz, so as long as it's oscillating within that range, you chose 440 Hz, yes you could hear it, and it would sound like a sine wave. [This](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPBgWWZhcA4) is what the string would sound like at 440 Hz if you had those special pistons that made it only vibrate at its fundamental. *Any* sound oscillating without overtones will sound like a generic sine wave, and you wouldn't be able to tell what instrument it was anymore except that it is a sine wave.

  451. musictheory 2012-12-17 00:52:05 xiipaoc
    Each point on the string moves with a different velocity. Some move in one direction, some in the other, some stay still. This changes over time, too! Just like the two balls with the spring can move in the same direction or in opposite directions!

  452. musictheory 2012-12-17 01:23:58 PotatoMusicBinge
    And how would you map what a string looks like at any one time? Fourier analysis? It's going to be a long evening!

  453. musictheory 2012-12-17 04:09:06 xiipaoc
    With math! Let's say we have an ideal linear string of length L (real-life strings don't behave exactly like this, but it's pretty close). Solving some differential equations, we know what the normal modes are. They're y1 = C1 sin(πx/(2L))sin(wt + ø1), y2 = C2 sin(2πx/(2L))sin(2wt + ø2), y3 = C3 sin(3πx/(2L))sin(2wt + ø3), etc. In other words, yn = Cn sin(nπx/(2L))sin(nwt + øn). w = 2πf where f is the fundamental frequency, Ci and øi are arbitrary constants, x is the position on the string, t is time, yn(x,t) is the height of the string at a particular position and time in that mode, n is the harmonic, and π is pi (which looks like an n in some fonts, sorry). Then the full equation for the position of each point in the string at each time is y(x,t) = y1(x,t) + y2(x,t) + y3(x,t) + ... By the way, I won't get into it here (because I honestly don't remember how it works exactly), but w depends on the length of the string as well as its mass and tension. The longer the string, the heavier the string, or the looser the string, the lower the frequency. So if you want to know what the string looks like at any particular time, you figure out what those constants are and plug in the time you want to look at! Say you figure out that C1 = 1, ø1 = 0, and all the other Ci's and øi's are 0. Then y = sin(πx/(2L))sin(wt). Say you want to know what the string looks like at time t = 0 (because it's easier). That's y = 0. The string is just flat. Say you want to know what it looks like at t = π/(2w). Then wt = π/2 and sin(π/2) = 1, so y = sin(πx/(2L)). The string is one sinusoidal bump. But the real problem, of course, is figuring out what those Ci and øi are. *That's* when you use Fourier analysis. If you start with some arbitrary shape y(x,0) at some arbitrary *velocity* y'(x,0), you can easily (after taking a course on Fourier analysis, at least) get those constants, and plug them in to get what things look like. You basically integrate y(x,0)sin(πnx/(2L))dx and y'(x,0)sin(πnx/(2L))dx from x = 0 to L and do some algebraic magic with the results (I honestly have to look it up every time, since I don't do Fourier analysis very often in life, so I'm not going to bother with it now). In real life, when you pluck a string, it's not a simple sine curve. It's more of a triangle, with a corner at the point you pluck it. That triangle is the sum of a bunch (an infinite number, though at *some* point real-life physics gets in the way of infinity, so it's just practically infinite) of sine curves at different wavelengths, all of them 2L/n for some n. A bit of Fourier analysis and you can figure out how the string responds! Actually, I'll try to figure this out later: how do the relative values of the Ci's depend on where you pluck the string? The sound is much darker in the center and much brighter at the edges. Maybe there's a sweet spot!

  454. musictheory 2012-12-17 07:21:38 xalgorafan
    The note on the fifth fret will be sharper than you want it to be. The harmonic method works fine except between the G and the B string because the harmonic at the 4th fret of the G string isn't quite equal tempered. I usually tune the guitar more based on what chords I'm using rather than a set way. There is no perfect intonation for the guitar, but the harmonic method works better than the 5th fret method.

  455. musictheory 2012-12-17 07:25:16 dbulger
    I think there's truth to both your objections. The just-vs.-equal should be a small error (0.11%, or just under two "cents"). The other error will depend on the action and how hard you press the string fretting it. Personally I use harmonics because I find it easier to hear beats between the purer tones. But now that your question has prompted me to calculate the error, I might start trying to compensate ... I always assumed it would be a little smaller. Give me a minute & I'll work out what the beats should be ... okay, if you tune by harmonics, but you want to compensate for equal temperament, you should aim for a beat between the E&B every 0.90 seconds, a beat between the G&D every 1.51 seconds, a beat between the D&A every 2.01 seconds, and a beat between the A&E every 2.68 seconds. In each case, you want the adjacent strings' frequencies to be a little further apart than when the beats stop altogether. So, if you start with the A, and then tune the E from that, tune the E until the beats stop, and then tune it down a tiny bit further until you hear a beat every 2 to 3 seconds. Then tune the D against the A until beats stop, and tune it up a little further until you hear a beat every two seconds. And so on.

  456. musictheory 2012-12-17 07:33:24 noturtles
    > The note on the fifth fret will be sharper than you want it to be. is this because of string bending? cuz if so, i figured that this isn't as much of a difference as just intonated open strings over equal tempered frets.

  457. musictheory 2012-12-17 07:58:17 dbulger
    That's true about the awkward interval between the G & B, but the B & high E can be tuned directly from the low E. The B string open is the harmonic over the 7th fret of the low E (minus 1.1Hz) and the high E string open is the harmonic over the low E's 5th fret.

  458. musictheory 2012-12-17 08:00:43 BdaMann
    Just intonation (what harmonics give you) and equal temperament (what you want) are so close that using the harmonics method will give you a pretty decent tuning. It's not exact, but it's pretty hard to hear a difference without a fantastic ear. I don't think the bending of the string will have any noticeable effect on the harmonics though.

  459. musictheory 2012-12-17 08:50:10 wikkiwikkiwa
    I would say it's not so much about string bending, because pushing down on the 5th fret is not supposed to push the string significantly sharp, which if that were happening it means the guitar needs a setup done. However, with that said, the harmonics will probably do a better job of gauging the overall tuning between the strings because of the inaccuracy of intonation caused by straight frets. [These two guitars](http://www.truetemperament.com/site/index.php) are fretted to be perfectly intonated. Looking at the 5th frets it's easy to see that the intonation is not consistent in terms of fret placement. Thus, if you has straight frets and tuned 5th fret to open strings, you'd end up with some notes on the guitar way out of tune with others. So I agree with xalgo in that harmonics are more accurate, and I also agree with tuning to the chords. As a result I'm rarely in equal temperament.

  460. musictheory 2012-12-17 09:30:13 uh_no_
    not really. the fact that the string has weight makes the harmonics slightly sharper than they should be naturally. This phenomenon occurs in pianos too, so octaves are tuned slightly wider than true. google for octave stretching to get some explanations of why the harmonics are sharp

  461. musictheory 2012-12-17 12:20:32 Syric
    > one says that using the fret method will bend the strings That can be true, but I think that's actually an argument *for* using the frets. If fretting notes makes the string bend sharp, then let the bent-sharp note be what you tune with, because that's what you're actually going to hear while playing. The way you play should be the way you tune. (If for some reason you were playing a song with more harmonics than fretted notes, then use the harmonics) This is of course assuming your guitar's intonation and whatnot is all properly set up.

  462. musictheory 2012-12-17 12:35:33 Metalbells
    As a piano tuner and guitarist I would say this: Use the harmonic methed. The error intoduced by pressing you finger down on the fret, or bending the string as you do so is considerable. If you want to more accurately approach equal temperement, simply tune the harmonic of the upper string very slighty sharp of pure. Approximately 1 beat per second. Make sure the G to B third in the third to second string is sharp and beating, and that the sixth string E and first string E are pure. This gets you as close to equal temperament as is possible on a guitar.

  463. musictheory 2012-12-17 12:52:52 wikkiwikkiwa
    Straight frets are not accurate because of string tension. Each string has a different tension on it, thus changing where the frets would need to go to create equal temperament. Those guitars I posted point that out in that the G strings tend to have the fret set further back than the other strings. That's because the G string holds the most tension. Systems like that crazy fret job and the [Evertune bridge](http://www.evertune.com/) solve that very issue.

  464. musictheory 2012-12-17 13:18:05 liquidcola
    I've heard the best way to tune if you don't have a tuner is to tune everything to the A string. Fret at the 7th for the low E string, 4th for the D, 10 for the G, and so on.

  465. musictheory 2012-12-17 14:09:45 13243546576879
    Honestly, you should tune for the sound you want. I tend to tune my high E string just slightly flat because my guitar can sound way too bright when that string in tune. Your guitar doesn't have to be perfectly in tune. I remember my Orchestra conductor having the trumpets play their note slightly under pitch, they had the third of the chord, as they made that chord sound too bright when they were in tune.

  466. musictheory 2012-12-17 16:19:16 Kai_Daigoji
    Okay, there's a lot of different opinions here, so let's look at the facts. The Harmonic Method: This will tune your strings a just perfect fifth, or approx. 702 cents from each other. That's two cents off from equal temperament, which is what the guitar is set up as (logarithmic scale for the frets and all that.) Some have pointed out that this works out to about 2% sharp. That's wrong. You're tuning six strings, so you'll end up about 10 to 12 cents sharp. This is a noticeable difference - enough to cause problems between open high and low e strings. The 5th Fret Method: This is what your guitar is designed to be played at. Equal temperament means the fifth fret is exactly equal to the next string up. Yes there is pressure on the string which might affect the pitch - this is a feature, not a bug. That same pressure is there for almost every not you play. Not accounting for it means introducing, not removing, a systematic error. In conclusion: There's an audible difference between using the two tuning methods. One will introduce dissonance, one will conform to the temperament the instrument is designed to have. Don't use the harmonic method.

  467. musictheory 2012-12-17 16:35:01 ProjectileMenstruati
    When playing EADGBE tuning I use harmonic octaves to tune - open lower string with harmonic on 7th fret on next string. I think the longer resonance halps the tuning. For G/B just use a 4th fret / 5th fret harmonic. Leaves the hand free to do nothing but twiddle the tuning peg.

  468. musictheory 2012-12-17 16:52:22 larry_is_not_my_name
    I am assume Metalbells means that way in which you fret a note may not be exactly the same in each instance. The suggestion seems to be: tune using harmonics to try and eliminate the slight fretting variances string to string. I suppose if you were able to play in *exactly* the same way for each string it wouldn't matter but that seems to me to be rather difficult to do.

  469. musictheory 2012-12-17 18:36:54 gpit2286
    This is, as far as I'm concerned and until proven wrong, just a huge gimmick. In order for it to become closer to just intonation (which I assume is what is it saying), the notes would have to constantly be moving. Think of it this way. In a typical I-IV-V7-I progression, look at the root of the IV chord and the 7th of the V7; it's the same note. But in just intonation, when the root of the IV becomes the 7th of the V, you need to lower the pitch by 31 cents. (32 cents? something like that) While that's the biggest jump, the thirds of the chords are also going to still be out of tune as soon as you stop playing an E major chord. (Or whatever chord they decide to tune the guitar to. Also, just because I read beyond this. The note that a string has is due to it's tension and thickness and length. The tension of the string has nothing to do with the notes you play after you tune your guitar. At that point the only thing that matters is string length. It is because of this reliance on length that the straight frets work; the same partials will be located on the same length of string regardless of how much tension is needed to get it to its starting note. As far as I know... but you can try to find literature that states otherwise.

  470. musictheory 2012-12-17 19:29:11 dbulger
    I really think there are a couple of problems with this. Firstly, yes, errors can accumulate, but hopefully no one meticulous about tuning is going to start at the low E and work upward through the strings in order. By starting at the A (usually the easiest reference note to get anyhow) and working A -> E -> B and A -> D -> G, your worst error will be 4 cents, not 12. Secondly, if you admit that fretting a string appreciably sharpens it, it does *not* follow that the 5th-fret method gives the best tuning for actual playing. In actual playing, you're just as often going to be fretting the A string with the D string open, as the other way round. The lowest error all-round is certainly achieved by having the correct ratios between the open strings' frequencies.

  471. musictheory 2012-12-17 22:41:05 wikkiwikkiwa
    I would say that based on your comments, you're not a guitarists and are basing your arguments on physics 101. As a luthier and guitarist, I've learned through experience that no matter how well intonated a guitar is, it still has notes out of tune with equal temperament and each other. After perfectly intonating and setting up a guitar, many chords you can't tell if there are out of tune notes, but some chords (like a F#7b5#9, X,10,8,10,10,8) make it obvious. Also, I've learned that string tension does affect where fret placement would go. Working with acoustics as compared to electrics helped me see that. I don't know the physics of how or why, but it does somehow. Side note, another aspect I forgot to mention is that each string can't be the same length, also throwing a kink in the gears for straight frets.

  472. musictheory 2012-12-17 23:00:25 Kai_Daigoji
    > which is barely noticeable considering there are 100 cents in a semitone. While this will compound over the course of tuning Stop there - that's exactly the point. You will end up noticeably sharp by the time you reach the top string. > so will the sharpness of the fifth fret and, depending on the curvature of the neck, the detunation at the fifth fret is usually worse. This 'sharpness' at the fifth fret is how the instrument is meant to be played. Unless you're playing with exclusively open strings, nearly every note will be fretted. So tuning your guitar in a way that takes that into account will make your guitar more, not less, in tune.

  473. musictheory 2012-12-17 23:03:21 Kai_Daigoji
    > tune using harmonics to try and eliminate the slight fretting variances string to string. And introducing a completely different bias.

  474. musictheory 2012-12-17 23:43:07 shiner_man
    You have to find the method that works best for your particular guitar. Some guitars will actually benefit from certain strings being tuned slightly flat (very common on the low e string). It's also a matter of how the intonation is setup. You can have a guitar that sounds great if you play all the first position open chords but it sounds terrible if you move anywhere past the 5th fret. It's a real give and take and you just have to mess with it.

  475. musictheory 2012-12-18 01:22:37 xalgorafan
    But you're tuning an open string to the 5th fret, so you're not taking the sharpness into account, you're exacerbating it in the same was as the harmonics, but to a worse degree. Whatever this argument is pointless. I hope the OP has learned a lot about competing theories of guitar tuning haha.

  476. musictheory 2012-12-18 02:10:09 medina_sod
    I think it doesn't really matter because the nature of the instrument makes it impossible to be in tune with itself. It's the donkey of the string family. If you ever hear Bill Frisell play, you notice the way he bends the neck all the time. I've heard he does this in response to the out of tune nature of the guitar. check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO-1Euq2RBk

  477. musictheory 2012-12-18 03:25:44 scoooot
    >the other says that using the harmonic method will make the open strings tuned by just intonation, which is out of common practice, and will be weird because the frets placed for equal temperament. This is true, and the correct answer. The most accurate way to tune is to tune the 12th fret harmonic to the 7th fret (not harmonic) of the next string. (8th fret on the B string) >one says that using the fret method will bend the strings and create a note that is slightly off and therefore not as good to compare frequency to. If you are bending the string, then you are pushing too hard. Also, how do you produce notes when you play? By holding the string on the fret. The guitar should be set up so that when you hold a string on the fret, it is in tune. Think about it... if holding down a fret always makes a note out of tune... a guitar simply wouldn't work. In order for the instrument to work, the notes produced by holding strings on frets must be in tune, and that is how the intonation on the guitar should be set up... so that when you hold a string on a fret, it is in tune.

  478. musictheory 2012-12-18 08:22:29 Syric
    > the whole goal of adjusting those saddle sliders is for the note fretted at the twelfth fret to be the same as the first harmonic. Yes, we adjust the saddles in order for the *fret* sound to change. Let me put it another way. The first harmonic is *always* going to be an octave above the open string, by definition. That relationship will never ever change. What *will* change through adjusting intonation is the interval between the open string and the fretted note.

  479. musictheory 2012-12-18 08:52:53 Metalbells
    Error and bias are two different things: Bias implies an intentional action (even if a misguided one). Error is just that. Error. Also implied in error is lack of control and measurability. My bias is to use harmonic tuning. I then correct somewhat by tuning the upper harmonic slightly sharp so as to more closely approach ET. There is bias in tuning harmonics, but the approach is less apt to introduced error (like bending the string on the 5th fret while tuning) You can make the argument that on some guitars in some situations, tuning fretted note is best for you, but there is inherently less measurement error using harmonics. Depending on the instrument, you may need to make all kinds of adjustments and note tune the harmonics pure, but the starting point is accurate an measurable.

  480. musictheory 2012-12-18 10:37:41 wab7254
    well what makes it common is your use of open string and drone strings. You shouldn't take it as a bad thing. It is really a pretty good idea. Lutes from the 16th century employed drone strings which is what you are sort of doing here with the g string. keeping your g string open as you have has some interesting impact. You thought you were in C which in some ways you are because you are using notes from the C major pitch collection but since G is being droned and you don't really here it resolving to C until the end the open G string sets you up to really be in G lydian rather than C. I bring up the lute thing to illustrate how this sort of thinking is idiomatic of guitarist and has been for centuries. Good examples of this can be found in a lot of places primarily anything where the guitar serves as a stand alone instrument or is accompanying another solo melodic instrument (voice mostly). You will see this a lot in contemporary Christian music and folk or any other singer song writer type of thing. Some of the chords in there are of course found in a lot of places. I particularly like the Em voicing you have because it also makes a great G6 voicing for jazz and other more ensemble based genres because it omits the 5th. Omitting the 5th creates more space for the rest of the players to operate in. I can't tell if I am helping you are confusing you.

  481. musictheory 2012-12-18 17:51:27 adrianmonk
    Well, each point is only located at one position at any given time, obviously. But that doesn't mean that one part of the string can't be moving upward faster than another part is. It's totally possible that one half of a string will hit the apex of its movement at a little bit different time than the other half will. And that will mean that one part of the string will start moving back the other direction sooner than the other part. So, the two halves (or thirds) can move semi-independently.

  482. musictheory 2012-12-19 01:47:03 hacocacyb
    playing guitar for years, on most string you just know that going up a fourth, tritone or a fifth, is one string higher, on the same fret, or one or two higher. On piano, you can sort of rely on the distance between 5 white keys or a few black keys, but it isn't always the same. You are just better off knowing that for B the fifth is F# not F. Essentially, on guitar, you tell me to go up a fifth and I go up a string and up two frets, on piano you tell me that and I find the note a fifth higher.

  483. musictheory 2012-12-19 01:48:40 hacocacyb
    Also, you'd need to learn the modes to know which notes to play on the piano too, but it is a different way. You can learn to derive the modes and find notes in relation to the tonic, but you probably want to memorize the 'shapes' of each scale. So once you've learned Dorian starting on the E string, you can play it in all 12 keys without learning a new 'shape'.

  484. musictheory 2012-12-20 06:50:52 flamingspinach_
    I don't think omission of cautionaries is particularly rare, nor would I necessarily term it careless engraving. Sure, it's nice to have cautionaries, but sometimes they can actually be more confusing than helpful, depending on the context. Music doesn't need to be atonal to contain augmented or diminished octaves, and in context they can be very natural, often because of passing tones during some voice motion. For example, imagine that an E♭ passing tone in a high register coincides with a repeated E in the bass. Should one of the long string of bass Es have a cautionary ♮ on it? To my eye (as a pianist anyway) that would be confusing and make me briefly think that the bass note had stopped repeating and changed to another note, so I would say there shouldn't be a cautionary ♮ there.

  485. musictheory 2012-12-20 10:28:16 xiipaoc
    Interesting idea, but there are a couple of drawbacks. First, when you search for a note, what do you expect to find? All notes are the same -- they're just frequencies. There's no difference between an A4 and a D3 except that one's higher and the other's lower (and you know the frequency ratio, too -- about 1:3). As for knowing fingerings, there is a single sheet of paper called a fingering chart. It's a map of the piano or the guitar's fretboard with the note names written in. Really easy to use and to copy, but then again, it's also really easy to figure out. For clarinet it's significantly harder, but just google clarinet fingering chart and you'll get more fingerings than you know what to do with. A program that shows how to play a given note in a large variety of instruments might be somewhat interesting -- a kind of universal fingering chart, if you will -- but it's only really applicable to a small group of people who play many different instruments at once. Figuring out how to play a note on guitar -- or vice-versa -- is really, really simple. You can probably write a program to do that in a couple of hours, and make it look pretty later. If you do command-line -- type the string and the fret -- it shouldn't take more than 15 minutes. And since the calculations aren't actually repetitive, you can do it *without* the computer much, much, much faster. Just count frets and know where you start! Figuring out how to play a note on piano is INSANELY trivial -- just memorize the map of where the 12 notes are in each octave. DONE. On clarinet, you really need the fingering chart, because it's not as simple; oftentimes a fingering combination won't give you anything useful, too. Playing a sound and getting a note back... that's genuinely useful, and most programs I've seen that try to do this fail miserably. You basically need to FFT the sound wave and analyze what you get back, which sounds a LOT simpler than it is. Good luck. But a good tuner does just this. A tuner lets you set a note to listen for, and when you play into it, it tells you how close you are to that note. A really good tuner tells you what note you're playing. But know that it's not easy, mathematically, to figure this out. So the notes you can reach on piano and guitar are limited, and on clarinet, less so but they're still limited by the fingerings and the workmanship of your clarinet. You can play A, Bb, B, C, C#, D, Eb, E, F, F#, G, G#. What about the notes between G and G#? When your cousin says that the sounds are incomplete, chances are he's talking about microtonal intervals, or at the very least, frequencies other than these twelve and their octave equivalents. They're not available on piano unless you make a special piano; they're not available on guitar unless you move the frets; only a few are available on clarinet, though you can always use your embochure to alter the pitch of a note. You can explore the full spectrum at the [Offtonic microtonal synthesizer](http://offtonic.com/synth).

  486. musictheory 2012-12-24 09:25:09 keakealani
    Hm. I can't think of many off the top of my head, but Beethoven's [Moonlight Sonata](http://youtu.be/O6txOvK-mAk) does use fully diminished 7th chords to modulate - it's around 2:35 but you'd want to listen from a little earlier on to get the context. Edit: and listening to that again, it's very vague... in some ways it's a false modulation since it eventually goes back to C# minor, but I hear it as a brief interlude into F# minor that kind of goes "gotcha, just kidding" and goes back to C# minor. Edit2: I think I found a better example (hey, my Kostka textbook was useful for something other than a laptop stand!) - [Haydn String Quartet Op. 20 No. 5](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXcUTltkEBk) - it's right before the repeat, around 1:40. Again, probably a little bit before is good for context. And yeah.... actually thank you for asking me for examples. It made me realize that I had heard this line a million times from theory professors, but never really bothered to remember examples in music. It's important to remember that theory is eventually just a way of describing what happens in practice, so we can't just stand by "it's theoretically possible" without actually thinking about how the music might actually sound. And it turns out, google is totally unhelpful - almost everything I searched for was basically theory textbook type sites saying what I said, but not giving great examples.

  487. musictheory 2012-12-25 09:38:46 bassvocal
    Something that had caught me off guard with a few early charts I'd written was how players will interpret certain articulations as straight right in the middle of a swing chart. In a string of consecutive eighth notes either marked with staccato dots or marcato "V"'s, they'll be played straight. Since learning this, I've used it to my advantage, though when I REALLY want swung staccato eighths I'll instead use grouped quarter-eighth triplets or dotted-eighth & sixteenths.

  488. musictheory 2012-12-27 02:01:59 m3g0wnz
    Others are right that it has to do with Pythagorean tuning, but they are missing an important step! Pythagorean tuning actually leads to having many more than 12 notes per scale, since in Pythagorean tuning, C-sharp is technically different than D-flat. However, this was normalized due to the existence of fretted string instruments such as the lute which could not differentiate between such slightly different notes. Fun fact that is somewhat tangential, but the Ancient Greek scales actually used microtones. So don't buy the "12-tone-music-is-natural-and-handed-down-by-God" argument! It's the result of both natural tendencies and cultural restrictions.

  489. musictheory 2012-12-27 13:58:45 goodbyeLennon
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_0DXxNeaQ0 This video explains it really well. The short answer is that it's based on something developed by Pythagoreas called the overtone series. It is based on frequency ratios of subdividing a vibrating string into small whole number fractions. 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, etc. Basically, if you have a string tuned to a given frequency (440Hz for example), and you press the string down so that only 1/2 the length of it can vibrate, it will vibrate with a frequency double (880Hz) that of the string if the whole length were allowed to vibrate. When a frequency is double that of the fundamental frequency, it is called an octave. We perceive these pitches as the same note. If you then pressed the string so only 1/3 of it could vibrate, it would vibrate with a frequency 3 times the fundamental (1320Hz). Since the pitch produced by a 3:1 frequency ratio is new, we give this note a new name. Now, if you had a 4:1 ratio (1760Hz), it would be another octave of the fundamental, because it is 2 times the first octave, a 2:1 ratio. A 5:1 ratio is another new note, because it is not an octave of either of the 2 notes we have established so far. 6:1 would be the same note as a 3:1 ratio, because it is an octave of that note. 7:1 is another new note. If you keep going with this, you will eventually have 12 notes that are approximately equal distance from eachother pitch-wise. After that the cycle starts to divide those 12 tones into smaller subdivisions of themselves (microtones). Hope that makes sense. The video probably explains it better than I do.

  490. musictheory 2012-12-28 14:59:19 disaster_face
    it's not just vocal ranges that need to be considered, but the majority of instruments sound different in certain parts of their range. Also different keys will allow you to use open strings and or other things particular to an instrument. More importantly, why C major? It's not really the easiest key to play on most instruments. Even on piano, while it seems easiest superficially, it's actually kind of a pain since every note feels the same and there are no black keys to use as a tactile guide. It's much easier to move around quickly in keys that have at least one or two black keys. C is of no particular importance on guitars and bowed strings (other than being an open string on cello and viola), and woodwinds and brass are mostly transposing instruments anyway. So why is C major so important to you? It's just the arbitrary key that happens to have all natural notes. It has no actual musical significance above any other key. Also, more advanced music tends to modulate quite a bit, so no matter what key you start out in, it's important to be able to play in all keys. If every song was in C major, that would make this a lot harder for musicians to do. Everyone would be great at C and shitty at every other key.

  491. musictheory 2012-12-28 15:47:03 LimeJuice
    Instruments often sound best in a certain key. Also, certain instruments are easier to play in one key or another. In terms of guitar, certain chords and effects are much easier to get in certain keys. Obviously there are a lot of easy chords in the key of G, but there are other things to consider. For example, I like the sound of an E major chords with the low E string played open and a bar chord starting on the seventh fret of the A string, because it gives it a kind of droning presence. I don't have much more than a cursory skill at many other instruments, but those are some good examples on guitar. Also, some people swear that different keys have different feelings, but I remain unconvinced.

  492. musictheory 2012-12-29 08:04:14 looper7
    Yes, even theoretically perfectly identically-tuned keys, although you don't find those outside of pianos, synthesizers, and percussion. Edit: it's worth adding that intonation is an expressive device. For example, performers of instruments with flexible intonation might raise the leading tone in a melody, or adjust the third of a chord (from equal temperament) so it rings true. Since the leading tone is the 3rd of the V chord, a performer has to decide whether to tune melodically or harmonically. The idea of "fixed" intonation is limited -- if a brass ensemble were to perform in equal temperament, it would sound sour. Also, as another poster pointed out, different instruments have different tendencies on individual notes. The key of Eb is great for brass ensembles, not so great for string ensembles. Yet another reason. A key exists in relation to its tonic. Tonality, fundamentally, is an extended play on V-I. If I is in a different place, won't the entire key sound--and feel--different?

  493. musictheory 2012-12-29 09:57:26 [deleted]
    > If western music is based on the harmonic series, don't they have something to do with eachother? Yes of course, but not in the sense that OP meant it. The harmonic series is a natural phenomenon that happens regardless of where on earth you are, much like gravity. It's not necessarily a part of western music, especially not exclusively. All musical sound will produce the harmonic series. The question being asked, even if OP and others don't realize it, is about aesthetics. All music is logical because it is sound ordered by humans - we're imposing our own meaning on sound. Javanese gamelan has a different logic from pansori, from african drumming, from string quartets. Some musics are more *academic* than others, say 12-tone serialism, but that doesn't make it more "logical" because music's value and worth is determined by subjective aesthetics. In other words, you could say that a music's logic is based on aesthetics.

  494. musictheory 2015-01-01 01:28:10 tylerthehun
    Wouldn't that be more or less equivalent to the thermal motion of the string itself?

  495. musictheory 2015-01-04 03:37:43 Djeezus1
    Alright, I'll give you some food for thought in the meantime. From what I gather (and may be subject to debate), the mariachi group has seen three stages of evolution since the French wanted to know the ensemble's name in the 1800s. The first stage is Folkloric, usually small groups of string-based players with violins, an harp and various guitars types, with their origins in Michoacan. The skill ceiling is mostly 1 or 2 part singing, fiddler-level violin play, guitar chords and the odd harp solo here and there. Keep in mind that the trumpet use here is anachronistic, since the trumpet was added later on. As example is the old interpretation of La Negra: http://youtu.be/LX_sS8Fzd7Y The next stage is Traditional, mostly initiated in Jalisco. It came with a standardization of uniforms and group elements, instrument experimentation with the addition of trumpets and the integration of classical music theory. That came to be with the involvement of Mariachi music within the golden age of cinema in Mexico in the 40s/50s and preceded with the advent of radio. This is the style that most people remember in general and a backbone to any mariachi's repertoire, with legendary people which have yet to be replaced, such as Pedro Infante for singers or Miguel Martinez "el Trompas" for the trumpet. As an example of this is an excerpt from the movie Escuela de Vagabundos: http://youtu.be/F7i3xljYFpg The latest stage is Modern. As mariachi started to fall in the cultural foreground of Mexico, the musicians started travelling outside of Mexico more often and established themselves further out in America, Europe and Asia. In addition of this expansion, their musical flexibility and the balance within the core elements permits them to be easily inserted into many projects, which often brings them to work with different music genres and even orchestras. As for musicians in this era, we got Vicente Fernandez with a well-aged and very conservative style, Mariachi El Bronx as one of the most progressive approaches and Luis Miguel that uses Pop culture as a middle ground. Examples in order: http://youtu.be/_9-oddWM_9k http://youtu.be/7YpnSbHtHDg http://youtu.be/r4mogF9O9_E Hope this helps out a bit.

  496. musictheory 2015-01-07 12:22:34 JFTFT
    Vaughan Williams had this cathedral in mind when he wrote the piece. He had a smaller chamber orchestra and a string quartet placed away from the main orchestra in three separate locations, so each "body" of strings could echo each other off the cathedral walls.

  497. musictheory 2015-01-08 06:07:19 HippieG
    Thanks. That D string be hurtin

  498. musictheory 2015-01-08 14:37:40 n_dolan
    Nice work. I'd like to critique a couple things, but I'm by no means trying to tell you how to write or arrange. 1. This is kind of an odd string quartet with two celli. There's nothing wrong with that, but keep in mind that if you want your pieces to be performed, it's easier to use standard quartets as they are more common. 2. This seems to be more of an outline - and what I mean by that is that you have one line that has the melody and the other instruments are very static. I would add some counterpoint between the accompanying strings to add interest, and try moving the melody between instruments. 3. The 7/8 measure seems unnecessary to me. It stands out as kind of being just a random odd time signature just there for the sake of using an odd time signature. If you want to make it seem more intentional, I'd try adding 7/8 measures to the rest of the piece, maybe every 4th measure or something. 4. Add some dynamics and phrasing, this will help the players to play more expressively and confidently if they know what you're looking for. 5. The A in the lower cello in measure one - I'd use an F# there to finish the chord and get rid of the octave parallel motion in the celli. I think that's pretty much all I wanted to say. Keep orchestrating!

  499. musictheory 2015-01-08 16:23:57 Killian3494
    I like the suggestions the other commenter made, I think he gave a good direction to take this in. I'd just like to point out that getting composition performed by string players can, in my own experience be difficult, maybe less so depending on how close you are with them and simplicity of the piece, etc. String players usually prefer to play the thousands of popular compositions available to them.

  500. musictheory 2015-01-08 21:17:19 m3g0wnz
    From Walter Everett, *The Beatles as Musicians:* Revolver *through the* Anthology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 59–62. The C+3-4 refers to the Norton scores of the Beatles recordings. >The Beatles were set to fly to Germany on June 23, and by the 14th they had not finished their work for the LP; McCartney told a reporter, "I'm just writing one more number, then it's finished," and Lennon said, "I've got something going; about three lines so far" (McCartney: "Have you? That's good"); both last-minute compositions would make the album. >One of McCartney's gems, "Here, There and Everywhere," is supposed to have grown from his hearing of the Beach Boys' "God Only Knows" (brand new in May 1966) at the side of the Weybridge pool, but as the composer says, "you wouldn't have known." After several takes were attempted on June 14, a remake was begun on the 16th, when most of the recording was done. First—as in "For No One" and "Good Day Sunshine"—McCartney played a duet with Starr for the basic track, this time a rhythm part on Casino with drums, accompanied at C+3 -4 and in the final two bars ("Guitar I") by Harrison's electric twelve-string. The Rickenbacker's so-called Rick-O Sound stereo capability is taken advantage of at C, the signal sent to two amps, miked separately to the Casino/drum track and to a second track; the tone pedal colors the song's final five notes. Then bass was added to a third track of Take 13; the fourth was filled with backing vocals from McCartney, Lennon, and Harrison and (beginning at C+8 but more audible a bar later) finger snaps. The bass and basic track were reduced to one track, along with a sped-up overdubbed lead vocal from McCartney, sustaining the upper line at C+9-10, all parts now heard right. This and the backing-vocal track (left-center, with reverb) and Ricky-12 "pre-echo" (left) joined a doubled lead vocal (left, descending at C+9-10) added on the 17th. The track was mixed on June 17 and 21. Although the recording process itself was complicated by the composer's slow-to-coalesce vision of the final arrangement, what with only a few Beatles working at a time, and despite its full backing harmonies, "Here, There and Everywhere" presents the sparest and most relaxed texture of the LP. >In order to indicate a few of the motivic and harmonic ideas expressed in "Here, There and Everywhere," its structure is sketched as [example 1.13](http://imgur.com/a/AUmpg). In the tonally mysterious and tempo-free introduction (A), note how the passing motion in the bass, B-B&#9837;-A (0:02-0:06), imitates a similar descent in the alto register as sung by McCartney (in lead and backing lines), g^(1)-(f&#9839;^(1))-f&#9838;^(1) (0:01- 0:06), representing a great development from the G-G&#9839;-A-B&#9837; opening of "You Like Me Too Much." This song is also a masterpiece of registral relationships. One dotted slur in the graph indicates how the introductory pitches in the alto line continue to descend following a registral shift (at 0:05) that reaches over the upper voice to f&#9839;^(2); this gesture will be repeated diatonically in the verse when a second alto descent, from b^1 through a^1 and g^1 (0:25-0:27), dramatically shifts up to f&#9839;^2 at B+7 (0:28). McCartney recaptures this registral dialog by concluding his song with an ascending arpeggiation (D+3-4) to allow f&#9839;^2 to finally resolve in the song's final note to g2. The B&#9837;chord of measure 2 is the opening sonority of the bridge (C+l, 0:56), which borrows from the parallel minor for four bars. Both the boundary-embracing registral interplay and the unexpected move to E&#9837; help portray the composer's "everywhere." Nowhere else does a Beatles introduction so well prepare a listener for the most striking and expressive tonal events that lie ahead. >The function of the first two verses (twice through B) is to begin with an unequivocally strong metric placement of "Here" and "There" on the situation-defining tonic but to end with some question (What is there? [Some special quality that she possesses]. . . . Who is speaking? [Some unnoticed outsider]) in a back-relating half cadence at B+8, as the phrases were structured in the "Michelle" verses. In fact, the arrival on tonic for "There" at the top of the second verse helps answer the question posed at the end of the first, by virtue of the repeated word, "there"; the unnameable "something"—also a key word in "I Want to Hold Your Hand"—exists in his relationship with her, as described in the second verse. Everything changes from certainty to question at B+5 (0:21), where "a wave of her hand" lifts the singer into unknown chromatic territory, but he finds his way back to the V7 through conventional fifth motions, III&#9839;-VI-II-V . >The unexpected turn to mixture from Gminor represents both the globe-encompassing nature of "Everywhere"—places not seen even in the circle of fifthsending the verse—and the anxious "care" from which the singer is exempted; the sketch emphasizes how unfolded thirds descend sequentially at C, suggesting closeness as she is beside him.113 The opening of the bridge not only recaptures the B&#9837;chord and the beginning of the fundamental line (5-4) from the introduction, but its beginning on d^2 (C+l) satisfies the need of the verse's e^2, left hanging at B+4 and B+7, to descend in register. This beautiful piece accomplished, McCartney rested his muse for five months. I know this is likely a bit over your head but I bet you still get a lot out of it. The Example 1.13 looks funny because it's a system of analysis called Schenkerian analysis and it uses traditional notation to mean things it doesn't normally mean in printed sheet music. A very unrefined explanation is basically this: the analysis is basically a bare-bones transcription of the song showing which notes are most structurally integral to the song: unstemmed notes are least important, stemmed black notes (quarter notes and eighth notes) are next most important, and stemmed half notes are most important. Slurs and beams show important connections. If you don't get it, don't worry, Everett has a lot of other interesting things to say that don't revolve around understanding 1.13 perfectly. For some context, Everett is definitely a Lennon guy, so it's rare for him to write something so glowing about McCartney, and I think you can feel his reservations a bit in the text!

  501. musictheory 2015-01-12 11:57:50 link090909
    so you're trying to get us to do your theory homework? kidding. I did a little bit of digging and found something interesting. this Romance for Violin began life as the 2nd movement of Dvorak's 5th String Quartet. (frustratingly IMSLP has all of Dvorak's String Quartets numbers 2-14... except #5.) but according to some notes I found, and according to the listen I'm giving it right now, the 2nd movement of his 5th String Quartet is indeed in a rondo. however, it wasn't a direct transcription from quartet to finished orchestral piece. in fact: >For [Romance in F minor] Dvorak borrowed the introductory part of the second movement of his String Quartet No. 5 in F minor, written in 1873. In addition to this segment, which became the main theme of Romance, Dvorak added two new themes, **treating them in traditional sonata form.** [\(source\)](http://www.antonin-dvorak.cz/en/romance-for-violin-and-orchestra) so unless this website is lying to me, it could be considered an orchestral sonata rather than a rondo. the ambiguity is probably where the confusion comes from, because it has elements of both a sonata and a rondo and isn't easily shoehorned into either classification hope that's an adequate answer, OP!

  502. musictheory 2015-01-13 14:17:27 Deggit
    I transcribed it by ear. I also use the free program Audacity... very useful... You can slow down the soundtrack to 10 or 20% of its normal speed (great for figuring out the exact notes of fast string and woodwind passages). Also you can pitch shift the whole piece up or down an octave (again very good for figuring out the exact pitch of extreme notes, such as a bassline).

  503. musictheory 2015-01-14 11:24:29 [deleted]
    While I disagree with OP that harmony is more removed from personal taste/cultural context than rhythm or timbre, I'm still left wondering what you are talking about? harmony can exist without rhythm. If I play a single Cmaj7 chord, is it not a Cmaj7 if I play it at a different rhythm? If I see a Cmaj7 written on a score, am I not sure it's a Cmaj7 until I hear the timbre of the string section that it's written for? do I need to know what rhythm the bassoon is playing at to know the strings are playing a Cmaj7? you could argue that harmony can't exist without harmony, since the function of a chord is dependent upon the context of other notes, but that's a bit redundant. if you're going to belittle people with phrases like "you're pretty much completely talking out of your ass," try not to say it out of your own ass.

  504. musictheory 2015-01-14 12:14:47 setecordas
    After the B, he plays C# D# slur on the 2nd string, F# F# G# G# F# F# all on the 3rd string. The note in the background is an F# and G# on the first string. After the last F#, the background notes are C# A# F# on 3rd, 1st, and 2nd.

  505. musictheory 2015-01-15 23:06:22 TibbittsN
    I guess it depends on how much you know already. I think it's a moot point to simply memorize all the notes on a fretboard when understanding a guitar would be more helpful. Of course that'd be great to know where every single note is, but that's more work than you need to put in. The strings are tuned in fourths, meaning that the fourth to your low E string is an A. That's simply just built from the major scale. From there, you also know that if you play your open low E string, playing 2 frets higher on your D string will give you an octave. I guess sight reading would be as much of knowing all the tricks and function of your instrument as much as knowing which notes each dot translates to. Guitar has the added benefit to using the same shape for keys of songs by simply sliding them up or down the fretboard.

  506. musictheory 2015-01-16 01:19:01 headless_bourgeoisie
    What's the tuning, by the way? Is it really written for a 7 string guitar?

  507. musictheory 2015-01-18 12:14:40 MiskyWilkshake
    They'd be exactly the same as they would in standard tuning, but everything on the low E (now low D) string would need to be played 2 frets further up the neck. To make myself clear, a C major scale in standard tuning would be: E: 8, 10, A: 7, 8, 10, D: 7, 9, 10, G: 7, 9, 10, B: 8, 10 e: 7, 8 A C major scale in drop-D would be: D: 10, 12, A: 7, 8, 10, D: 7, 9, 10, G: 7, 9, 10, B: 8, 10 e: 7, 8

  508. musictheory 2015-01-18 12:27:14 MiskyWilkshake
    Any time. It's very easy to work out - Drop D tuning is just standard tuning with the E string tuned down two semitones, so everything played on that string needs to be played two frets higher in order to sound the same. You can work out how to play anything in any tuning by the same reasoning. One thing you might want to note though is that generally drop-tunings tend to be used with thirdless power-chords rather than full diatonic triads, this is because they allow you to play a 5 chord with a single finger.

  509. musictheory 2015-01-20 14:11:40 Arathun
    > How can I learn what I want to learn without actually majoring in music? > Any advice or thoughts? Has anyone done something like that - studied music, but majored in something else? Okay, so you like music. Why do you like music? If you can answer this and not give a sloppy answer, go to the next question So, do you want to learn the theory, or are you content with just playing your favourite pieces? If you want to do both, even better! But Music theorists need not be performers, just like coaches need not be athletes. I assume you want to theorize! Next question! What do you wonder about music? This is an extremely important question as a theorist. What is it that you don't understand, exactly? State in in discrete, clear terms. What's important is that you first get any uncertainties you do know about out of the way. After you know what you don't know, make an answer! Huh? How? You're an artist! Make an answer! (But please, make one that makes sense) You'll need to keep this all in your head, because writing down about music is just a pale substitution to understanding a different mode of perception. Writing about literature? Makes sense. Writing about a music? Eh... For example, why 12 notes? Why are the most "natural" sounding meters divisible by 2 or 3? What is common between my favourite music? Oooh, that chord progression sounded nice, what are the exact chords? This last one, especially, to me, was useful. You need to remember every novel chord progression you come across. Catalog it. Difficult? Yes. But, once your catalog builds up, you have enough data to make your own theory!!! Or at least build around contemporary theory. But, personally speaking, I'd abandon many conventions adopted in classical theory. There are 7 unique notes, but we an octave refers to 8 notes. The bullshittiness of this is clear when you refer to TWO octaves, where you the gap is 15. DOES NOT MAKE SENSE, especially when you're trying to build your own theory. Also, fuck time signatures and the quaver system. Conceptualize a better system for music notation. One that works for you, personally. I suggest you use a keyboard layout as a visual guide. There's a reason why the black keys are spaced in the way they are, and not in any other way! What is it? Find it out yourself! Be creative! But make sure your explanation is consistent with your larger theory. Now, you figured out (for the most) what you know you don't know. BUT what don't you know that you don't know? Explore music you don't like. Explore! Explore entire genres, and find that connecting string. Describe, in replicable terms, what makes a genre! Is it bassline? The instrumentation? Particular rhythms? Avoided notes in a scale/mode? The swing? Whatever! Explore other musicians. Why do some people like this musician? Why do some people not? Explain in musical terms, and don't relate it to the politics/economics/popularity of music! Explore the physical explanation of music, and the current neurological understanding. Why do people go deaf? When certain people "don't have a sense of rhythm," do they really, at the biological level, not have one? What is natural and what is trained in musical perception? And, when you continue exploring, WITH BURNING CURIOSITY, you'll learn things you didn't know you didn't know! And then they become things you do know you don't know. And so forth. NOW! What does no one know about music? This is REAL PhD material, one that is absent in current musical education. It makes me laugh at how music is taught. What we don't know? First, refine that question. What does no one know about music THAT IS WORTH KNOWING? Most important thing to note, the limited music theories I've read don't make sense, and not because I don't understand them. They don't have any explanation to why this sounds like that, or whatever. They just catalog. But they don't build a system around it. At least I haven't. I'm super biased about this since I only formally studied music in high school. BUT. I'm in my second year in uni too, now (wow!), and guess what I'm studying? Because I want to find a legitimate answer not plagued with musical "theories" without evidence and rationale? Well, it's not music, because I was thankfully made aware of how terrible music is taught before attending uni. (I'm in Neurosci) > But I do know that this is something I'm very passionate about that I want to learn whether I can make money from it or not, and that it's not something I'm going to be able to teach myself on my own. I've tried the self-teaching thing, but I inevitably end up lost. I need specific feedback from someone who's more experienced than I am, someone I can communicate with directly - a real teacher, not a book. Guidance is possible! Talk to me if you want! BUT! You really should teach yourself. Don't give up! You don't need a teacher. Music theory, for the most, is entirely learnable without experiments or chemicals or expensive equipment, and much information of music theory is online. This isn't so in the sciences! That's why teachers are necessary for science. I'm counting on Science 2.0 for the layman to arrive eventually, though. In music, you are the researcher! You ask the important questions. You decide what's important, what's worth looking into, and so forth. That's the way it's always been, since people have starkly different tastes in music! And, with all these resources available to you, you have the power to answer your questions yourself. Don't be a lazy bum and let someone else think for you! Also, don't think advice is ironic in anyway! NOW BEGONE!

  510. musictheory 2015-01-20 22:19:51 DRL47
    If it is resolving to a B(major), it isn't resolving to B dorian(minor). I hear it as a string of sub-dominants leading back to B. This could change if the rhythm of the changes was manipulated. If you extend the string of sub-dominants one farther, you have the chords to "Hey Joe".

  511. musictheory 2015-01-21 11:38:23 RyanT87
    Be careful not to conflate the ancient Greek modes (e.g., hypodorian) with the pitch/string names (e.g., proslambanomenos). The letter names were used by Boethius (A-O) and later A-G (for octave equivalence) was used.

  512. musictheory 2015-01-23 00:04:12 NicroHobak
    Likewise, I play guitar, bass, drums, and little bits of other stuff here and there...but there's nothing stopping me from learning new string techniques from watching a violin video. In fact, just the other day I saw a video from someone that I felt was a very good violin/fiddle player explaining the concept of a hammer-on in the middle of this video that was explaining an incredibly complex piece of music... As a guitar player, it seemed like an odd break for such a simple, basic technique. My friends who were discussing it kinda made it sound like this just wasn't a common thing for a violin to do. But strings are strings for the most part, and music is music, so it just struck me as somewhat odd. There's really no reason to shun a resource because of the instrument is uses. Sometimes even the instrument techniques themselves can overlap more than you might have anticipated.

  513. musictheory 2015-01-23 01:20:45 Tralexer
    > One vexing problem for many aural skills teachers is the study of intervals. Do students need to be proficient at identifying random intervals before they can move on to something else? No, I don't believe so. [1] Do they need to be proficient at hearing scale degrees and relationships within the context of a key? Most certainly. Many students do not do particularly well with random interval identification, but can do well with other aspects of aural analysis. I agree that one should come before the other (solfege within a diatonic key is obvioulsy easier than random intervals in random keys being thrown at you), but both should be acquired. Antiquated tuning systems/fretless string tendencies aside, a perfect 5th is a perfect 5th. A minor 7th is always going to be a minor 7th. When I attempt to write what I hear, I just notate it in C for major, Am for minor. In that way, wether or not I'm saying do re mi, or 1 2 3, or C D E, its still the same thing. The same goes for sight singing. When I sight sing a piece, I'll be saying either their letters (mentally just knowing that a D is the ii in C major), or just singing their sounds. I do completely agree that sight singing is the other half of ear training, and admittedly I neglect this side more than I should.

  514. musictheory 2015-01-23 01:38:35 MiskyWilkshake
    It was certainly around, and used by plucked string instruments as early as 1450, but it didn't really take it's place as the predominant temperament until the second half of the 18th century, and was not standardised until the first decade of the 19th century. Still, I imagine you're right that Schubert and Scriabin probably composed for equal-tempered instruments most of the time - that said, they would have been well aware of previous temperaments (heck, all of their favourite pieces that they listened to in their childhoods would be unequally tempered), so it's not implausible that they were drawing from that.

  515. musictheory 2015-01-23 19:18:15 ShamanSTK
    And for a less extreme case, see almost any string instrument. Particularly guitar which favors G and violin which favors D.

  516. musictheory 2015-01-23 20:40:19 cortez8600
    How long does it take though? I feel not having this skill really holding me back? For those who are proficient how many years/months did take? I know it's a "how long is string" question but I'm interested in others's experience. Some ear training sites online claim 60 day money back guarantee!

  517. musictheory 2015-01-24 14:55:10 catchierlight
    Yeah definitely specific, rhythm, music and texture must mesh ... I LOVE Shadow ... and another great one in that genre to check if you haven't already is The Books. They do these crazy micro edits with voices, string instruments, rythmic elements, but it's always beautiful, never cluttered even though it's really really rich in content ... very cool/beautiful stuff

  518. musictheory 2015-01-25 09:35:26 sveccha
    It gives me great joy to hear that, thank you for the reply. If you like her then do yourself a favor and listen to "the kiss" as well. To me it stands up to Bach's "air on a g string" or Chopin's Etude in E major and other similar pieces in terms of timelessness, simplicity and haunting beauty. I just recently discovered her myself so forgive my excess of enthusiasm.

  519. musictheory 2015-01-26 10:02:02 odor_
    piano strings are struck by a hammer, velocity/volume determined by proficiency and intent of the player. other string intstruments are played in different ways. some are bowed, others plucked. not sure how far you wanna discuss it, there's my quick answer

  520. musictheory 2015-01-26 10:08:39 jukhom001
    It's a string instrument but it's actually regarded as a percussion instrument because as /u/odor_ explained, the strings are hit by a hammer. there are multiple strings as well per each note on the piano, each one slightly detuned. I'm sure there are other piano technicians who can explain it better but generally the percussive aspect of it and the detuned strings create a majority of the sound. there are also other factors to take into mind too... the soundboard, the wood, etc...

  521. musictheory 2015-01-26 10:24:00 Leftieswillrule
    The same reason a guitar doesn't sound the same as a violin. The strings are played a different way. Plucking a guitar gives a vastly different sound than bowing a violin, or hitting a piano key (and by proxy hitting the string with a small hammer).

  522. musictheory 2015-01-26 14:51:19 phalp
    If you compare to the bowed strings, a piano's string is free to produce overtones that aren't in a perfect harmonic series, while bowing a string forces its overtones into tune. Compared to a guitar, a piano of course has big fat strings under a lot of tension, and the fact that each key has multiple strings causes some really wacky acoustical effects, even changing the envelope of the note. Pianos are also engineered so that you can hit the string as hard as you want without it hitting any kind of fingerboard. Another difference is that piano strings are not only very long, but are also always played "open" at their full length. EDIT: Found my source on the weird physics: https://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/weinreic/weinreic.html

  523. musictheory 2015-01-26 22:35:16 Erob90
    Because it is not a string instrument, but a percussion instrument.

  524. musictheory 2015-01-26 22:44:25 DRL47
    Pianos are closely related to hammered dulcimers, esp. the cimbalom. They originated as a mechanical cimbalom. Harps are also closely related in that the strings are not "stopped" in any way. Of course, they are plucked, which is a slow percussive effect. Pianos aren't that distinct from ALL the other string instruments. It isn't just the multi-string courses, as mandolins and tiples have multiple strings per note.

  525. musictheory 2015-01-27 03:38:52 Tralexer
    1) Because certain instruments sound different in certain keys. 2) Because not all instruments use equal temperament playing. 3) String instruments especially tend to lean to certain slightly varying intervals based on the key, just on the way your fingers work. 4) To match the singing ranges of choir singers. 5) Because modulation. 6) Because double sharps are fun.

  526. musictheory 2015-01-27 05:47:52 JD95
    Although all keys are essentially "the same", they all exist in a certain location. If C is in the middle, then playing in the key of E major would mean that the bass note would either have to be lower than C or above it. The lowest note for a normally tuned string bass is an E so if I really wanted that freaking low string sound on the tonic I can't achieve the best result in C it has to be E. Because of certain instrument ranges if I wanted a piece to say, begin low and gradually go higher and reach its highest point at the end of the piece, it makes sense to start in a key that most low instruments have the range to play. Another reason, especially for beginning ensembles, is that some keys are simpler for some instruments as compared to other. For example, a string ensemble would enjoy a piece in D major, but a concert band would do better in the key of Bb or F because the fingering are simpler. I believe F# is not a fun note for beginning French horns to play.

  527. musictheory 2015-01-27 23:23:24 Bigfrostynugs
    It's not about feel, it has a lot to do with instrumental range too. Let's say that I want to write in C major, and start my song with all the string section in an orchestra playing their lowest C in unison. Unfortunately, the double basses can't play a low C1 like the cellos can play their low C2, so the sound isn't as rich and deep. If I wrote my piece in E major instead, I could avoid this problem and the song would better fit the range of the instruments. Other instruments just sound different in different registers, or are easier or harder to play in different keys. There are a million reasons to pick a new key. Also, if we just wrote everything in C major, it would be unnecessarily difficult to sightread music.

  528. musictheory 2015-01-28 00:08:26 ZoomBlah
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlvXRPWdhOo For something similar to a piano which sounds like a string instrument. Enjoy!

  529. musictheory 2015-01-28 01:34:59 strandsepp
    Unfortunately, I can't speak to the proper methods of applying the concept of modes to improvisation over traditional harmony. This is not an area I'm very familiar with. It looks like most of your confusion about modes is related to that stuff, so I'm not sure I'll be much help. However, if you're interested in figuring out just what I mean, try this: 1. Tune your guitar to drop-d. 2. Strum the low D string and the A string together, creating a drone. 3. Over this drone, improvise using the following scales (one at a time, for a while each). This might get you to hear the character of each mode. 1 (Mixolydian) D E F-sharp G A B C 2 (Dorian) D E F G A B C 3 (Lydian) D E F-sharp G-sharp A B C-sharp 4 (Phrygian) D E-flat F G A B-flat C If you do that, you'll notice that Phrygian has a kind of "eastern" feel to it, and you will pick up on other characteristics of the other modes. One last thing you could try: Take a listen to the Simpsons theme song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqog63KOANc What gives it its sort-of eerie, mischievous quality? It's the Lydian mode. The tonal center of it is C. However, melody goes: C E F-sharp A G E C A F-sharp(x3) G etc. Which is C Lydian. We can't call is G Major because the tonal center is C, not G. (Interestingly, A B-flat is introduced later, adding in the character of C Mixolydian). We can't describe or write that piece without understanding modes.

  530. musictheory 2015-01-28 02:40:54 NinetoFiveHero
    >I don't think it's possible to have a formula that works every time because it varies from instrument to instrument and from room conditions to room conditions. If we assume "straight" is always C and use ratios (as opposed to saying "A is always a bend of an inch over on all saws" or what-have-you), shouldn't it always work out? Like a string that you touch at the halfway point always produces the octave higher than its open note, what prevents this from working with bendy instruments? >If you do a lot of ear training exercises, especially interval recognition, you'll eventually know by ear when you have "bended" enough. Yeah I can do that. I'm more just curious about the calculations.

  531. musictheory 2015-01-28 04:01:24 breisdor
    I would definitely recommend approaching this as an ear-training problem more than a physics problem. On a string instrument, depressing the string at the halfway point will create a tone 1 octave higher than the open string. However, playing a note that *sounds* an octave higher will be more consistently in tune than trying to depress the string at the halfway point. Use your ears, and your body will quickly learn the behavior of the instrument.

  532. musictheory 2015-01-28 21:15:14 Confoundicator
    Harmonically what's going on is the bass is staying in Dm, and guitar is outlining the i, ii, and VI chords. Here's my transcription, E-A-D-G-B-e is the format: First chord is Dm: X-X-12-14-X-13 Nothing special here. Second chord: X-X-14-14-X-15 This is the chord that was tripping you up, re-voiced the way it's played on the studio recording. This is basically the ii chord over a tonic pedal-tone, D in the bass. It contains the root and 3rd from the ii chord but keeps A, the 5th in Dm, meanwhile the bass is still on D, so you can assume a D under this chord as well. If you look at the notes, D, E, A, G from low to high. It's a big suspended chord sound. You have the Root and 5th of a D chord, and the 2nd and 4th for your classic suspended notes. You could call this something like Dsus2sus4, or just Dsus, or you could call it A5/G5/D as sort of a poly-chord of quartal harmonies. But enough about that. It's just the ii chord over the i in the bass. Third chord: X-X-15-15-X-17 The notes low to high including the bass are D, F, Bb, A. This is a first inversion diatonic VI chord, Bbmaj7 with D in the bass. Fourth chord: X-X-15-15-X-20 Every other repeat he goes up from A to C on the high E string. This turns Bbmaj7/D into Bbadd9/D. That should give you something to play with. Cheers!

  533. musictheory 2015-01-30 23:31:03 Salemosophy
    >P(arallel) is the same as C major to C minor. > >L(eittonwechsel) is the same as C maj to E min > >R(elative) is the same as C maj to Amin. > >I can combine these to show a string of transformations. RPRP is translated to: D maj to Ab maj. I - #VI. The trouble is, Ab isn't the #VI to DMaj. In D Major, the #VI would be B# Major. I think your transformational approach is good, though. We're far more inundated with the circle of fifths in theory. It's good to see someone taking a closer look at mediant relationships and adding some structure to our thinking about it.

  534. musictheory 2015-02-01 06:19:31 phalp
    > When people say 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1 what is that showing? It's showing how fast (number of times per second) each string is vibrating, compared to a reference frequency (number of times per second). Often the specific reference frequency isn't relevant, so only ratios, and no specific frequency information, is provided. Saying 9/8 is like saying "major second". It describes an interval without any particular root. You can also flip it around and talk in terms of string length. The ratio 2/1 is an octave. 2/1 means the higher pitch is twice the frequency of the lower one. But in terms of string length, if you make the string *half* as long it will sound an octave higher. 3/2 is the ratio of a fifth, but if you flip it over you get 2/3. If you make a string 2/3 as long, it will sound a fifth higher. You can verify it with a guitar and a yardstick. This is actually how ancient music theorists operated, since measuring off divisions of a string is approachable even with ancient technology. > Also why do certain ratios sound good as supposed to others when someone says 2897439/2938732 (random number lol) doesnt sound good There's no simple answer to that, and it's not completely understood. You can consider it basically an experimentally derived fact that ratios of small numbers (a vague term!) sound particularly consonant. Which particular numbers make a pleasing sound together is a matter of opinion past a certain point. Everybody agrees an octave, a fifth, or a (just) major third or sixth is consonant. Nobody really thinks a minor third is dissonant, or a fourth, although they're maybe not as clear as the previous intervals. But stray a little bit out of that group and opinions will vary widely, often based on familiarity with the interval in question, and also on how attuned they are to "JI buzz" in chords. It's also interesting to note that if you take two very big numbers that happen to be very close to an octave, or to a fifth, then they will sound just as consonant as the "perfect" 2/1 or 3/2 ratio would have. What about 2000000000000000001/1000000000000000001? Nobody on Earth could tell that apart from the most pure octave generated on the most accurate equipment available. So whatever it is that makes small number ratios sound so consonant, it doesn't have anything to do with superstitious numerology. However there is some stuff that's good to know about how tones interact. One is that when two nearby frequencies are sounded, they will cause a beating effect with one another, which can create a dissonant effect. The effect diminishes as the frequencies get closer to a unison. Most of the musical instruments we use produce tones with overtones at roughly twice the fundamental frequency, 3 times, 4 times, 5, times, and so on. So if you tune your instruments in ratios made up of these numbers, you can "line up" the overtones and diminish the beating effects. Other instruments have overtones in other ratios. The piano is a good example: its overtones tend sharp, so pianos have the octaves tuned wide to help the overtones line up. Another thing to know is that our ear can evidently detect when a sound has overtones in a harmonic series. We know it can, because we can easily assign a definite pitch to a harmonic sound, but an inharmonic sound (like a cymbal or gong, some types of bells, many drums) isn't perceived as having a definite pitch. So presumably if a combination of complex tones resembles a harmonic series, our ear will notice that. Another is that there's a model called [harmonic entropy](http://www.soundofindia.com/showarticle.asp?in_article_id=1905806937) that tries to calculate how confused the brain is about which particular frequency ratio it's hearing. Around the ratio 3/2, and around 2/1, there aren't many ratios of similar simplicity, but in many other parts of the octave there are quite a lot, which (supposedly) means it's easier for the brain to identify intervals like octaves and fifths, which exist in less "crowded" areas of interval space, but harder to tell 11/8 from 7/5, which are pretty close together yet of similar complexity.

  535. musictheory 2015-02-01 15:34:04 xiipaoc
    > When people say 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1 what is that showing? Frequency ratios. Let's say you're starting at 360 Hz -- this is a random number I just made up. Then 1/1 would be 360 Hz, obviously. 9/8 would be 9/8 of 360 Hz, which is 405 Hz. 5/4 would be 5/4 of 360 Hz, which is 450 Hz. 4/3 would be 4/3 of 360 Hz, which is 480 Hz. And so on. They're just ratios of frequencies. So (480 Hz)/(360 Hz) = 4/3. I think there are the "numbers lol" that you're talking about. > Is it showing where the string is vibrating or can someone explain this to me? Let's say you have a string that vibrates, on a violin or something. The longer it is, the *lower* the frequency. Let's say that the whole string is your 1 -- you want to make an interval with the sound you get from the entire string. To make a frequency ratio of 3/2, you have to press down on the string 2/3 of the way up (which is 1/3 of the way down from the neck). To make a ratio of 9/8 you press on it 8/9 of the way up (which is 1/9 of the way down). And so on. The numbers are frequency ratios, but on a string, what you usually see are wavelengths, which are inversely proportional to the frequencies, so the ratios are upside down. > why do certain ratios sound good as supposed to others Eh, how should I know which ratios you like? Cop-out answer, I know. But the real answer here is that I have no fucking clue, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either a musical cognition expert or is lying. For a long time, people thought that intervals with small numbers sound better than intervals with big numbers. So 5/4 sounds much better than, say, 81/64. But if you actually listen to the ratios (which you can do [on my microtonal synthesizer](http://offtonic.com/synth); use the box on the lower right to add notes at whatever ratios you want to your starting note), you'll notice that small numbers sound *crisper*, in a way, but not necessarily *better*. They sound more in tune. However, modern music is *rarely* in tune. Want to know why? > Last of all which tuning system is used most commonly Equal temperament. Specifically, 12-tone equal temperament, or 12-TET, or 12 equal divisions of the octave, or 12edo. Those are all names for the tuning system we use most commonly. The octave is divided into 12 equal steps. The octave has a frequency ratio of 2, so if your starting note is 360 Hz, then an octave above it will be 720 Hz. Let's divide that into 12 equal steps. Let's say the step ratio is r. One step has a ratio of r. The next step has a ratio of r to the first step, so the ratio to the starting note is r^(2). The next one, r^(3). The 12th one, r^(12). But that ratio is 2. So r^12 = 2, which means that r = 2^(1/12). That shit's irrational. It's not a nice number. If we make a perfect fifth, for example, it's not a 3/2 ratio. It's actually a bit lower than that. If we subdivide our 12 equal steps into 100 equal steps each, called cents, the equal-tempered perfect fifth is at 700 cents from the starting note, while the 3/2 ratio is about 702 cents, which is 2 cents sharp. The major third is worse. The equal-tempered major third is at 400 cents, while the 5/4 ratio is about 386 cents, which is 14 cents flat. That's actually a big difference. The 3/2 fifth sounds a bit more in tune than the equal-tempered fifth, but the difference is barely audible. The equal-tempered fifth has irrational numbers for its ratio, while the 3/2 fifth is the smallest numbers you can get within the octave, so it should be *really* crisp. Yet, the difference is too small to really notice. The major third difference is much worse. The Pythagorean major third is 81/64, which is about 408 cents. It sounds worse than the equal-tempered third, at 400, which sounds worse than the 5/4 third at 386. But 5/4 is small numbers, 81/64 is pretty small numbers as well, relatively speaking, and the equal-tempered third is irrational, so the numbers are beyond huge. Finally, we in the West like to use the 12-tone system, but they in the not-West don't. Middle Eastern music uses a 24-tone system; Turkish music uses a 53-tone system; Yemenite chant sings random small fucking intervals for no fucking reason and with no consistency and on top of that they don't bother to enunciate (can you figure out what I've been transcribing all day?). I don't know why we like the notes we like, but other people like other notes.

  536. musictheory 2015-02-01 23:16:31 afterschoolta
    Ah yes those are the numbers I am talking about but why those ratios. I know they are used in scale degrees and the perfect 5th is 2nd most consonant next to a unison or perfect 8th but why? Does it have something to do with the way string vibrate? 360-405 is 45hz and 405-450 is also 45hz but then the next step 450-480 is 30 hz so the steps are not even and if from what your explanation the octave is half way of the string and is most consonant then perfect 5th is played and it is 2/3 of the string vibrating correct but does that mean when a string vibrates then first it is vibrating in the middle and you get the octave then those are also segmented and each of them play a perfect 5th or maybe they play one after the each other like the octave first then the 5th? What comes after that and why? oh I forgot to add how can you tune something like a piano to 12 equal steps wouldn't that mean you only tuned to one key?

  537. musictheory 2015-02-02 00:14:57 xiipaoc
    > 360-405 is 45hz You can't do that. That's why we talk about *ratios*. To get from one frequency to another, you can only multiply. Let's look at how that works. The ratio from 360 to 405 (never mind the Hz, because it could be Hz or MHz or mHz or rpm or whatever units you want to use) is 405/360 = 9/8. Whatever frequency you start with, you multiply it by 9/8 to get the same interval. We call this interval a major second. So, to go up this major second from a note, you multiply it by 9/8. Let's look at another interval, 405 to 450. That interval is a ratio of 10/9. It's smaller! 10/9 is a smaller fraction than 9/8. Yeah, the difference in Hz is the same, but that doesn't actually mean anything. See, if we start from 360, going up by this interval would land us at 400. 9/8 gives us 405, and 10/9 gives us 400. What do we call this 10/9 interval? It's also a major second. It's a different one. It's pretty confusing, right? The difference between them is pretty small. We're going from 400 to 405, so the ratio is 405/400 = 81/80. This is a small interval known as a syntonic comma (look that up if you're curious). We just talked about four notes in a scale: 1, 9/8, 5/4, and 4/3. Let's add 3/2 to that. In Hz, these would be -- if we started at 360 Hz, which I picked just because it was a nice round number -- 360 Hz, 405 Hz, 450 Hz, 480 Hz, 540 Hz. What are the step sizes? Well, we can't subtract, because that doesn't mean anything. We have to divide. So we get a step of 9/8, then a step of 10/9, then a step of 16/15, then another step of 9/8. You're right, these aren't even at all! The 16/15 *shouldn't* be, though. If we were to give these frequency ratios names, they'd be C D E F G. The interval from E to F is only a half step, so it should be smaller than the others. But it *is* weird that C to D and F to G are bigger than D to E, isn't it? Now, the reason small number ratios, like 2/1 and 3/2, are crisp (not *consonant* exactly; most people find them to be kinda harsh since we've gotten used to the out of tune equal temperament that we use) is because the waves line up! If you take a sine wave at frequency f and add it to another sine wave at frequency 2f, or 3/2 f, it will make a regular pattern that's stronger at certain points. If it's something like 8979234/234589 f (random numbers), it will just make a jumble. Since the waves line up, they basically fit together, and the smaller the numbers in the ratio, the tighter that pattern is. So, why do we use these ratios? Well, to start with, we don't. But I'll get to that. Long ago, the ancient Greeks -- especially Pythagoras, actually, about 500 BCE -- realized that if you have a string on a kythara (a kind of lyre they used back then) and hold the string at some point to basically make it shorter, the pitch goes up. OK, they definitely knew that one already by the time of Pythagoras. But what Pythagoras realized, probably by playing with his instrument, was that if he used strings in particular ratios (at the same tension and weight, but let's not get into that), the sound of the two strings together would be crisp, which it wouldn't be otherwise. It's a distinct aural phenomenon. He realized that these were ratios of small integers, and he thought this was so cool that he founded a beanless cult based on everything in the universe being ratios of small integers. And then he discovered the Pythagorean Theorem and found out that the diagonal of a square was actually *not* a ratio of small integers -- if the square has side 1, the diagonal has side sqrt(2) -- and he freaked out. One guy in the cult told the outside world about the discovery. Pythagoras and his cult drowned him. These guys were hardcore. Did I mention they weren't allowed to eat beans? Today, this cult of small integer ratios lives on under the leadership of Lyndon LaRouche. The guy's batshit crazy and his cult is batshit crazy, but they're at least entertaining crazy. Look them up. Anyway, for centuries after that, Western music was based on these small integer ratios. This is called Just Intonation (look it up). Because of the ratios, you could play many notes together and have it sound crisp. But the steps were uneven, and that got kind of annoying. People came up with many solutions, called temperaments, that fixed some of these issues. Some of them preserved certain intervals they liked. For example, one temperament was quarter-comma meantone, and it kept that 5/4 ratio that sounds so crisp but made the 3/2 interval a little out of tune. The problem is that the ratios don't work well together at all thanks to math, so whatever they tried, they'd make something better, but they'd also make something else *worse*. One example is called Pythagorean tuning after Pythagoras (play with it [on my microtonal synthesizer](http://offtonic.com/synth); it's one of the presets). And they make it by picking a note and just going up by perfect 3/2 fifths until they had 12 of them. So, they might start with Eb, and they'd go up in 3/2 fifths to Bb, F, C, G, D, A, E, B, F#, C#, G#. The next note would be D#, but they already had an Eb. The problem is that, if you go up 12 fifths, you get *a bit more* than 7 octaves (24 cents more, actually, which is a big difference). (Every tuning keeps the 2/1 octave, pretty much, because the human ear doesn't hear E down an octave and E up an octave as different notes.) So the Eb wouldn't have been the same note as the D#. The interval between the G# and the Eb wasn't a 3/2 perfect fifth. It was really, really out of tune! It was called the wolf fifth, and you were best to avoid it. B major chord? Don't do it! Ab major chord? Fuck off, that shit sounds awful! But no matter what tuning they used it was always a compromise. They'd fix some problem with Just Intonation, but they'd break something else. There was always a wolf interval somewhere that was different that you couldn't use. So someone came up with the biggest compromise of all -- let's just make 12 equal steps! So now, C D E F G has C to D, D to E, and F to G be the same size, which was a problem before. E to F is now half the size. So the steps from C to C#, C# to D, D to D#, D# to E, E to F, F to F#, F# to G are all the same, and they're the same as the steps from G to G#, G# to A, A to A#, A# to B, B to C. All the same! The frequency ratio for that is 2^(1/12), since there are 12 equal steps to the octave, which is still a 2/1 ratio. So you take the 12th root of that to get the half step. Now, *nothing* sounds crisp, but some intervals, namely the perfect fifth and perfect fourth, sound *pretty* damn close to the perfect intervals 3/2 and 4/3, respectively. It's still off, but only by a little. The other intervals are off by more. But, on the other hand, you can play in literally *any* key and it will sound the same, except a bit higher or lower! No more unequal intervals making things sound different! And that's what we use today.

  538. musictheory 2015-02-03 04:37:13 emptyshark
    I don't know how you play it, but during the verses I usually play power chord on the 4th and 5th strings, sometimes doubling the 5th of the chord on the lowest string. I'm pretty sure most of the dissonance you're hearing is either the open G string in the lick during the pre-chorus, or the synth.

  539. musictheory 2015-02-03 08:50:44 BradDelo
    Van Halen. On the first album at least. Not quite half a step down. At the very least the B string was flat.

  540. musictheory 2015-02-03 11:49:16 kukulaj
    Part of the problem in communicating this stuff is notation, and part of that is just computer fonts and how browsers display things etc. The key ratio is the 12th root of 2. It is not the 12th square root of 2... I don't think that actually means anything! The square root is the 2nd root, the cube root is the 3rd root... after that, people just say the nth root. The twelfth root of two is some number x where x^12 = x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x = 2. You can use logarithms to compute this. log(2) is some number y where 10^y = 2. Just so happens that 10^0.301 is very close to 2, i.e. the log(2) is about 0.301. So then you divide log(2) by 12 to get log(x), i.e. log(x) = log(2)/12 = 0.301/12 = 0.0251. So then x = 10^0.0251 = 1.0595. That's the 12th root of two. That is the ratio between any two notes on the keyboard that are one half step apart. So if we start with A = 440 Hz, then A# = 440 * 1.0595 = 466 Hz. B = 466 * 1.0595 = 494 Hz. C = 494 * 1.0595 = 523 Hz. and so on. You cannot really talk about the cents of a particular pitch. Cents is a measure of the interval between two pitches. So the interval between A and A# is 100 cents, the interval between A# and B is 100 cents, etc. All this business about cents is quite useless when you are just working with conventional equal temperament. It gets more useful when you are comparing tunings or playing around with tunings or notes that aren't on the keyboard. So e.g. maybe you tuned your guitar with an electronic tuner and all the strings have just the right frequencies to match a piano. But then if you play the 5th harmonic of a string, that note not going to hit exactly on a piano key or a note on the fretboard. The fifth harmonic has a frequency 5 times that of the fundamental note of the string. 1200 * log(5) / log(2) = 1200 * 0.699 / 0.301 = 2786 cents. Each half step on a piano is 100 cents. So this fifth harmonic is between 27 half steps up and 28 half steps up.

  541. musictheory 2015-02-03 12:05:16 nmitchell076
    In the Enlightenment, a certain fluency in Music was a definite aspect of the diverse tastes and abilities that one needed to display as a mark of aristocratic refinement. However, the values and knowledge that the aristocracy held were not at all the same as the values and talents that the lower working classes had. So while certain genres of music (such as the string quartet) did presume an audience with competent stylistic knowledge, other genres did not. The situation changes drastically in the 19th century, with historical events such as the French Revolution displacing the aristocracy and empowering the middle class. As a result, a class of stylistically competent musical amateurs exerted less and less control over artistic production. This is accompanied by a large shift in thought about what music is in relation to other arts and what the relation of art is to the human experience. The other element, I think, is of course the rise of the United States as a dominant cultural force. Popular music from America in the early 20th century is a relatively novel phenomenon, one that isn't a direct outgrowth of the developments going on in Europe. It's own tradition is a complicated one, one that I'm not prepared to speak intelligently about. But I think the mere fact that it is not a direct continuation of European traditions is the important point I'm making. So, any change in the 20th century I would attribute 1) to the decline of the aristocracy in Europe and it's inevitable effect upon musical aesthetics, and 2) the rise of American popular music as a distinct tradition. Now, this I think explains why a new kind of musical force was able to captivate cultural sentiment in the 20th century. But it doesn't at all explain why this resulted in the kids of aesthetic styles you are speaking of. As I mentioned above, I think this part of the answer would lie in the history of American popular music itself. How it acquired the stylistic properties that it did, how it interacted with foreign cultures, etc.

  542. musictheory 2015-02-03 22:54:19 DRL47
    I don't know about "favorite", but the tune "Flaky", by Jethro Burns, uses them as the basis of the whole tune. It also has the longest string of secondary dominants I've ever seen. Here is the chord progression, in the key of G: G7--C7--F7--Bb7--Eb7--D7--B7-E7-A7-D7- G7--C7--F7--Bb7--Eb7--D7--G-G#-A-A#- B--C#7-Cmaj7-B----D--E7-Ebmaj7-D--D7-- G7--C7--F7--Bb7--Eb7--D7--G---- The string from B7 to Eb7 is eight in a row!

  543. musictheory 2015-02-04 06:41:19 hillsonghoods
    Yes, that's *exactly* where I'm coming from (my fiancee is a musicologist looking at pop music, and Middleton's book is on our bookshelf. And I've recently been in a recording studio situation where a string quartet's inability to get the feel of a song meant that, in the end, we had to re-record some parts to fit in with the string quartet's feel instead). So thanks for expanding on that!

  544. musictheory 2015-02-06 10:07:54 frecklefaerie
    Sure! So you take your basic minor triad, and we will use the notes for Cmin C Eb G Here the root, the C, is lowest note, so it is the bass note of the chord. Those are the notes that make up a Cmin chord, right? But what if you don't want to C to be lowest note, so instead you use the C above your G so that the chord looks like this: Eb G C So the Eb is now the lowest note; the Eb is the bass. This is called the "First Inversion" of that chord. The first inversion of a chord always has the third note in the bass, and the root note on the top. Hey, there are three notes! So you can change it up again and move the Eb to the highest note, and the G in the bass: G C Eb This is called the "Second Inversion" of the chord. The second inversion always has the fifth of the chord in the bass, and the third of the chord on top. Your questions make me suspect you are a guitar player. To hear what I'm talking about, it's the difference between playing most chords in the first five frets and barre chords. One of the advantages for barre chords that follow the E major shape is that they keep the bass note preserved on the low E string, and that makes the chords sound stronger/fuller. First Inversion chords sound really pretty to me. There is something really pleasing and unexpected about the third in the bass. Resolving a V7 chord with the 7th in the bass to a First Inversion I chord is really satisfying with the half step between the seventh note of that V chord and the third of the I chord. Similarly, Second Inversion chords sound very "unstable" to me. There's something about putting the V in the bass that feels weird because the V is such a dominant chord.

  545. musictheory 2015-02-06 15:40:32 holman_da
    As already mentioned, you'll need to use inversions to get your fingers close together on the guitar in standard tuning. A very common method is the drop-2 voicings. (Google or youtube will find tons of tutorials) Your idea is good, and there exist systems based around it, but I think you will find no matter what you will need to memorize things, but that's not necessarily bad. My recommendation would be to start with arpeggios in root position, 1st inversion, 2nd inversion, 3rd inversion. So for example, play a gmaj7 arpeggio starting on the 3rd fret of the sixth string across to the first string. Then again starting on B (7th fret). Then again starting on D (10th fret). Then again on F# (2nd or 14th). Those are your major arpeggio patterns. You can form major7 chords by grabbing any comfortable groups of those notes. They are also the consonant pitches to play over a major backing chord when improvising. You can repeat that with minor7, halfdim, dom7 arpeggios as well. If you know the harmonized major scale, you should realize that you can combine the G major7 arpeggio and the Aminor7 to get all the notes in the major scale. You can experiment with which combinations of arpeggios give you the sound you want. You can use all seven pitches to form more compact chords than above if you are comfortable adding extensions. E.g., moving a stretched back root to the natural 9. There's tons more to say, but I hope this gives you some ideas to get you started!

  546. musictheory 2015-02-06 17:10:14 Jrose152
    If you are looking to get into theory, buy a keyboard. Even a cheap ass one. Use it as a tool for learning rather then an instrument. This way you won't learn theory on guitar, you will learn theory in general and then can easily apply it to guitar, or any other instrument at that. [This link](http://musictheory.tripod.com/scales.htm) should help you with scales as intervals. Learning intervals is awesome even on a basic image. You stop worrying about frets, and #'s and finger patterns, you just sort of "know" where the next note you hear in your head is. The major scale is "W W H W W W H" meaning whatever note you start at, the next note is a whole step, then a whole step, then half, then whole, whole whole, then half. Bam major scale to any key, just like how you move your pentatonic scale to the start of whatever root note. The minor scale(which is the 6th degree) is "W H W W H W W". What this means is you take that W^1 W^2 H^3 W^4 W^5 W^6 H^7 and go through that starting on the 6th # so its W H (back to the start) W W H W W. It's harder to know on a guitar because instead of staying on one sting, after a note or two you switch to the next string and depending on where the notes lay on that tuned string, the notes are in different spots since there E/F and A/B are a half step apart. It's much easier to learn it on a piano/keyboard and then transfer the knowledge over to guitar. It's a thousand times easier to physically see the distance between the notes since you are just going simply left to right, instead of left to right, skip to the next string that tuned differently so now notes are spaced differently. Not saying it isn't possible to learn on a guitar, but the piano is the biggest tool(view it as a tool and not an instrument) you will ever come across when it comes to music. It will also naturally teach your ear to hear notes so along the way you get ear training. The when you hum out a tune, you naturally skip right to the note you have in mind and don't even think about how far away it is from the note you are currently playing and you won't even be thinking scales. It also helps to hum along inside your head or even outloud as you play. This will train your ear to learn intervals and when you hum notes you will jump right to them and you will start to realize how far away and how close these sounds in your head actually are. Everything just makes sense so much on the keys. Knowing your music knowledge would help me help you better too. I'm assuming you know up the E and A string all the notes for barre chords?

  547. musictheory 2015-02-06 19:57:29 tribewalker
    The minor scale being the 6th degree of the major is interesting! I never realized that before. I already have a keyboard and have begun learning on it, but I want to begin transferring the very basic stuff that I know over to the guitar. No I don't know barre chords yet :P I just know a few basic chords, the finger pattern for a major scale, and I know the guitar strings are EADGBE and from that I can find each note on each fret of each string - but I don't have the notes memorized by heart, I just know how to find them if I start counting out .. (For example, open string E --> F --> F# --> D --> etc) Thank you for all your help! I'm definitely going to check out that link

  548. musictheory 2015-02-06 22:19:38 80lbsdown
    I think with Ferneyhough, parsing out the structure depends somewhat on your musical intuition and less on something that is right or wrong. I've analyzed his string quartets, and it's obviously nothing like finding the development section of a Haydn piano sonata. With immensely complex music like Ferneyhough's, our tendency is to get sucked into the score. Try listening a few times without a score, taking note of moments that sound like structural change. This may be a change in the most salient "motive," timbral shifts, or shifts in register. Unfortunately, these changes happen multiple times in a single measure in much of Ferneyhough, so it would require some very zoomed-out thinking. I know a grad student who is writing about form in Ferneyhough, and she's bringing in a lot of philosophy to it, which isn't really my bag. If you want me to put you in touch with her, just shoot me a PM.

  549. musictheory 2015-02-06 22:37:58 K_Rayfish
    Your method of learning chords is possible (in fact, that's exactly how I taught myself chord voicings for bass). However, there's one fundamental obstacle that guitar has that bass does not: the tuning is irregular. Guitar is tuned E A D G B E - there's a fourth between every string except between the G and B strings, where there's a major third. This irregularity makes it harder to think of your own voicings. There's an alternate system of tuning called All-Fourths tuning, where you tune the guitar E A D G C F. This has some disadvantages but you might find the increased symmetry to be helpful. [Here's](http://www.keith.bromley.name/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/P4_Guitar.pdf) some information on the tuning.

  550. musictheory 2015-02-07 00:26:09 zettabyte
    I'm thinking you're basically talking about CAGED here? Learn shapes, where the roots are, then move the roots up and down for different chords (a la barre chords). For instance, I don't know where all the F# major chords are on the neck, but I know where the F#s are. If I'm working around the 7th Fret, I know I have an F# on the 2nd string, and I know how to form a major chord when the root is on the second string (C-Shape or D-Shape).

  551. musictheory 2015-02-07 02:41:39 Ramipro
    If you understand that chords are essentially stacked thirds you've got most of it done. If you know the position that the intervals of thirds make, you can make chords already. For example, the C chord is built with the C as root, E on the second fret, and G on the open string. If you copy this shape of three notes anywhere on the fretboard you'll make a major chord. Also beware that the guitar has an irregular tuning. I learned this on the bass which has an all-4s tuning, unlike the guitar, which has mostly 4 except between the G and B strings. For triads it's two stacked thirds. That means we have four combinations. Major, minor, diminished and augmented. For 7 chords there's 8 combinations, but some are useless (fully augmented 7), or not really used (fully diminished 7, minor major 7, augmented major 7). So for a start, you've got major 7, minor 7, dominant and half diminished. In these chords you'd need to use 4 strings spanning over 5 frets, so that's why you can ignore the 5 since it's on all chords (except diminished) and doesn't give it any flavor. So basically you're substituting the 5 on the third string for the 7, 3 or 4 frets higher.

  552. musictheory 2015-02-09 11:10:52 FriskyMushrooms
    Something something finger A-minor. Something something G string

  553. musictheory 2015-02-09 14:00:39 Yeargdribble
    >Do you learn how to improvise? Only if you go into jazz studies. Despite the fact that many "classical" pianists were famously amazing improvisers, for some reason almost no schools teach even classical styles of improvisation, much less jazz or pop style improv. >Do you know how to sight read? For most programs, you will need to know how to sightreading to even get in. It's unlikely you will get much focus on sightreading unless you're very bad at it and your primary lesson instructor forces you to spend extra time on it. You will probably read a good deal of music, so it might improve from that. >Can you compose for any instrument? Unless you're a composition major, it's unlikely you'll get much focus on this. Usually orchestration is one of a handful of elective upper level theory classes you need to take for your degree. This will barely scratch the surface of what you really need to know to be a very effective composer, but will give you the tools enough to understand where to go digging if you want to know more. >How many instruments will you end up knowing how to play? If you're a vocalist, you'll probably have to take piano. If you're a pianist, you won't have to learn anything else. If you're a string or wind player getting an ed degree, you'll likely have to take some classes in the basics of other instruments. The depth varies depending on the program, but regardless, it will be quite shallow. Some programs may require some people to learn a secondary instrument. >Do you learn how to use music programs? I hear this is getting better, but not good enough or fast enough. Basically, the answer is likely just no. The focus hasn't moved forward enough to make technology be a required part of most collegiate curricula, much less make give the sort of depth that even normal teachers need. This is a huge problem in my opinion. I'll be going to the TI:ME (Technology in Music Education) conference in a few days and on of the workshops is called "I Have a Degree in Music, Not Audio!" What a sad state of affairs. Most music teachers are expected to know how to use basic audio equipment and or set up sound systems at the schools, but they learned nothing about it in college unless by their on volition. Most HS kids who just futz around with guitars as a hobby know more about audio than most degreed musicians. What a farce. >Which eras / genres of music do you study? You'll likely spend 3-4 semesters in various music history classes covering very early music, up through Baroque, Classical, Romantic, etc. usually stopping at early 20th century music. These are just the history classes. In music theory, you'll learn about classical... almost full stop. You'll study things that should've been put into the history class in great depth despite their lack of practical value (I'm looking at you parallel 5ths). You will actually exhaustively practice writing or doing mathematical style problems in this style. It's unlikely that you'll spend most of your time actually listening to how these things work... just learning rules of voice leading as if you were writing for a 4-part choir in Bach's time. You'll just barely touch on a few more even less useful concepts getting up toward Romantic music (hi2u +6 chords). Finally, you might spend some time looking into the extreme avant garde ideas of the early 20th century. Serialism, how matrices work, other strange techniques, maybe metric modulation. This will barely touch on any of these and while it's interesting, it's also very impractical. This is where it stops. Most theory classes and history classes pretty much pretend the last 100 years didn't happen. No jazz, no pop, no anything modern. They won't talk about he theory of it, the history of it, or anything. >Most important, overall overarching themes / concepts in musical studies? The focus for most performers will be on orchestral excerpts or the big pieces of literature for a given instrument. Ed majors will still hit the big rep for their instrument. There will be some education classes, but surprisingly few directly focused toward music specifically. The general scope will be old music. >Anything else? Unless you're a pianist, you'll get a great opportunity to play in lots of types of ensembles. This is can hone musical skills, especially for wind, string, and vocal types in a way that you just can't in any other way. Your ear will improve vastly just by playing with other very competent musicians and learning the vagaries of very subtle pitch and style things. But ultimately, most programs just don't offer a very rounded music education. They offer a very academic one... but very little of it is practical even to the main demographic... future music teachers. So many things are missing that should be there. I'm glad I have a degree and I value a lot of the experience, but having become a performer in other styles and basically ending up on the opposite end of the musical spectrum, I have context for just how relatively useless so much of it is. Most people who only live in that musical academia world don't even realize how limited they are. For example, band directors who have no idea how modern harmony works in virtually every composition they put in front of their students. It's a major problem in my opinion. If none of the above sounds good to you, make sure you go to a school that focuses on commercial music or music business, though they will be significantly more expensive generally. They are the exception... what I've outlined above seems to be more of the rule for general music programs.

  554. musictheory 2015-02-10 04:00:23 Yeargdribble
    I think string players are probably the exception by far amongst performance majors. They are like bassonist or oboist in that the styles written for their instruments are in a very narrow band. Meanwhile, virtually every other instrument benefits from a wider stylistic scope. And for instruments like saxophone it's absolutely laughable to teach them only "legit" skills, but there are places that do. While obviously a single semester of an audio class wouldn't be enough for everyone to really get all they need, it's still better than nothing. Simple having enough exposure to know what to get into in depth if you needed would be helpful. Like you mentioned about your own broad skills, you know just enough to get yourself in trouble, but that also provides you a jumping off point. If you needed to get deeper into any specific area, you would at least be aware of where to start and maybe of what resources to use as well as an idea of the larger conceptual ideas behind something. You could teach someone how to set up a PA in a day, but there are plenty of degreed musicians who literally don't even know how to turn a soundboard on, what all the knobs and sliders do, and how inputs and outputs work. That should be covered at the very least without even worrying about leveling and other more subtle things. I enjoyed all of the classes I tend to pooh-pooh. I'm not even necessarily that angry about any of it personally. Honestly, I get more work because people aren't educated in these things and my ambition and self-starting nature has given me a significant edge. But I still feel like it's done quite poorly and I guess there's part of me that feels like many music majors are being sold a bill of goods on a false premise. I don't even think the schools are necessarily aware of it because they are so busy looking down their noses at the commercial world. They aren't malicious... they are just ignorant. I hate to think of performance majors being able to find no work despite dedication in college because they were on the wrong path. I hate the idea of music educators not being able to teach well reach out to students with certain questions simply because they never learned it, learned it wrong, or learned that it wasn't worthwhile. The cycle of failed performers becoming teachers that teach more failed performers due to narrow scope really strikes me as unfair.

  555. musictheory 2015-02-10 05:32:42 TauMuon
    Absolutely fantastic, thanks for this. In the chord diagrams, could you indicate what strings shouldn't be strummed? (e.g. the 6th string for C major).

  556. musictheory 2015-02-15 12:03:25 tornsouls
    Cool! I'm working in some 8-string stuff. Maybe I'll post something when I get finished.

  557. musictheory 2015-02-16 07:07:06 blue_ruin
    I'm not saying that publishing some novel analysis of an Elliott Carter string quartet isn't what y'all do…I'm just saying that you won't find a "theory of rhythm" as found in the common practice period, nor anything that could apply to music outside of advanced academic circles. I would call it "advanced 20th/21st Century analysis."

  558. musictheory 2015-02-16 15:31:46 Osricthebastard
    There are many reasons to play in other keys, otherwise all of music would have settled on a "standard" key a long time ago and stuck with it (ex: Bb Major). The biggest one in most music circles is to accommodate the range of the instruments in the song and particularly the range of the singer. Not every melody can be sung in every key by every singer. Not every instrument can comfortably play your melody in every key (Ex: you've got a high F in your melody that you want the guitar to play which would require fretting the high E string on the 25th fret... except there is no 25th fret and we're going to pretend that bending doesn't exist either. The solution? Lower the key of the whole piece.) Tone CAN be a huge influence in picking a key, particularly for instruments which have subtly different timbres when played on different parts. Think of the guitar which has six strings. Each of these strings has its own timber, not merely a pitch difference but a fundamental difference in the way each string responds and resonates (because some are wound, some are not, and some are even made of different metals than the others). You're writing a piece where you want this big resounding bass note as your pedal point. Since you're going to pedal your whole piece around this note you want a really good tone when that note is played and you've decided that the open low E fits the tone you want. Congratulations, you've established E major as your key for that song.

  559. musictheory 2015-02-18 00:15:26 phalp
    I don't know if this helps but you can basically ignore the capo/treat it as an extra finger, because the notes on the neck don't move when you put the capo on. If you play the eighth fret on the E string it's still a C, with or without the capo. So if you know how to count up from the nut to figure out what note you're playing, you can still do that, pretending the capo isn't there. For chords if you know which finger is playing the root you just need to figure out what note that is, you already know whether you're playing major or minor.

  560. musictheory 2015-02-18 06:28:31 Piernitas
    Try to think of it as this. **The capo does not change the notes that you play, only how you play them.** If you have a capo on the 5th fret, and play as if you were playing in G, it's only determining how you move your fingers, not what notes you're playing. For example, a G major **chord shape** with a capo on 5th fret is actually a C major chord starting on the 8th fret of the low E string. Even without the capo, the 8th fret on the low E string is still a C. Hopefully this clarified things a little bit, let me know if there's anything else I could explain.

  561. musictheory 2015-02-18 08:21:01 nmitchell076
    It is certainly volume as well as color (or timbre). It "homoginizes" the tone color a bit. Imagine a group of people saying the same thing (like a crowd chanting "Bruce" at a Springsteen concert or "Primus Sucks" at a Primus concert), the color of everyone's voice together sounds much different from one person speaking by themselves. Take a look at any violin concerto, note the huge difference in color when the soloist is playing vs the whole Orchestra. That will help you figure out what the difference is and why the "ensemble" color is a desirable one. You might also check out something like the Barber adagio, which exists in both a string quartet version and a string orchestra version.

  562. musictheory 2015-02-18 09:18:47 nmitchell076
    I don't think that is the case. Perhaps as one is learning to play the cello or other string instrument, there is a sense of "play it this way because that's the way a cello should sound." But once you get into playing for a professional Orchestra or solo repertoire, you can manage very subtle differences in tone that you can adapt depending on the situation. That "this is the way a cello should sound" is a bit of a myth created in order to facilitate proper technique and an awareness of tone. Once you develop that awareness, though, you can drop the myth, realize the cello can do whatever the hell you want it to, and then adapt the sound to the situation. Let me pull out another analogy. You grew up in a dialect where words had a proper way in which they should be sounded (for instance, it's pronounced "App-uh-latch-ee-uh" and I will fight anyone who disagrees!). But the reality is words can be pronounced in a variety of ways. Great actors can work with this by adjusting the tone of their voice to adapt to the accent or dialect that is needed for the context. Music is the same way, but the sensitivity to tone color is something you develop with time. The cello in the Bach cello suites sounds nothing like the cello from Saariaho's [Sept Papillons](http://youtu.be/PeWpc6mjM4o). Something like [this video](http://youtu.be/WBCSjqE5zQw) from moderncellotechniques.com shows how wide the variety can be, and that's just on one instrument. As timbrally variable as the human voice? Probably not, but it has enough variance that the basic principle of the "crowd" and "the individual" is the same. I also think instrumentalists tend to think about playing differently when they are playing solo, vs. playing in chamber groups (ie, small number of instruments), vs. playing with a large ensemble. They can adapt their sound to serve different purposes. So they are going to think about their orchestral playing in a different way.

  563. musictheory 2015-02-18 10:26:55 CrownStarr
    /u/nmitchell076 and others are giving you good info about the tone side of things, but volume is a big part of it as well. If you look at an orchestra, there are tens of string instruments and usually just a handful of brass instruments, but a good brass section can easily overpower the string section when they need to, simply because their instruments are that much louder.

  564. musictheory 2015-02-20 07:44:50 Fruit-Salad
    Layering different instruments based on their timbres and then using their ranges to add depth. So if I want a bigger string timbre I add cellos on top of the viola and then violins for even more etc. Similar things with woodwinds. It's not easy and I'm not very good with it. I have an example of something I've done if you're interested but yeah I've only ever tried it once.

  565. musictheory 2015-02-21 03:01:24 Yeargdribble
    I didn't get really deep in, but it basically starts out with chromatically moving 4th voicings. It sounds like they art building the 4ths off of the Bb in the keyboard parts (Bb Eb Ab) over an E being beat out in the bass. I guess this technically makes an EM7(b5). It's a really crunchy chord. The piano walks two half steps up chromatically holding the quartal voicing then back down. It's extra crunchy because the voicing in the piano starts a tritone above the bass. I guess you could theoretically analyze exactly what chords are resulting from the following quartal voicings over E, but I really doubt that was even specifically in the mind of the players. You could get that feel on a guitar pretty easily with a bass player. Or you can mess with it yourself. Play an open E (6) then barre on the 6th fret and just play your 3 strings like a power chord and walk the barre up 7, 8, and back down. Alternate with the E on the bottom and you get that sound. Obviously it sounds better if you have an actual dedicated bass player thumping along sustaining the bottom. That's how it starts, I didn't go too much deeper, but hopefully that can get you started. You may also want to mess with being able to voice it a little higher. You can get the effect by finding the Bb on the D string (8th fret), barring it and fretting your B string a fret higher than the barre to maintain the 4ths and moving that. Obviously you can probably find a dozen other ways and places to play it, but I'm pretty sure they aren't extending the 4ths any higher than that, so keep it to 3 4ths. EDIT: A little later it just sounds like they are jumping around a little more, but it's the same thing. 3 stacked fourths, maybe a mix of whole tone and altered scale stuff going on over the top in general.

  566. musictheory 2015-02-21 04:19:20 Yeargdribble
    It's almost hard to put it in an envelope. It certainly sounds like one of those things where someone was messing with an issue of idomaticism on an instrument and came up with something cool. "Hey, what if I just start stabbing quartal chord voicings over the top of this?" But you can use quartal voicings to outline tertiary harmony too, so just know that it's not an either or proposition. In fact, you can use those voicings a lot in very simple music. It's actually very common in a lot of praise and worship purely by accident. The accident is based on the same idea of someone fiddling with their instrument in an idiomatic fashion and finding something that sounds cool. You'll notice lots of 2nds in P&W music and I think that has a lot to do with guitarists playing in G in open position. Play your G (with B fretted on 3)... now just move your 1 and 2 fingers down from the 5th and 6th string to the 4th and 5th. You're not playing a C chord, but since you're holding your 3 and 4 fingers on the 1st and 2nd string, you have a C2. Now move to a D position without moving those fingers and you have a Dsus. You can also get to an Em without moving these fingers. There are a lot of examples of using this sort of trick and it ends up creating a sound. Now if I sit at the piano and build a quartal voicing from the 2nd of any chord, I get a similar sound. So a G chord, quartal built on A, I have a G2. If I build a D quartal chord on A in the same key, I get a Dsus. Basically, the whole idiomatic messing on guitar has led to a pretty standard sound and a lot of quartal voicings in a clearly triading texture. So as far as pure classification goes, I'm not sure I could tell you really. It's one of those things about theory where the ear wins over the page in this case. What's happening in the OPs example makes more sense from a physical understanding of how the instruments are being approached rather than from a harmonic context in my opinion. Just like all theory, someone can go back, analyze, and codify exactly what's happening and then use and teach that technique, but I doubt that was the performers' intend when playing or writing this to whatever degree it got put on paper.

  567. musictheory 2015-02-22 08:36:00 uh_no_
    temperament means squat on a woodwind instrument. embouchure can change pitch far more than any effect in temperament.... and for that matter, how are strings equal tempered or not? there's no frets, and open strings are often avoided due to the different timbre.....and even if they weren't you can tune them to whatever the heck you want. further, good string and wind players will adjust their pitch to the function of the chord they're playing....thirds in a major chord will be played flat....so temperament can always be mean.

  568. musictheory 2015-02-22 16:29:51 VentralTegmentalArea
    I'd write something with really slow movement in a string section, and some piano phrases above high C. Probably have some swells. Maybe a soft horn like french horn or trombone. I suppose my idea is mainly to keep lots of space in the piece.

  569. musictheory 2015-02-27 02:51:43 RyanT87
    There are some really good things in here, but I have to reply to one thing in particular: Although we can think of Pythagorean tuning in the sense of stacking fifths, this is a more modern method and very different from ancient Greek music theory, where you'll inevitably have to go, OP, if you want to to work toward answering questions like these. Unfortunately not much music from ancient Greece has survived, so we really don't know too much about what was going on. But one thing that seems to be clear is that ancient Greek music theory was not really interested in analyzing music (especially the Pythagoreans, perhaps a bit less so with the Aristoxenians), but more interested in the way mathematics manifested themselves in music (just like in the stars, geometry, etc.). What they were *very* interested in was superparticular ratios—i.e., n+1:n (2:1, 3:2, 4:3, etc.). They then used these ratios in dividing the monochord, so if you divide a string in half (2:1), you get an octave; two thirds of the string (3:2), a fifth; three quarters of the string (4:3), a fourth; etc. We can then note that the difference between a fifth and a fourth is a step, which works out to the interval 9:8—another superparticular ratio! If we start to add together two of these 9:8s—thus *ditone*—we get 81:64, which isn't superparticular itself, but was rationally derived from them, so they were cool with it. We can then take the difference between a fourth and a ditone—which is called the *leimma*, or literally "that which is left over"—and this gives us our semitone. So now that they have all their intervals mathematically derived, the way they arranged them is into tetrachords. However, whereas later theorists in the middle ages used TST tetrachords, the Greek diatonic tetrachord was STT (S=semitone, T=tone). They arranged these tetrachords either conjunctly or disjunctly (i.e., with either an overlap or separation, respectively, between adjacent tetrachords) into the [Greater Perfect System and the Lesser Perfect System](https://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/GEM/GEM-GLPS.html). So, for example, with the Greater Perfect system, we have: [STTT][STTT]/[STTT][STTT] ("/"=disjunct; otherwise, conjunct) What this works out to is: [BCDE][EFGA][BCDE][EFGA] If you tack on the *proslambanomenos* (lit. "taken in addition") to the bottom (or here, left), you add an A and then you have a two-octave division of the monochord. Note that the Greeks didn't use note names, but it's easier for us to think of it in these terms rather than "paranete" and "likhanos." So anyway, our western scale has its origins in this system and basically through a lot of mistranslations, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations through the middle ages, we got to the Renaissance where we really started trying out various alternate tuning methods, such as u/phalp discusses, and then we eventually end up where we are today. (Sorry to blow through ~2000 years of musical development, but I just wanted to clarify the ancient Greek music theory)

  570. musictheory 2015-03-02 21:10:26 bluesapphiresky
    A superparticular ratio is the bottom number plus 1 correct?. How do you come to that conclusion(how was this found to be significant) and how would you logically come to the conclusion that this is the best way to find the perfect5/4 and seems so random that someone would just randomly think if i had 1 to the bottom number I can get a perfect 5th and 4th. Also why did they choose to make tetra chord and not a penta chord or something if they found out the perfect 5th which also more logical to use because of how harmonious it is to the tonic. Edit: Also how is 3:2 2/3s of a string isnt that 1 and 1/2 of a string?

  571. musictheory 2015-03-04 12:54:56 phalp
    I did something like this as a gift for a friend. I considered 26edo, but I ended up using 12edo with semitones mapped ascending along the rows of the computer keyboard (q=C, w=C#, etc), which gave a better pitch range for my purposes (or maybe it saved me the trouble of remapping my samples). I used qwerty order but I think there would be a lot of fun to be had using other orders. Maybe we get a list of the most common sequences of English letters and choose our letter->pitch mapping to make certain figures show up more often than others. Or would it be possible to create a mapping that spelled words in a fairly intelligible way despite having fewer than 26 tones? Like, since gmfpq is an uncommon string of letters in English text, I could pair g,a; m,b; f,o; p,u; q,t on the same pitches. Or maybe that would create too much ambiguity in other words, but some pairings have to be less ambiguous than others. Or I wonder what happens if we map capital and lower case letters to different pitches, and use more than 26 tones to the octave.

  572. musictheory 2015-03-06 04:55:42 6stringNate
    The problem with my aural dictation class was it didn't teach real world application. I got ok to good grades (nothing below B, usually an A-) in all of my classes in regards to aural skills. I was able to do pretty well at intervals thanks to constant repetition from www.musictheory.net, after a while an interval just "feels" a certain way to you. Like you just know how yellow looks, or you know turkey is turkey because you just know the taste. For bigger part-writing I learned how to pass the tests, the tricks involved and basically how to game the system by having my voice-writing skills in good shape. Everything was based off of notating 4 part harmony in some kind of context, string quartet, piano voicing, singers, etc so it was all the same system. I got good at dictating that because of the cognitive and more mathlike tricks I knew about those, but if there was a Taylor Swift song playing on the radio I couldn't tell you if it was I vi IV V , just I IV V or what. Except for minor IV's, I can always tell you when I hear one of those in any context. I don't know why.

  573. musictheory 2015-03-06 06:44:26 Yeargdribble
    I didn't mean him in particular, but was referring more to a certain social PC climate in general these days. On the topic, I think my bigger issue is that I don't think we should be thinking about whether we're serving pianists, or vocalists more. Nor should we assign genders to them. Nobody has even mentioned instrumentalists. I was neither a vocalist nor a pianist when I entered college. What about me? Ultimately, the discussion should be about how to best serve all students. Wind, string, and keyboard instrumentalists as well as vocalists. How gender is related to *any* of that seems utterly irrelevant to the issue. You get into this problem in education in general where, in a effort to cater to the most number of people, all with special conditions, we start neglecting whole swaths of other students and gradually lowering the effectiveness of our overall teaching in an effort to specifically meet the needs of a select group. My wife (who teaches intermediate general music) regularly has to spend large amounts of extra time planning alternative lessons for different kids. Kids who aren't allowed to use instruments. Kids who aren't allowed to sing. Kids who have a condition that makes it impossible for them to hold certain instruments. Kids who are straight vegetables. So the quality of her lesson planning for 25 kids is hampered by having to go out of her way to find a way to cater to 1 kid. I get why it is the way it is in public education, though it still bothers me a good deal. But at the collegiate level we should be worried about what is the best form of instruction. Yes, we can be aware of the different disciplinary backgrounds of our students to better construct a solid teaching experience that will help everyone, but I think when we get to the point that we start make exceptions to good teaching an effort to walk on eggshells around certain groups, that's a problem. Yes, I think voice and piano in tandem are both very useful in the AS classroom and I think gender has nothing to do with it, nor should it even be considered. If we decide we'll teach it less well to placate a perceived gendering of musical backgrounds, that's a problem. Imagine if you tried to tip-toe around atheists and have no religious music used in your history or other music classes. That would certainly diminish the quality of education both for the atheists and for everyone else. It's absurd to consider adjusting a good curriculum to pacify a group.

  574. musictheory 2015-03-11 01:35:53 SDSSJ102915172927
    As the other poster mentioned, [learning your scales up the fretboard](http://www.theguitarsuite.com/major-scale-for-guitar-2/) is pretty crucial. I would also suggest playing around with some ["exotic" scales](http://www.jazzguitar.be/exotic_guitar_scales.html) because they're pretty fun and you can see how intervals in scales are altered to give them that "eastern" sound. You can see how the large amount of semitones intervals in the Byzantine scale for example are what makes it sound so "eastern". I'd also definitely suggest learning [triads and inversions](http://www.discoverguitaronline.com/diagrams/view/28). They help you understand chord construction and you can build any major or minor chord on any note on any string, and they're moveable shapes so I fall back on them a lot and are very useful. Once you've got scales and triads/inversions nailed, it's always worth checking out extended chords or [altered chords](http://www.all-guitar-chords.com/lesson.php?id=92). You can also practice improv by buying an amp and multi-effect pedal, tweaking a variety of tones, and then put an Ipod dock on your amp and create a playlist of backing tracks to improvise over if you want to put your knowledge to the test.

  575. musictheory 2015-03-11 05:49:02 wc_helmets
    I started off with CAGED when I first started learning scales. It helped in terms of pattern playing but the problem I ran into that I'm now trying to rectify 15 years later is really knowing what notes I'm playing. I'm practicing scales one string at a time, like I'll do C major on the e string or something like that to really get a feel for the notes horizonatlly. CAGED gets you thinking vertically too much. I don't think it's a bad system but it can certainly get you stuck in a particular way of playing.

  576. musictheory 2015-03-12 04:06:17 discoreaver
    This is commonly done in blues and rock guitar. You often do little string bends that increase the note pitch but don't reach the next semitone up. I've heard them called quarter bends (i.e. half a semitone = quarter) although where you stop the bend is entirely a matter of taste.

  577. musictheory 2015-03-12 07:49:21 markp117
    Take a guitar, divide the string in half (12th fret), you get an octave. Divide that in half again, you get a P5. Thank Pythagorus for this string in half nonsense

  578. musictheory 2015-03-12 09:24:51 phalp
    > Take a guitar, divide the string in half (12th fret), you get an octave. Divide that in half again, you get a P5. Actually you get two octaves.

  579. musictheory 2015-03-12 11:44:51 ModusDeum
    In case your interested - [this is a microtonal guitar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRsSjh5TTqI) it uses some microtones as the dude in the video explains. This is a great example of what you're asking for, but no. People typically don't intentionally tune their guitars to a quarter step out or anything like that (sometimes, though, if you tune a guitar by ear you'll get the low E string to like a quarter step sharp or flat; if you then use harmonic tuning to tune the guitar relative to it's low Eb1/2 or whatever it would then be completely *slightly* out of tune, although the difference would probably be unrecognizable unless you used a tuner and found that you were slightly flat (or sharp) across the fretboard). Interesting stuff, ey? Edit: formatting

  580. musictheory 2015-03-12 12:51:53 NickWritesMusic
    Most Western music ISN'T equal tempered, musicians just tune that way when they're playing with equal tempered instruments. String players will naturally use the 5/4 major third (386 cents) instead of the ET one (400 cents). And even keyboard music didn't use equal temperament until quite recently - we know Bach's temperament was one of the Well ones (based on quarter comma meantone), and that Mozart and Beethoven differentiated between small and large semitones. There's a great book on it by Ross Duffin called "How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony." Worth reading.

  581. musictheory 2015-03-12 14:26:47 BlueInt32
    I like the idea stating that given a stretched string, there is a string length variation under which the frequency won't change due to "corpuscular discontinuity", thus giving a finite number of frequencies between C and C#. I have no idea what I am talking about.

  582. musictheory 2015-03-12 16:02:59 dylanthepiguy2
    Nope thats 3 octaves. What you want to do to get the fifth is to divide the original string in 3. have a look at the [harmonic series on wikipedia](https://www.google.co.nz/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=harmoinc+series&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=70cBVYWIOs7u8we4r4LwDg#rls=en&q=harmonic+series+music). Sorry reddit didn't like the bracket at the end of the url. It thought the previous symbol was the end of the url and then broke the wikipedia just because of the (music) at the end of the url.

  583. musictheory 2015-03-12 17:21:08 nlaeae
    > It's ridiculous. Sure, the 'vibe' is similar, same sort of percussive beat, same dirty bass stuff, but that's like saying that every blues song is the same Yup. A "vibe" is really not something you can sensibly put a copyright claim on, because copyright only applies to original *creations*, and there's just not enough variation-space in there to make it work. Imagine if someone had *copywritten* the string quartet, or the early romantic orchestra. That vibe may be *novel* in some sense, but it's not a creative element. It's a functional part of the work, like the canvas for a painting. Why should copyright law apply to it? And the real creative elements in the composition - the bassline, the melody - they're all different.

  584. musictheory 2015-03-13 00:01:33 nlaeae
    > "Blurred Lines" is not contrafact -- the infringement is a matter of the arrangement. The chords are not the same at all, in fact, but if they were, it wouldn't matter. What "arrangement"? The melody is different, the bassline is different, even the actual rhythm/percussion part is not the same. Perhaps you mean the *instrumentation* - which means the descendants of Joseph Haydn should get a cut for every string quartet written since the Classical era, and Beethoven's descendants for mostly every orchestral work, since he effectively established the modern Romantic orchestra. And every rap and hip hop artist is ripping off Schoenberg's *Sprechstimme*, and so on. But that's ridiculous. It's not how copyright law is supposed to work.

  585. musictheory 2015-03-13 03:19:27 DR6
    Dividing the original string in ~~fifth~~three gets you a fifth *and* an octave.

  586. musictheory 2015-03-13 08:02:19 dylanthepiguy2
    Hold on, isn't dividing the original string in 3 get you a 8va+5th

  587. musictheory 2015-03-13 13:52:29 dejoblue
    Parallel fifths is exactly the point in rock and metal music. It is NOT independent voices. The intent is one giant, huge, massive voice. So much so that guitars will be doubled and even tripled and bands, like Metallica, will have two guitarists playing the exact same parallel fifths. I disagree with distortion making them preferred. Dream Theater has mostly heavily distorted guitar tones (using the exact same Mark II C+ amp that Metallica does) with fantastic, [big beautiful chords, voicings and voice leading.](https://youtu.be/C98sOdWjtsw?t=2m5s) It really is the ignorance of (most of) those that use them combined with the ambiguity of no defined third (or fifth, I guess it is really the implied triad, major and minor). Whether they know it or not it takes them into [Pitch Axis Theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_axis_theory) territory with these dyads, parallel 5th, octaves serving as the pitch axis. This is further exploited (or exacerbated depending on your proclivities) with modern electric guitar as everything is in E or A or G as the tonic (because guitar's standard tuning is low to high EADGBE with G easily accessible in the bass on the third fret of the low E string). This allows for various chords and scales and thus melodies and voice leading (alluded to or defined) to be used with acceptable modulation between them because of the common pitch. It is ignorant players fumbling around but still able to make it work, even spectacularly like Metallica's Master of Puppets album, albeit with learned band members like Cliff Burton and Kirk Hammet. Slayer even takes it a step further with extensive use of the tritone, even having an album titled, *Diabolus in Musica*. Although to my ears it highlights the parallel fifths as the tritones stick out like a sore thumb and the single voices of the fifths is a relief even if they are all lost into unity. Certainly this is all full of judicious use of these dyads and intervals and voice leadings for the purpose of added color. It works and there are reasons and theories for why they work for this particular style of music. It is similar to Blues. It started as people that play something that sounds good to their ears and then we figured out a box to put it in to, hexatonic scales, all referenced, of course, to the modern western theory of music. And chromaticism, lots of chromaticism, chalk it up to "Jazz" influences, until we figure out a new theory for why it all works and box it up again. Cheers! (Note that in my opinion, just because players may be ignorant as to why something works, it does not detract from their amazing ear for what sounds good, in fact if one considers this it is astounding that such brilliant music has been created "by ear" alone. **But then again, our entire western music theory was originally created by ear, evolving from simple dyads and unisons for voice, further into choruses with triads and eventually into the beautiful breadth it offers today.**)

  588. musictheory 2015-03-14 04:34:32 dejoblue
    It is complex. He is also using that amp I mentioned which has the hallmark of being not just very distorted sounding but also very clean and not muddy (as far as distortion goes) with active equalization controls to make that happen. I will cede that players can use distortion to cover up their mistakes or lack of chord content. One can easily literally play one low E note and have it sound like a chord with enough distortion. But again with the amp and others like it the point is to let those notes ring out and sound true, to have a voice that is easily heard and distinct from the other notes. Active pickups have also become a standard practice when you want this clarity with distorted guitars. There is also the dichotomy of dynamics, of playing against literal clean, acoustic sounding guitars for quiet parts of the music, especially in ballads, where the distorted section has to have similar clarity. Of course with guitar chords there is always the high strings in voicing that are typically used to achieve this clarity. I would also state that as far as these dyads and voicing being preferred, one also have to consider that it is also very easy to play the dyad intervals of a min 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th all within a two fret distance and that it is much more difficult to play a root triad and much easier to play a second inversion 5/1/3 triad or a commonly voiced 1/5/1/3 chord. The basic chords around the first three frets take advantage of the open strings and when trying to use the same chords outside of that three fret box it is easier to defer to those easy voicings such as the [1/5/1/3/5/1](http://i.imgur.com/YuWmFDK.jpg) voicing A E A C# E A. Now if one tries moving the standard G chord up to an A with the A on the low E string to play the [1/3/5/1/5/1](http://i.imgur.com/KdkX9MF.jpg) voicing A C# E A E A you can see that it is physically more difficult. You can also see that with either voicing all four of the fingers are used. Even with a three fingered 1/5/1 or 1/5/3 dyad/triad there is little remaining within it's physical confines for the fourth finger to augment the chord. You can make it minor on the G string and play with the G 7th on the D string or play with the 6th around F on the B string or the 2nd with B on the E string and maybe fiddle with the aug 4th tritone, aug 5th, maybe a sus2/add9 1/5/2/3(Dream Theater example above). Some variety, of course, but all confined to the [5th fret index finger bar](http://i.imgur.com/YuWmFDK.jpg), thus the "barre" chord is born. I think this physical difficulty of the guitar as an instrument is why these are preferred and that we are moving more and more to making these notes clearer and more defined particularly with distortion. Certainly parallel 5ths makes this task difficult as it is diametrically opposed to the evolving intent. Some of it is also just an evolution of contemporary musical tastes. It is also a "chicken or the egg" conundrum, further confounded in the guitar community with the dichotomy of wanting clean and sustaining leads which are typically high notes while also wanting thick "crunchy" rhythm tone which is typically low note chords. I am absolutely certain that parallel 5ths are a large part of the struggle with distortion versus clarity with modern electric guitar music but I do not think they are the reason for making these common dyads and chord voicings preferred in modern musical styles. Cheers!

  589. musictheory 2015-03-15 04:48:38 dejoblue
    >I think you're putting it the wrong way around. The distortion sound is the timbre that is desired for the genre, and then you fit your composition around that. The distortion does not dictate the composition. It may do so for the arrangement as you get too distorted you may exclude extraneous notes that are implied, such as the third, or have the bass play them, or have the lead play them but it is the arrangement serving the composition, the distortion is just an obstacle to making the arrangement work. Take [Kashmir by Led Zepplin](https://youtu.be/ODidAgdL40Y?t=1m23s). You can play it on an acoustic guitar, a rock guitar going through a Marshall or a metal guitar going through a Mesa Boogie head with tons of distortion and it would sound the same. To be clear all six strings are played. It is down tuned to D with a DADGAD tuning with the outer D and A strings serving as octave drones and the fretted notes span the entire neck. There has been a trend in the electric guitar community (and modern metal) towards lower notes, down-tuning to C, B even A and 7, 8 and 9 string guitars. The bass strings need more punch and clarity, even with single note playing. Bass players experience the same thing. There is no doubt that lower notes have more harmonic and enharmonic distortion, even on a piano. There is more harmonic content simply because the string is longer and can divide more times to produce more audible overtones, many of which are dissonant. How dissonant depends on scale length. Fender's 25.5" scale length sounds clean and clear. PRS' 25" scale length sounds sweet. Gibson's 24.75" scale lengths sounds dark and dissonant. **Distortion does not dictate the composition. Artist's demand gear (amplifiers, guitars and pickups) that are distorted but with definition. They also increasingly require longer scale lengths to provide more clarity and definition with decreasing tunings and added bass strings with 7, 8 and 9 string guitars. Technology is transforming to accommodate the artist's compositions.** >Re: difficulty - If you want a 1-b3-5 minor, you can play that on 3 adjacent strings with each finger on its normal fret in any position, and a major just means using the other finger in the middle. It's not impractical. Sure, it's slightly harder than sliding a power chord around, but combined with the fact that you usually don't want the mushy sound of distorted 3rds in there it ceases to be an attractive proposition. It is still more difficult and if using barre chords is easier and gets the same result why bother unless you are John Petrucci of Dream Theater or Tosin Abasi and "trying to produce perfect-sounding chords"? >Which 'we' are you talking about? If you follow modern metal at all then you will probably see that the opposite is true. ;) In fact it's increasingly common for metal guitarists to throw in full triads with extreme distortion purely because it's so dissonant and noisy, as that is the aesthetic they want. But even there it's usually further up the neck where there is still some small aspect of clarity remaining. We as guitarists. What do you mean by "modern metal"? Avenged Sevenfold with Dream Theater's drummer, Mike Portnoy? Periphery? Misha uses 7 and 8 string guitars extensively. Children Of Bodom? This is NWOBHM repackaged with screamo vocals, it seems they "set out to play sounding like their predecessors."

  590. musictheory 2015-03-17 20:08:39 elyisgreat
    Awesome! While I'm not fluent in Ruby, so I can't really give you improvement suggestions, I do know Java, so the code isn't totally foreign. I'm not sure what you mean by "works only with the chromatic scale". I assume you either mean it works in only one key signature or it doesn't work for quarter tones. For the former you can add a while or a for loop on the outside that cycles through all possible starting notes (although at that point you may as well print out 84 strings because that's all the modes there are in 12 TET). For the latter you can define the notes in a string array, and then cycle through them. That should work for any length of string array so it's very customizable.

  591. musictheory 2015-03-18 11:58:53 StopThrottle
    Is your g string in a bunch?

  592. musictheory 2015-03-18 13:57:10 bluesapphiresky
    Does that mean 1/(ratio)*2= the inverse of that ratio every time (does that also mean the 1 in 1/(ratio) is the reference note such as A so if wanted to find where on a A string I want to play a perfect 5th I just 440/3/2? )? This made me also realize where is 7/6 if we use simple ratios to build the diatonic scale where does 16/15, 15/8 or 5/3 come from?

  593. musictheory 2015-03-18 23:04:36 phalp
    Yeah, 1/ratio is the multiplicative inverse of the ratio, and if you ignore which octave the note falls in, it's the same as the musical inversion. You can multiply or divide by 2 to move an interval up and down by octaves. > so if wanted to find where on a A string I want to play a perfect 5th I just 440/3/2? Well, if you're just trying to find where you put your finger on a string you don't need to use the frequency. You just find the spot 2/3 of the way from the bridge to the nut and put your finger there. > This made me also realize where is 7/6 if we use simple ratios to build the diatonic scale where does 16/15, 15/8 or 5/3 come from? 7/6 can be looked at as (7/4)*(4/3), transposed down an octave. That's a "harmonic seventh" stacked on top of a fourth. 16/15=(4/3)*(4/5), that is, up a perfect fourth then down a major third. It's also the inversion of 15/8. 15/8=(3/2)*(5/4), a third on top of a fifth (or vice versa). 5/3 is a pretty simple ratio by itself, but you can look at it as (5/4)*(4/3), a third on top of a fourth. Basically, when looking at an unfamiliar ratio you want to come up with some fractions you can multiply together to produce it. Sometimes it helps to factor the top and bottom all the way: 15/8=(3*5)/(2*2*2). Then you can try different ways of grouping the factors. I usually ignore any 2s, because 2s are octave transpositions and therefore "uninteresting". You can basically add and remove them to the top or bottom of the fraction freely, without changing the pitch class relative to the 1/1 reference point.

  594. musictheory 2015-03-19 02:56:58 breisdor
    If you learn your major scale patterns, you will be off to a very good start. You should understand the major scale theoretically, but also know the patterns on the guitar with the root starting on each string. Then you should also get familiar with the pentatonic scale, the blues scale, and minor scales. But once you really understand the major scale, these are only a small jump. Honestly the best thing to do is jam. Improvise solos over a backing track, in a group of friends, or with a loop pedal.

  595. musictheory 2015-03-19 07:21:15 ShamanSTK
    SmartChord app will give you a virtual fretboard on any string instrument in any hypothetical tuning. It will also display scales and chords on it, and it will sound the note you tap. It's how I annoy the wife when she confiscates the mandolin.

  596. musictheory 2015-03-22 11:49:06 Dirty_South_Cracka
    To be fair, multi-string / multi-fretted instruments are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to standard notation. The lack of smooth note distribution and automated striking mechanisms make them uniquely difficult to play in regard to realtime sight reading. Not to mention in order to resonate a note, the player must keep the not fretted the entire time, making a near endless possible combinations to hand positions a necessity. I don't know if I'd call it ghetto, but I do think its lack of a time domain makes it nearly useless for music you're not mindfully familiar with.

  597. musictheory 2015-03-22 12:49:31 Bigfrostynugs
    That depends entirely upon what style of music you're writing. However, the best place to start (in my opinion) is to study singing. We've been singing since the dawn of the time, so the first ever rests in music were almost certainly to take breaths in between musical phrases. Study Bach chorales, and notice how he places rests and fermatas. They're perfect. Rests inside of phrases result in interesting rhythmic ideas. In polyphonic music, rests in one voice can give emphasis to other voices. If the first violin in a string quartet is playing important root notes on the first beat of every measure, perhaps the other instruments will rest there to make sure the violin line is very clear.

  598. musictheory 2015-03-22 17:09:03 Morgoth714
    To be perfectly honest, as an instrumentalist it would be nice to have more instrument specific notation become integrated into larger ensembles. Whether that is based on traditional sheet music with a twist or an entirely new system would be entirely up to specific groups of instruments. With today's technology it's extremely easy to print different parts for different people and write programs that effectively transcribe from one form of notation to another. Each instrument has its own quirks and sets of effects that can be applied, and it's not always clear in standard notation what the composer means in a context. I may be biased based on my background in percussion and guitar, but I know for a fact that much of the notation for these things is not standardized. Often things like rolls, clicks, muting, sustain, slides, and other effects get glossed over as irrelevant details, and these things are important to the performance. Specifically guitar/other string instrument tablature seems to be a far better method of notation in many cases than sheet music. I'm sure people could creatively come up with notation methods for their own instrument groups based on fingerings, positions, etc. in a similar fashion. Of course, these things take up space on the paper. I would say the full scores could easily continue to be written in a traditional way while instruments have more detailed and accurate effects and systems integrated into their sheet music.

  599. musictheory 2015-03-23 08:16:31 nmitchell076
    The "Dies Irae" refers to a chant used as part of the Requiem. You can hear it [here](https://youtu.be/Dlr90NLDp-0). It's become emblematic in western culture as a signifier of death. Such as in the opening sequence of [The Shining](https://youtu.be/TgCejsyS0t8). Other user's are talking about pieces that "quote" the dies Irae. How well-versed in theory are you? Do you understand chord progressions, four part Harmony, figured bass, etc? If not, I would recommend beginning with our [sidebar suggestions](http://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/pse4l/beginners_resources_for_the_sidebar/c3rv291). If you have. Might I recommend these areas of further study: Schema theory, topic theory, and semiotics. * Schema theory looks at music as a collection of "Schemas" that you string together. Schemas are basically soprano/bass progressions that are appropriate to perform various musical actions. It's likened to knowing a list of moves that, say, a figure skater is performing in front of you. While mostly enumerating what these gestures are, how to spot them in a piece of music, there's often a lot of attention paid to what Schemas do, where you would find them, what you expect to come next, and why a composer might choose one vs. another. A good place to get started here is Robert Gjerdingen's *[Music in the Galant Style](http://www.amazon.com/Music-Galant-Style-Robert-Gjerdingen/dp/0195313712).* * Topic Theory. This is sort of like Schema theory, but it's zooming out a bit. This tries to categorize what kind of music is suitable for what kinds of expression. So, for instance, a Shephard in an opera might be associated with flute music, a low bass pedal point and simple harmonies, and light, dance-like rhythms. This bundle of features would fall under a topic known as the "Pastoral" topic. A book by Leonard Ratner that is sadly out of print is the classic text in this regard, but I might point you to a book such as Raymond Moselle's *[The Musical Topic: Hunt, Military, and Pastoral](http://www.amazon.com/The-Musical-Topic-Military-Interpretation/dp/0253347661).* * Finally, we have Semiotics. This field tries to codify sets of Musical symbols or signs that are used to trigger certain kind of reactions or convey some kind of meaning to an audience. Kofi Agawu's work is great in this regard. He has works on both classical and romantic music, but since the other two books I've mentioned are all eighteenth-century specific, I'll put his romantic book here: *[Music as Discourse: Semiotic Adventures in Romantic Music](http://www.amazon.com/Music-Discourse-Semiotic-Adventures-Romantic/dp/0195370244).*

  600. musictheory 2015-03-25 19:20:49 bstix
    The idea of the tonic is older than that of the dominant. The use of dominants were introduced somewhere around year 1600. If you look into music before that, the tonic is pretty much established by droning, IE playing the same tone over and over or at least more than other notes. Someone already mentioned overtones, and this is what makes the feeling of being in the root key. Anything that can be easily divided into the root frequency sounds pleasing, or at least non offensive. It's probably something psychological, but any note that doesn't resonate with the tonic is experienced as being slightly wrong and we involentarily want to "tune" it into a consonant interval. Try playing a guitar and play the note G# on the 6th string 4th fret while playing the open A on the 5th string. It's not pleasant. You can also try playing the C scale the piano and stop at B. Do not play the octave. ugh. These notes might be close on the guitar/piano but in terms of frequencies, they are very far from dividing into the tonic. The dominant is far from the tonic in this regard. If we take the scale of C, it's not the note G that makes the dominant. The note G is already present in the tonic anyway. It's really the note B that creates the tension towards the tonic and the note F that creates the tension towards the third of the tonic. Similar to how the guitar/piano example sounded unpleasant, you will want to resolve the half steps to make the overtones resonate. It's possible to make the dominant even more longing for the home key, if you raise the fifth and get a G augmented chord. Or you could add a b9. Stuff like that can increase the tension for the same reasons as stated above. EDIT: If you want to know why humans has a preference for resonating sounds you should probably look into neuroscience. The brain pretty much works by neuro impulses resonating with each other.

  601. musictheory 2015-03-26 09:20:21 GuitarGreg
    Your ears don't round anything. They just hear. Don't get stuck thinking that anything in the real world "should" be anything at all, or that your ear "fixes" sounds or "adjusts" things to where the math says they could/should/might be. The 2:3 ratio occurs in a theoretical mathematical model where strings have zero mass. This is obviously impossible in the real world, so right away you know that a perfect 2:3 ratio can never actually exist. As you've said, the real ratio is some horrible irrational number (as are *all* ratios, except unison and octave) and this is simply due to the *inharmonicity* of a note, that being a function of scale length, string mass, and string tension. A rough way to look at it is that the thicker the string is, the more inharmonicity (or, *inner harmonic content drift*) the string will have. Very low piano notes, with big thick strings, have a high degree of inharmonicity, as compared to the highest pitched strings or the high E on a guitar, for example. Furthermore, ratios do not measure dissonance. The absolute distance in Hertz between two notes (IE: *beats*) measures dissonance. A ratio is a method of analyzing the relative relationship between two notes, in terms of scale degrees. The ideal 2:3 ratio of a fifth occurs between any root and its fifth, not just a specific root and its specific fifth, like a B and the F# above it, for example.

  602. musictheory 2015-03-26 20:30:22 cmparkerson
    in my case I am in the key of d minor. I am going from an e half dim to Eb 7 to the i chord (D-). The chords are actually being played by a string section

  603. musictheory 2015-03-27 01:08:36 c255
    I created a method of transcribing power chord based music. This functions very similar to tabs. Instead of exact string and finger placement, only the note or power chord root is given. Entire discographies can be transcribed on a single page. Capitol letter is sharp. (i)ntro, (v)erse, (c)horus, (s)olo, (o)outro. Anything inside brackets are single notes. "/,\" are hammers/pulls or slides. Minor Threat [little friend](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdhO4lSmrZ0):(i)[G/A A/f c/d\] (v)fDCADG (c1)[G/A] CF (c2)[A/f] DG (o)FGFAFGFD

  604. musictheory 2015-03-27 09:23:17 GuitarGreg
    Right, and what I am saying is that math is simply a model or a symbol for reality. You have to understand that what you see on paper is just our attempt to rationalize that which is inherently beyond our full grasp. In reality, strings do not vibrate at 112.24847692476893467... Hz or whatever. They just vibrate. Your ear hears their exact frequency. There is no math going on inside your brain or in your ear. You hear the *exact* frequency, no matter how ugly it looks on paper. Whether it is irrational or not. You get the irrational number stuff when you try to model (either through the symbolic language of mathematics or otherwise) what is happening in reality. To give you an idea of what I mean, if you try to evaluate the actual value of sqrt(2), you just get some mess: 1.4142135623730950488016887242097.... But if you just write sqrt(2) and leave it as that, without ever actually evaluating it, you have it's true value. It is in evaluating terms that you lose accuracy and end up with an approximation. Keep in mind that math is symbolic. The term "sqrt(2)" is a symbol for the actual true value of sqrt(2), even though that value is inherently not knowable by our other symbols for information processing (namely, language and other areas of math). The same thing applies when speaking of reality vs. mathematics. Think of the vibrating string as just sqrt(2) and then our measurement of the vibration as the actual evaluation of it (1.4142135623730950488016887242097). When you hear a string vibrate there is no fixing or rounding or approximating going on. It's just a pure event, and it is only in rationalizing it that you (funnily enough) end up with irrational numbers. As for absolute dissonance -- I never said that. I said absolute *distance*, in Hz, between two notes. Also known as beats. Take an **A**110Hz and a **C**130.81Hz, you have a difference of 30.81Hz so you will hear a *beat*ing of 30.81Hz in between these two notes if they are played at the same time. Anyway I think you probably know this and you just misread. All I meant to say is that the ratios you speak of, like 2:3 in a root-fifth, are meant to compare relative scale degrees (or relative degrees in harmonic content), not absolute values in terms of Hz.

  605. musictheory 2015-03-28 01:45:34 phalp
    Yeah, the high E string resonates at some of the same frequencies as the A string does, so it will happily dump some of that into the A (mechanically, via the body of the guitar). Likewise for B and low E. The higher string is tuned to 3 times the frequency of the lower, so the fundamental of the high string coincides with the third harmonic of the lower. None of the other pairs of strings on the guitar are tuned in ratios with such strong matches between low harmonics. The higher harmonics have less energy in them so they don't produce such a strong effect between strings.

  606. musictheory 2015-03-28 02:03:39 thehammerofjeff
    This isn't music theory so much as it is the physical properties of the guitar. When one string is vibrating, it affects all the others, they are all attached to the same piece of wood, after all. The strings that resonate the strongest with the plucked note will usually be vibrating in pitch with the original note, even though they are not tuned to the same note. Sort of like when you hit a harmonic at the 7th fret. When you do that, you're limiting the vibration of the string to a specific vibrational mode (the 5th, specifically) by touching a node of that mode, making it impossible for any others to occur (google vibrational modes for more information on that). It's not quite the same thing, but when you hit a note, the other strings resonate in pitch with that note, and some strings are more responsive than others because that note is in a longer (easier) vibrational mode.

  607. musictheory 2015-03-28 02:46:05 DRL47
    You can sing into your guitar and get the same effect. You just have to sing the same note as one of the strings. ANY vibrations can cause sympathetic vibrations. They are transferred through the air, not necessarily through the guitar. That is the way that feedback occurs: the string makes noise, which the amplifier makes louder, which makes the string sympathetically vibrate, which in turn makes the amp vibrate more, etc. Whether the string is wrapped or plain makes no difference.

  608. musictheory 2015-03-28 08:26:36 xiipaoc
    All right, this is really simple (if you are/were a physics major and have taken a class on the physics of waves, anyway). When you pluck a string, strike a drum, or generally make anything vibrate, it doesn't vibrate very simply. It does something much more complicated. As an example, try plucking a string at the 12th fret, then try plucking it close to the bridge. It sounds really different, right? That's because those are pretty different-looking vibration patterns. Another thing you should try: lightly *touch* the string at the 12th fret and pluck it with your other hand, then remove your finger from the string. It makes a sound an octave higher, doesn't it? It's still the whole string vibrating. What happens here is that there are many modes in which a string can vibrate. One of them is the whole string going up and down at the middle. Another of them is like an S shape, where the left half of the string goes up while the right half goes down, and vice-versa. Another is like a triple S, where the left third goes up while the middle third goes down while the right third goes up. Then there's a quadruple S, where the left quarter goes up while the second quarter goes down while the third goes up while the fourth goes down. And so on. The mode where the whole thing goes up together is, naturally, the first harmonic. The one where it's divided into two is the second harmonic. The one where it's divided into three is the third harmonic. Hopefully you see the pattern! Each of these modes is at a different frequency. On a string, those frequencies follow a pretty simple pattern: the nth harmonic has (ideally) n times the frequency of the first. So if your open string is an A at 110 Hz, the second harmonic is at 220 Hz, the third at 330 Hz (that's your top E string), etc. You can actually hear these harmonics by touching the string at the right spot to create the place where the string doesn't vibrate. If you touch it at the 12th fret, you split it into two so you get your second harmonic. At the 7th, you get the third harmonic. At the 5th, you get the fourth. At the 4th, you get the fifth. But it starts getting really hard to get a clear sound up there. Villa-Lobos uses those harmonics up to the fifth (on the 4th fret) on many of his pieces. (By the way, these harmonics aren't exact on real-life objects. On a string they're usually pretty close, at least if it's a good string, but on, like, a church bell or timpani, they're not even remotely close.) So when you pluck the string, what happens is that *all* of these modes happen *at the same time*, and how strong they are depends on how you pluck it. If you pluck the string at the 12th fret, for example, you'll get a lot of harmonic 1 but not so much of harmonic 2. Near the bridge, you'll get more of the higher harmonics. That makes the sound different. We've learned that a string has a bunch of frequencies it produces. Well, if you *force* an oscillator (like a string) in a frequency that it produces, it makes that frequency really strongly. This is known as resonance, and if you understand the equation of the oscillator, it's really obvious, but if you don't, it might not be so clear. What happens here is that the vibrations from the string you plucked are traveling to your ears, the soundboard, the rest of the room, and, of course, the other strings. They travel through the air (we call that "sound"), through the guitar itself, through whatever. So if you pluck your string at 330 Hz, it'll produce some vibrations at 330 Hz (and also 660 Hz and 990 Hz, etc., all the harmonics), and when the 110 Hz string gets those vibrations, it amplifies them because it produces 330 Hz vibrations as well. These harmonics correspond to musical intervals. The second harmonic is an octave above the first. The third is an octave and a fifth above. The fourth is two octaves. The fifth is two octaves and a (somewhat flat) major third. The sixth is two octaves and a fifth. The seventh is two octaves and a very flat minor seventh. The eighth is three octaves. The ninth is three octaves and a major second. Etc. The E of the top E string is an octave and a fifth above the A of the A string, so it's the third harmonic. If you touch your A string at the 7th fret and pluck it, you should get the same note as the top E. Same with the B and the low E; touch the E string at the 7th fret to get the note on the B string. But G and D don't have that relationship. The closest thing is that the high D, 10th fret on the top E string, is the third harmonic of the G string and the fourth harmonic of the D string. But that relationship is so distant that it's too faint to hear. I hope that answers your question!

  609. musictheory 2015-03-30 07:15:19 LonelyMachines
    It's the same for me. I learned more about music because I enjoyed it in the first place. I once had a teacher tell me that someone versed in theory never listens to music for enjoyment; they only listen to analyze. I felt really badly for him. If a piece of music doesn't affect me emotionally, I'm not likely to pay much attention to it at all. If it does, I listen to it for enjoyment. Right now, that's Built to Spill and Swervedriver--hardly technical stuff. That said, both groups do throw in the occasional curveball, and I consider that a neat bonus. If I'm listening to something complex, there's a certain casual analysis going on so I can follow it. I'm doing this with Piston's string quartets at the moment. Once I've established my bearings, I find it's easier to go back and simply *dig the damn music.* If I stop doing that, shoot me.

  610. musictheory 2015-03-30 13:00:45 iccir
    Good questions :) I don't know the exact history of how the harmonic series was discovered; hopefully others can answer that! I'll try to answer the questions that I do know, from the perspective of audio synthesis: > Are there any instruments that don't produce some of the overtones in the harmonic series at all Clarinets (and other closed-pipe instruments) produce odd-numbered harmonics (see http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/flutes.v.clarinets.html or http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound/Lesson-5/Closed-End-Air-Columns) Pianos (and other instruments where a string is plucked/hit) produce harmonics which sharpen as they get higher. This is called [inharmonicity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inharmonicity). See [Understanding the complex nature of piano tone](http://www.researchgate.net/publication/239908011_Understanding_the_complex_nature_of_piano_tone). [Sound on Sound's Synth Secrets series](http://www.soundonsound.com/search?url=%2Fsearch&Keyword=%22synth+secrets%22&Words=All&Summary=Yes) is a great read about the properties of various instruments, and how to synthesize them. > or produces it so loudly it might be confusing which note is the fundamental? The last time I did oboe and bassoon synthesis, the second harmonic (2x the fundamental) was slightly louder than the fundamental. Hence, an algorithm of "choose the highest peak in the spectrum and that's your fundamental" won't work. Since undertones do not exist, if you see a peak in the spectrum at, say, 440Hz, you can check 220Hz. If there is a significant peak there, check 110Hz, and so forth. In the event where multiple instruments are playing notes an octave apart, it can be confusing to determine which instruments (or what instruments) are playing. > Bonus points if you can give me the space between notes in the series; alas I'm a lowly tab reading guitar player who has read too many tabs, and not enough sheet music. See the [chart here](http://tinyurl.com/57ndz6).

  611. musictheory 2015-03-30 20:11:44 m3g0wnz
    Other people have addressed your questions pretty clearly so let me just add on something else to think about— Another major factor in the timbre of an instrument is what's called the "envelope" of the sound—the attack, sustain, decay, and release profile of the instrument. The overtones/partials change depending on what part of the sound you're in. For example, the guitar string when plucked [attack] has a very noisy sound right at the beginning, from the percussive effect of plucking the string; then as the string resonates [sustain], the sound becomes more pure; the sound decays for a long time until it finally evaporates as the release (unless the string is muted, of course). This has just as much to do with the timbre of the guitar as the overtone profiles do. Even dynamics and pitch can be contributors to timbre in some ways, though at first blush you would assume them to be totally separate elements of music. Timbre is also at least somewhat culturally determined. tl;dr: it's cray

  612. musictheory 2015-03-31 00:02:08 xiipaoc
    > timbre of an instrument is largely a result of the overtones an instrument produces/amplifies/weakens. Largely. Not completely -- how the sound evolves is a big deal, too. A lot is in the articulation, which is determined by what happens int he first few milliseconds of sound. > How were we able to detect the harmonic series in the first place if overtones are less audible than the fundamental? As far as I know, Pythagoras had some experiment with strings where he discovered that if he held a string such that the two parts were in some small whole number ratio, the sound of those two parts would have a particular pleasing quality. After that, it's just science. One big advance came in the early 1800's when Joseph Fourier discovered that all periodic functions can be broken up into a sum of sines and cosines at frequencies that are multiples of the frequency of the periodic function, which basically means that any periodic sound has these overtones. Not all sounds are exactly periodic, though! > Are there any instruments that don't produce some of the overtones in the harmonic series at all or produces it so loudly it might be confusing which note is the fundamental? Plenty. Percussion instruments generally don't produce overtones in the overtone series at all, and this includes pitched percussion like glocks, timpani, and xylophones. No real instrument produces overtones exactly in the harmonic series. They're all off by at least a little bit. Percussion instruments are off by a lot. > Have there been any studies about the relationship between different instruments and how their partials complement one another? Anyone who does audio synthesis has made this study. > Is there a catalog of instruments and the partials they emphasize/suppress? Or is it more of a case by case basis and not as simple as all guitars/pianos/glockenspiels, etc sharing the same basic timbre? There actually is, and it's a reference book costing thousands of dollars: the Springer Handbook of Acoustics. But you're also right that it's not as simple as all guitars, etc. sharing the same basic timbre. You're a guitar player; how many timbres can you get out of it? You can pluck it near the bridge for a very bright sound or near the 12th fret for a bell-like harp-like sound. If you pluck at the 12th fret, you're obviously going to get only odd harmonics, since the pluck is symmetrical around the 12th fret and the even harmonics aren't symmetrical around that point. > are there any scales based off of the harmonic series? There are plenty! There's the harmonic scale itself, which isn't exactly a scale but the notes get really close together as you go up so there are a lot of notes available starting at the third or fourth octave. There's the undertone scale, which is the harmonic scale upside down. Pick a high note and successively divide the frequency by integers instead of multiplying it. It doesn't have any physical analog; it's just fun. The major pentatonic scale is actually pretty close to what you get from overtones 6-12, excepting 11. You can play Amazing Grace using only those overtones, and yeah, the 6 will be really sharp, but that's why it's cool, right? If you do include overtone 11, and you make all of the notes go really out of tune, you can get the lydian dominant, which is the major scale #4 b7. It loosely recalls the overtone scale, but it really doesn't have anything to do with it. > the space between notes in the series Heh. Do some math, man. They're frequency multiples of the fundamental, but music works on a logarithmic scale. You can actually play with them by selecting Harmonic (C1) at the [Offtonic Microtonal Synthesizer](http://offtonic.com/synth). > I'm a lowly tab reading guitar player who has read too many tabs, and not enough sheet music. Shitty excuse, no offense. Reading music isn't that hard. Good luck!

  613. musictheory 2015-04-01 19:40:48 Xenoceratops
    Congratulations on your imminent degree! We're in similar places. I completed my bachelor's in composition a little over a year ago, and I am currently preparing to enter a master's program. I have some interest in musicology and theory, but being a composer means that I am more interested in how I can apply that sort of information in a creative fashion. I tell you this so that you can see the perspective that I am coming from and evaluate accordingly. First, you state that you have interest in tonal music (I assume Common Practice Period, ~1600-~1900) and sonata form. There is no shortage of theoretical documentation and analysis of those subjects, and while those comprise a very important part of Western music, you would be the zillionth scholar in 200 years to talk about Beethoven and the V-I progression. I don't know how it is in the world of theorists, but as a composer I am tempted to explore new ground. That said, there are interesting research topics to be had in old music: http://ericsams.org/index.php/on-music/essays/on-schumann/97-did-schumann-use-cyphers-aug-1965 (He wrote a good book on this stuff, too: http://www.amazon.com/Songs-Robert-Schumann-Eric-Sams/dp/0571242200) If I may suggest, try branching out and finding new ground. I think that it would be fascinating to see some theoretical writing and analysis on death metal, actually. You might find Jonathan Pieslak's article on meter in Meshuggah's music interesting: http://www.cosmicambience.de/mts_mesh.pdf Western classical music is backed up with tons of documentation and research. Have you ever wondered what sort of music the common man danced to in King Louis XV's France? How different it sounded from the music that was passed on to us through the literature of the social elite? What can be said about today's musical trends? When is the last time that you heard post rock or EDM discussed in an academic setting? How is Youtube affecting amateur musicians (education, exposure to new styles, etc.), and how does that compare to the way things were 15 years ago? The interesting topics are those that are either really old (like before Western common practice congealed), really new, or are off the radar somewhere. Secondly, whether you like it or not, the twentieth century happened. I know that many curricula focus on tonal music up through the Romantic era and relegate anything past 1920 to a little corner with only one or two classes to teach it. This results in a lot of ignorance and prejudice directed toward an area that is full of vibrant developments. Can you name one living composer? How about five? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? How many of those artists' works have you heard? That's living music right there, and it deserves to be studied. Bach has been dead for 265 years. I know you explicitly requested something involving tonal music, but "tonal" and "atonal" are just labels, and if you really look at the stuff that gets called "atonal," I think you'll find that it's more tonal than some give it credit for. A simple example, the principle motive of the 5th movement of Bartók's String Quartet No.5 is Sol La Ti Do. Doesn't get much more tonal than that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srz8p10XawE For comparison, the theme from The Addams Family begins with the same motive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfKvJq-bAzQ Bartók's system is based on the same concepts of imitation and melodic transformation that drive the works of J.S. Bach. Flip through Bach's inventions and fugues, then Bartók's Mikrokosmos books, and you'll see that they compose in a very similar manner (albeit with a slightly different harmonic vocabulary). You might also like Arnold Schoenberg's Structural Functions Of Harmony (http://www.amazon.com/Structural-Functions-Harmony-Revised-Edition/dp/0393004783). It is a dense read, but I find that it captures his concept of late Romantic chromatic harmony and helps to put his serial chromaticism into context. Lastly, I am not a huge fan of the analytical systems that I have seen which describe late Romantic and post-tonal music. Hell, even the ones that describe ancient music are frequently inadequate (Bach's fugues infamously break the "rules" of fugue, yet they simultaneously serve as the supreme example). This is where you, as a theorist, may be at variance with me as a composer. It serves me little use to look at my music or the music of others in terms of P-L-R transformations and ordered sets. What I do see in all pitched music is intervals, motivic material, harmony, contrapuntal relationships. If you need to quantify a piece of music through pitch sets and Schenkerian analysis in order to describe it and gain a deeper understanding, that's fine, but remember that analysis and interpretation goes beyond the mere quantities. I found Leonard Bernstein's analyses inspiring and enlightening. You might as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9TinRdrwOU

  614. musictheory 2015-04-02 03:00:04 iTelope
    I've just picked up the contra-violin today. It has four strings tuned to G, D, A, and E, all an octave below the tunings of the strings of the standard violin. I play it upright, resting on my lap like a viol, and bow it like a 'cello. It fills in the gap between the viola and 'cello very well, something the standard string quartet has been lacking for centuries. I hear the Arditti quartet are forcing their second violinist to learn the contra-violin too, owing to the demands of contemporary composers.

  615. musictheory 2015-04-02 06:14:22 RyanT87
    The only prominent French Schenkerian I'm aware of is Nicolas Meeus. A quick search doesn't turn up anything for this result, but I would start there personally. That being said, this really doesn't look like Schenkerian analysis. Yes, it has "reduced" the figurations to block chords and looks at the overall harmonic trajectory of the phrase, but other than that it doesn't do much "Schenkerian stuff." (It actually looks like some odd quasi-Rameauian thing...). If you're interested in doing simpler harmonic reductions like this, you wouldn't really need to invoke Schenkerian analysis to do so. But if you *are* interested in Schenkerian analysis, and particularly of this piece, Lauri Suurpää's article "The Path from Tonic to Dominant in the Second Movement of Schubert's String Quintet and in Chopin's Fourth Ballade" (*Journal of Music Theory* Vol. 44, No. 2, 2000) is quite good.

  616. musictheory 2015-04-04 14:47:48 ScallopOolong
    >if you have an A, whose string ratio would be 1:1, then to produce the harmony of a perfect fifth the ratio would be 2:3 of the string length (which would result with an E), and to produce a fourth you would use a ratio of 3:4 (which would result in a D). For what it's worth, the frequency ratios are usually written the other way around, 3:2 and 4:3. And an A by itself has no ratio since it is just one note. Two As of the same pitch would have the ratio 1:1, unison. The frequency of the note a fifth or fourth above would be higher (a larger number), so the ratio should look like larger number : smaller number. For example, if A is 440 hertz and you want the note a fifth higher it's 440 * (3/2) = 660 hertz, which is an E. If you invert it, 2:3, you get the note a fifth down (440 * (2/3) = 293.33..., a D). If you want to bring that note up an octave (double its frequency) you double the "2" part of the ratio, so 4:3, or a fourth, A-D. Likewise 2:1 is twice the frequency, or an octave up; 1:2 is an octave down. The ratio 3:4 produces the note a fourth down, 440 * (3/4) = 330, the E below A. Usually when we talk about intervals in the abstract it is assumed that we're going up—a perfect fifth "from A" is usually taken to mean the E above A, not the D below. Using ratios that go down can be confusing unless that's what you're specifically trying to talk about. This is all aside from the topic of what perfect means, just thought I'd point it out.

  617. musictheory 2015-04-04 16:47:53 adrianmonk
    That's an interesting concept. If everything were pure sine waves, I'm not sure harmony would make as much sense as it does. However, it's kind of an academic question, because if you look at the physics of a string, the fact that it has an overtone is just natural. Splitting itself into 2 halves, where each half vibrates opposite the other, is one of the ways that a string can oscillate. And when you pluck the string, there's nothing stopping it from doing so, so it does.

  618. musictheory 2015-04-05 00:30:14 wampanon
    Yeah, you're right. The video put up the ratios in regard to adding them onto the string length, I'll fix this.

  619. musictheory 2015-04-05 09:48:38 adrianmonk
    Yeah, but there's a difference between a wave that *is* a sine wave and one that can be composed of a combination of sine waves. A guitar or piano string produces a wave that isn't a sine wave.

  620. musictheory 2015-04-05 10:52:09 wampanon
    It doesn't have anything to do with cents. If you have a string that is 10 inches long (or centimeters if thats what you're into), and then take a string that is 15 inches long, which has a ratio of 3:2 to the 10 inch string, then the interval when they are both plucked will be a perfect fifth. This cannot be applied with percussive instruments. Also, what octaves are you using for the C and the G, and when you say 700/702 cents, are you referring to the value of the note, or is that the distance between the notes?

  621. musictheory 2015-04-05 16:14:28 xiipaoc
    > If you have a string that is 10 inches long (or centimeters if thats what you're into), and then take a string that is 15 inches long, which has a ratio of 3:2 to the 10 inch string, then the interval when they are both plucked will be a perfect fifth. This is only approximately correct. Real strings in the real world aren't so perfect. For this to be the case, they'll need to have the same *constant* tension to mass density ratio, for example, and while in an ideal string the tension is perfectly constant along the string, this isn't the case for real materials, which will have imperfections that will react differently. > Also, what octaves are you using for the C and the G, and when you say 700/702 cents, are you referring to the value of the note, or is that the distance between the notes? The distance between C and G is 700 cents -- at least if they're in tune! The 3/2 perfect fifth is approximately 702 cents. Therefore, the distance between C and G is not a 3/2 perfect fifth. But it's *close*! It's close enough, in fact. So the question is, what precisely does "close enough" mean in this context? Why is this close enough but a tritone, for example, is too far?

  622. musictheory 2015-04-05 19:52:43 romericus
    I always felt that groove isn't a relationship to tempo or rhythm directly, but rather the skill known as *ensemble.* Barry Green talks in his book *The Mastery of Music: Ten Pathways to Artistry* about the idea of entrainment. Entrainment is what happens when you're on a really good date: your speech patterns and your non-verbal language and other cues line up with the other person so exactly that even on slowed down video footage of such situations, there appears to be zero lag in the coordination of the various actions or speech. This also happens in music as well--I find it is strongest felt in chamber music than in large ensemble playing. Musicians have to agree on a tempo (and subtle changes to the tempo), in order to play correctly together. This extent to which this agreement is successful can be referred to as groove. When everyone in the ensemble has the exact same tempo and style in mind, groove happens. This is often a result of much time spent playing together. The longer a string quartet is together with the same members, the easier it is for them to find the groove. One of my most enjoyable musical experiences is when I get to play duets with a guy who studied with the same teacher as me in undergrad, because we each *just know* how the other one plays. We find the groove immediately. But it can also happen on the first try. I've had experiences where I've played with a new partner and we just "spoke the same language" as far as groove was concerned. We had a similar idea of how the piece in question should sound, but also we had similar techniques for musical communication to signal changes to tempo or style, to mention only two aspects. In my understanding of the idea, I don't think groove can be had by a single player. I suppose having a very clear idea of a very steady metronomic reality is a kind of groove, but I think there are other words that get at what you are saying when speaking of a single musician who has groove: style, or feel, are just two. Of course, take my remarks with a grain of salt, as I am applying a not-traditionally-classical term to classical music. Other genres of music may define it more exactly, or completely differently to my explanation above.

  623. musictheory 2015-04-06 01:05:31 Mythrilfan
    Realistic string synths? Obviously they can do something *like* violins, but there's something missing. To my untrained ear, this thing is very much like an actual violin, but with added effects. Unlike string synths, which are almost always artificial-sounding.

  624. musictheory 2015-04-06 01:36:42 adrianmonk
    Sure. But if it were a sine wave to begin with -- note the "a", as in one single sine wave, not a linear combination of several sine waves of different magnitudes and phases -- then when you went through the process of breaking it down into its individual frequency components, you'd find there's only one frequency component. But it's not a sine wave, so it has multiple frequency components, and that has implications for harmony. On a side note, you don't need an FFT to detect harmonics. You could, for instance, excite a string at a bunch of different frequencies and see how well it resonates at each one.

  625. musictheory 2015-04-06 03:00:05 rectifryer
    Send a realistic string synth into distortion. For what it's worth, it doesn't really sound as good as other samples out there.

  626. musictheory 2015-04-06 21:21:47 mavaction
    Jason Mraz... Please don't tell her... There's a weird F chord that various tabs can't really identify.. Tab I just looked at called it Fx for lack of a name... It's the whole 2nd fret barred but with one note on the D string at the 4th fret... 2 2 4 2 2 2 or F# B F# A C# F#

  627. musictheory 2015-04-09 11:18:21 Yeargdribble
    I think that kind of ear-training is borderline useless, which is frustrating because it's the vast majority of what is out there, especially in terms of apps. That type of thing has you doing it in a vacuum with no context. You're not hearing intervals as they are related to a tonal center. You don't get to hear the flavor of individual notes at all. You're trying to quickly string together some intervals one after the other divorced from a tonality. You can't think "That was Jaws... followed by Star Wars, followed by NBC followed by the Wedding March" which is how so many people learn to hear individual intervals. I find that utterly useless. Honestly, you'd get more out of just noodling mindfully over either a simple chord progression or even one chord to begin with. The nice thing about a simple chord progression is that you'll find yourself *wanting* to go somewhere with your melody that lines up with the chord you know is coming up. You can hear where you want the melodic line to go and with time, you'll start just nailing the intervals in a real context. Try just doing some major scale improve soloing over something simple like I-V-vi-IV. You'll be amazed at how much more quickly listening for flavor of chords and individual scale degrees with become second nature to you. Start with just a few notes out of the scale and then add more. Another suggestion I saw, that makes sense, but is almost practically impossible, is to limit yourself to a single key and do as much ear training as you can in that key. The idea makes a lot of sense since it eliminates any technical difficulties and really lets you just focus on listening for harmonic and melodic content that you can always relate to that single key. Ultimately, those ideas transpose out to any other keys, but if you're focusing hard on just ear training, working in a single key most of the time will honestly be very beneficial simply because what you're really working on is relationships. This becomes increasingly beneficial as you add more color notes. If you're playing over something that really allows for more blues riffs, you can really start to hear where those notes work without analyzing the theory and just hear where you want the notes to go ahead of time. When you run into those ideas in the wild, they'll probably catch your ear a lot more. "Oh snap, did you hear that b3?!" If you have something like iRealPro you can set that stuff up pretty easily. I'll admit it's damn near impractical to do all of the types of exercises you might want to do in a single key when you're trying to work with real world examples. But you can set aside a certain amount of ear-training time every day to just improv over the exact same chord progression until you start feeling comfortable with how the notes sound in context, then maybe try a different progression in the same key. You can also try using some random Spotify play lists of simple things like pop and try to copy their melodies, many of which will be simple and maybe as few as 3 notes. Try to listen first rather than using your instrument as a pure trial and error machine. Get an idea of what you think the notes are before playing them, then try to play along and make corrections as necessary. Obviously you can't really key limit this stuff, but just keep in mind that you're listening for the way notes sound relative to the tonality they are set in.

  628. musictheory 2015-04-09 23:53:17 B_Provisional
    The closest thing I've ever seen to VS sheet music is Eliot Britton's analysis of the album *Rossz Csillag Alatt Született*, but this focuses more on sampling technique. http://cec.sonus.ca/econtact/12_4/britton_loop.html http://www.ebritton.com/uploads/project/2/bad_star_ebritton_07.pdf [I get the impression that Mr. Funk does not use sheet music.](http://trashaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/10317621_10203049753876651_5930170036219697268_o.jpg) However, it would be interesting to know how he executes his signature compound meters within the software he uses for composition, and with the various synthesizers and drum machines he uses. For example, within Renoise, does he compose patterns (i.e. measures) of 11/4 etc. or does he compose smaller patterns of 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, etc. and then then string them together using the pattern sequencer? Insight into his compositional workflow would perhaps answer some of OP's questions.

  629. musictheory 2015-04-10 00:39:24 xiipaoc
    From what I gather -- and I don't gather much -- in other places they just use ad hoc tuning. A gamelan, for example, has a bunch of instruments that are all tuned to each other, and the tunings aren't perfect in any case, so each gamelan will be tuned differently from others. The A 440 is a good standard where instruments will generally be played together and can't be tuned very much on the spot, like a piano or a woodwind. If your ensemble is smaller and consists mostly of string instruments, you can really tune to anything.

  630. musictheory 2015-04-10 03:18:37 dwiggitypoo
    they say the key of A at 432Hz is supposed to be earth's natural resonance.. I have a nylon string tuned standard based off 432, and it's absolutely beautiful

  631. musictheory 2015-04-11 07:09:08 Zoesan
    HEYHEYHEYHEY Third. Seriously dude, djent bands almost always use the first fret of the bass string

  632. musictheory 2015-04-11 15:44:45 Xenoceratops
    You can do it, dude. When I was doing my undergrad, I was classmates with a cellist who started music (we're talking square one here) at the age of 25. The guy was lively, motivated, and loved what he was doing. His enthusiasm got him a spot in the honors string quartet. He was humble, too. He knew that he had a lot to learn, and never scoffed. Another guy, mid-40's this time, came from some career like banking (I think that's what it was) and, after a heart attack, decided to turn his life around and do what he really wanted to do: sing opera. Man, he was fun to be around. When I was studying with him, he was performing regularly in at least one opera company, possibly two, in addition to our university's productions and whatever he picked up on the side. Both of these guys poured their being into their newfound music careers. I think that they both knew that it would take hard work, and they welcomed the challenge with open arms. One of the guys in my department was actually coming from a CS background. I think he was changing majors so he could be a composer. Anyway, he must have been in his 30's. I remember my advisor recruiting him, probably giving him private lessons on the side until he could do all of the necessary administrative stuff. I'm sure that computer science is a great asset to a composer, although whenever I spoke to him about musical algorithms, he made it pretty clear that he wasn't at all interested in that sort of thing. I don't know whether my anecdotes are in any way inspirational, but I am confident that you can do this if it's something you want. The plus side is that you already have a degree, so you can focus on making music because you love it and not because you are trying to get your BA and get out.

  633. musictheory 2015-04-11 17:29:36 justgivingsomeadvice
    I assume a non-fretted string instrument lets you play any pitch you want. Are there videos of a violin playing a familiar melody in perfect tuning, versus standard tuning (equal-tempered)?

  634. musictheory 2015-04-11 18:38:51 alluvialsphinx
    It's probably easiest to hear when a really good choir or string orchestra performs in adjustable just intonation (which they usually do), especially if they're using period instruments and sticking close to a key center (like in most pre-classical music) [This is a pretty good demonstration of the difference, though it's a little misleading in some ways (because it's an advertisement)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NlI4No3s0M) [This is a great, mostly in-tune performance of a Romantic piece--choirs are cool because they can adjust the tuning well as they modulate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGc__HGwdxk) [And one of a Renaissance piece](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xPh-fXYAc4) [Here's a performance of a Baroque piece on period instruments, which often play in older tunings, though I'm not sure they are here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe7nP4tBRxE) [Great solo, feels really in tune to me at least](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3clX2CJqzs) There are also a lot of interesting comparison videos out there between just intonation and equal temperament (and also videos on other ways that string players often adjust, usually with pythagorean tuning). Here are a couple I found: [1. comparison right near beginning, then gets into differences in keys due to tuning for C major](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBt6APk21tU) [2. comparison with midi simulation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeZaSeaHVeg)

  635. musictheory 2015-04-12 02:31:45 creepyMaintenanceGuy
    ~~If the 12th fret is actually the midpoint of the string, it shouldn't be hard to figure out. Say you're fretting at the 10th on the low E: plucking the string between the bridge and the 10th fret would be a D. Plucking between the nut and the finger would theoretically be the same distance between the 13th and the bridge, so that would be an F, or more probably an F# since you're effectively fretting at the 9th.~~ Edit: bullshit guessing redacted

  636. musictheory 2015-04-12 02:34:07 sputn1k1
    http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-guitar-string-bends-are-notated.html

  637. musictheory 2015-04-12 04:02:48 wiredjazz
    So technically it's just about percentages, but it's percentage by distance not fret. If you fret at the twelfth feet, you divide the string in two, so they should be equal. That SEEMS fine, because it establishes mathematics, but because the fretboard scale isn't linear, fretting on the second half of the fret board is probably going to end up dividing the string into weird percentages that produce notes outside of the chromatic scale. Cool for effect, but harmonically atonal... Also, inaudible on anything but an acoustic instrument, and low volume on those too.

  638. musictheory 2015-04-12 04:07:03 arnedh
    Consider an open E on the high E. Call this frequency 1.0. Play fret 1. You raise this frequency by 2^(1/12), or a half note. Each fret will raise the note by a similar amount, so at fret n, you get a length of 2^(-n/12), and the frequency is multiplied by 2^(-n/12) Behind the left hand, it touches fret (n-1), a length of 1-(2^(-(n-1)/12) free to make another note. So consider an A string, at 110 Hz. Fret it at 7. You get 110 * (2^(7/12)) ~ 164.8 Hz. Very close to 110 * 3/2 (165). Behind the finger, you get a length between frets 0 and 6 of (1-2^(-6/12)), thus a frequency of 110/(1-2^(-6/12)): 375.6. 21.25 half notes up from that A. (based on the log of those frequencies) There is very little reason to expect any of this to hit any notes exactly, and even less reason to expect harmonies. Good luck in making sweet music from those notes.

  639. musictheory 2015-04-12 12:45:22 fennelouski
    You're right on everything but the end there. There are a few places where you *should* expect there to be a note. Consider pressing on the 13th fret, it's pretty clear that you'd have a note an octave up from the open string. Then the 8th fret: a 12th up. If you can produce a harmonic over a fret from fret 1-(octave + 1) then you can expect to produce the same note from pressing down on the next fret and plucking between the nut and the finger. This works for microtonal fretboards and (kind of sorta) fretless fingerboards. This can also be extrapolated for the upper half of the neck, but is more complex.

  640. musictheory 2015-04-12 13:34:45 Morgoth714
    Proper tabs are not imprecise at all, and 99% of the time they are easier to sight read than notation for fretted string instruments. Notation is great for instruments in general, but if you're a guitar (or bass, or banjo etc.) player it's far easier to literally tell them what fret to play than what note, which could mean several different places on the fretboard with different timbres. Not to mention notation gets really messy when you have things like strings that are supposed to ring for a certain time length while playing other strings. With tab, you can clearly see what each string is meant to be doing at a given time, which sheet music doesn't tell you. I really don't see how sheet music allows you to play a song you've never heard any better than tabs either. They're pretty equal assuming both are written with accurate detail.

  641. musictheory 2015-04-12 14:42:48 ExtraButterPopCorn
    >Notation is great for instruments in general, but if you're a guitar (or bass, or banjo etc.) player it's far easier to literally tell them what fret to play than what note, which could mean several different places on the fretboard with different timbres. Not necessarily. As anything with written music, it all depends on who transcribes it, but a lot of guitar (or fretted instruments) sheet music has also detailed notation about which string and fret to play. Besides, I'm not arguing whether or not a tab is easier to read, I'm saying sheet music is precise while tabs are not. Some tabs are precise, but let's be real, the majority of them are not. Tabs are imprecise because of the simple fact that they don't tell you which notes you're playing, they tell you numbers and in the end it trains you to be lazy when it comes to understand what you're playing. Also, as you said, notation is great for instruments in general, but tabs are only good for fretted instruments. Because of this short understanding they provide, if you're a violinist (or any other non-fretted instrument player) who knows nothing about guitar trying to play something out of a guitar piece, you're gonna have a hard time trying to learn it out of a tab, while notation can be good for both. In the end, if you're a well trained sight reader, sight reading sheet music will be of little to no challenge (depending of the music itself) and it can provide you all of the elements you need and also, it makes you think and understand your instrument a little bit better. For example, if your guitar sheet music has no fingering positions, it will train you to figure out your own fingerings instead of following someone else's which might not feel as comfortable or good sounding (in the case of timbres) to you. For beginners, tabs teach you a way of playing stuff and that's it, if your ear or your note understanding is poor, you're gonna follow a bad tab by heart instead of figuring out your own way of playing the music and growing up as a musician. >I really don't see how sheet music allows you to play a song you've never heard any better than tabs either. They're pretty equal assuming both are written with accurate detail. Tabs don't usually include rhythm values, and when they do, it's practically sheet music without note names. But most tabs do not include rhythm values, so the only way of knowing how it must sound is to play while listening to the original music, whereas sheet music always includes a thorough transcription of everything or practically everything you need to do to play something, and it can be followed with no audio reference at all.

  642. musictheory 2015-04-12 18:58:25 Kai_Daigoji
    > The point that u/ExtraButterPopCorn (and that I am agreeing with) is trying to make is that tabs while great for finding position on a fret-board and help for playability they do absolutely nothing for time signature or notation. Not true. In fact, lute and guitar music was written exclusively in tabulature for a long time, and rhythm, time signature, etc., was indicated in addition to fret/string.

  643. musictheory 2015-04-13 07:39:29 randommusician
    When tuning first became standardized, the main large ensemble in existence was the orchestra. All of the strings, as well as some of the woodwinds (such as oboe) tune better to A. By tune better, I mean if you have an A in tune, the rest of the string is likely in tune. For example, you wouldn't want to tune a B flat trumpet to A because it is a naturally sharp note on the instrument- so adjusting your tuning to A will put a bunch of other notes out of tune.

  644. musictheory 2015-04-13 08:36:32 I_play_trombone_AMA
    To add to this: It's not that string instruments "tune better" to A. It's that each of the string instruments has an A string on their instruments. Violins' four strings are GDAE. Violas' are CGDA 'Cellos' are CGDA and Bass' are EADG So the strings start by tuning their A string, and then get the other strings in tune compared to their A string. As for woodwinds, I have no clue which of them find it useful to tune to an A, except perhaps A clarinet. As for brass, A is a pretty useless note for all of us, so we just do it so nobody gets mad and then figure it out on our own for the rest of the concert.

  645. musictheory 2015-04-13 08:54:29 Apikalegusta
    **EDIT:** I just misread the answer, ignore this comment!! The name of the string (for example, GDAE on the violins) doesn't mean that those strings are made specifically for those note, is only a denomination to distinguish easily the thickness or the material of the strings. In fact, some pieces specifyes another tunning for the instrument. For example, the guitar piece "Introducción y Danza" from Eduardo Martin specifies the tuning D for 6th string and A for 5th string.

  646. musictheory 2015-04-13 11:30:18 Jazz_Musician
    For most instruments (especially wind), A is generally a good tuning note. And for strings, as previously mentioned, the A string is open, so if an open string is out of tune, the other notes on that string will not be in tune.

  647. musictheory 2015-04-13 21:37:29 madcap462
    The other thing that makes sense is that stringed instruments all have an A string, as some else already brought up. They also have G and D strings, so if given the choice to start tuning at A, D, or G seems like A would be a good place to start.

  648. musictheory 2015-04-13 21:47:19 42420
    Okay, I've started tuning. I think I'll use A because it seems to give a more effective result than starting from E, the first string. I'm not sure though. I've read A is better. Hmm, I wonder why that is. Maybe I'll ask Reddit. Reddit, why is A the standard for tuning?

  649. musictheory 2015-04-13 23:51:34 mm_aa
    That's because lots of string instrument tune in 4th.

  650. musictheory 2015-04-14 00:05:34 crossanlogan
    yeah, if you're tuning a guitar it makes sense to start at E. if you're tuning a ukulele it makes sense to start at A. if you're tuning a trombone, Bb. a flute, C. if you're tuning a string quartet all at the same time, in less than ten seconds, it makes sense to pick a tuning standard that all of those instruments share. ergo, A.

  651. musictheory 2015-04-14 03:04:33 DrHenryPym
    >It's that each of the string instruments has an A string on their instruments. That's crazy. It's also true for standard guitar tuning (E**A**DGBE) and ukulele (GCE**A**).

  652. musictheory 2015-04-14 03:43:27 sizviolin
    Next to the piano, bowed string instruments were still the most popular instruments at the time, and amateurs commonly got together to play string quartets. A is one of the most effective tuning notes for these instruments.

  653. musictheory 2015-04-14 04:05:16 vornska
    Yeah but that's not proof; it's hardly even evidence. First of all, the first tuning fork was supposedly invented in 1711 by a trumpeter in England... far removed from the contexts where we know of amateur string quartet performances (which happened half a century later in Hapsburg Italy and Austria). Moreover, *even if string players tuned together on the note A, that doesn't necessarily relate to pitch standards being fixed to the pitch A4.* The first violinist could simply pick whatever A they felt like & the group would match it. The top-level comment got a lot of upvotes because many of us here are orchestral musicians (including me: I play cello). So we have a lot of experience tuning to A... it's very familiar and it seems like it might be relevant, so tons of people jump the gun. But that's a terrible way to answer a historical question, which is what the OP was.

  654. musictheory 2015-04-14 14:06:58 Xenoceratops
    Without knowing a bit more about what you heard, I can only guess. American and Mexican folk music have a similar pedigree: both have roots in European and African music, so you can expect that the harmony and rhythm will be similar. (Much of Mexican music retains native elements, however.) Mariachi and bluegrass both have a heavy string instrument component (more pronounced in bluegrass, but still present in mariachi), notably violins and guitars. There are some differences. Mexican guitar music is more influenced by Spanish music, while the guitar in American music is associated with the African-American blues tradition (where we also get the banjo). There are obviously differences between the two traditions. For one, the instrumentation differs: mariachi has harp and trumpet, a slew of other guitar instruments, perhaps drums and the occasional accordion†; bluegrass has banjo, mandolin, and string bass. In terms of the actual music, bluegrass is a blend of Irish/Scottish/English/Welsh music (from the people of those countries who settled in Appalachia) and the blues/jazz. Technically speaking, that stuff is a world away from the Spanish, Afro-Mexican, and native roots of mariachi's precursor, *Son Jaliscience*. Excuse me for the long answer. Maybe the comparison is useful for you, maybe not. You probably heard a chord or something in the melody that you associate with mariachi. Incidentally, whenever Beethoven has a melody harmonized in thirds in a major key with a I IV V sort of chord progression, I find myself reminded of mariachi music. I have yet to find anyone who shares this viewpoint. † I do not believe that accordion is a traditional part of mariachi music. Accordion is however endemic to música norteño, which got it from German and Polish immigrants, and there has probably been some crossover with mariachi. I'm not the person to ask about accordion in mariachi, though. Mayhap somebody else on this forum is better versed in the history of Mexican folk music.

  655. musictheory 2015-04-15 03:20:16 LarryLarington
    For me, the "brightness" of a key is different depending on who I talk to. I listen to different music than you, so chances are we're not going to think of D minor in the same way. I think of Hans Zimmer's Batman score so I have some pretty dark associations with that key, but if you think of it in terms of Beethoven's 9th you'll obviously think of it differently. To answer your question more technically, sometimes it depends on what instrument you are playing. For example, G major sounds very good on a violin because the D string vibrates whenever you play a G due to the harmonic series. A and E are also in the key so you get a bit more of the overtones when you play. Compare that to F# major on a violin. None of the open strings are in the key and the tonic is all the way up on the high 2 of the D string. You'll get a very different sound, so knowing instruments and their ranges inside and out will help you understand how to bring out certain colors that you want.

  656. musictheory 2015-04-15 07:03:01 hamsterwuv
    The harmonic is caused by changing the string length from the distance between where you fret and the bridge, and where you fret and the nut. The distance from the 7th fret to the nut is longer the distance from the 5th fret to the nut. If by deeper you mean a lower pitch, than it makes sense that the shorter distance from the 5th fret to the nut has a higher pitch because it is shorter than the length from the 7th fret to the nut.

  657. musictheory 2015-04-15 08:36:04 Kolde
    Your comment doesn't say anything except "the shorter the length between fret and nut, the higher the pitch of the harmonic", which is exactly what OP observed. He is asking *why* that happens, and I am curious, too. Edit: This was a good explanation of harmonics: http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/5489/why-do-harmonics-happen Edit 2: Based on what I linked and also the fact that one can experience high pitched harmonics at frets 17 and 19 also, I disagree that the harmonic pitch is related to the length of the string. It has to do with eliminating the symmetry of the waveform of certain harmonics by placing your finger over some place on the string where the harmonic forms a non-zero amplitude, causing the overall harmonic waveform to die away. This leaves all the other harmonics. Why does eliminating the harmonics with the amplitudes at frets 5 create a higher pitch than eliminating the ones at fret 7? Not sure.

  658. musictheory 2015-04-15 09:39:03 phalp
    When you play a harmonic what you're actually doing is muting certain of the string's modes of vibration. For example by placing your finger at the 12th fret, you prevent the middle of the string from moving, while allowing other parts of the string to vibrate freely. To vibrate at the open string's fundamental frequency the middle of the string needs to be free to move, but you've muted it. However, the string is still free to vibrate at twice that frequency because the two halves of the string can move freely. When you play harmonics at other frets it's similar: at the 7th fret or 19th fret, you're touching at 1/3rd the string length, and allowing the string only to resonate at frequencies that are 3 times, 6 times, 9 times(, etc.) the frequency of the open string. You're dividing the string into 3 vibrating portions. Even though you're only touching it in one place, that place means muting any harmonics that need be able to move at that place to sound. At the 5th/24th fret you're dividing the string into quarters and getting 4 times the open string's pitch.

  659. musictheory 2015-04-15 09:47:32 hamsterwuv
    It's fractional. At the 5th, 7th, and 12th, fret, the amplitude of the wave is an integer fraction of the wave created by the open string. It's just basic physics.

  660. musictheory 2015-04-15 10:39:32 hamsterwuv
    In order for the string to produce pitch, it needs to vibrate at a frequency which is an integer. When you play a harmonic at the 12th fret, it cuts the string in half, 1/2. This causes 2 separate waves to be created, hence 1 over 2. When you play a harmonic at the 7th fret, you are playing a note that is one third of the way from the nut to the bridge, thus creating a wave 1/3 of the open string. Likewise, the 5th fret is one quarter of the distance from the nut to the bridge, so it creates four waves. Think of fractions with 1 on top. Then put consecutive numbers on the bottom. 1/2, 1/3, 1/4. Each of these is a smaller number. 1/2 > 1/3 > 1/4. A smaller number corresponds to a smaller distance of string vibrating and consequently a higher pitch. When you harmonize at the 12th fret you are creating two simultaneous waves because it is 1/2 of the distance from the net to the bridge. When you harmonize at the 7th fret you are creating 3 simultaneous waves because the distance from the nut to you finger/fret is 1/3 of the distance from the nut to the bridge. Just like fretting higher makes a higher pitch because the string is shorter, harmonizing closer to the nut makes a shorter wave so the pitch is higher. (Here)[http://improvisingguitar.blogspot.com/2006/10/harmonics-pt-0-physics-of_06.html] is a picture to illustrate. Because each oscillation is symmetrical, the closer to the nut your finger touches the string, the smaller every oscillation is, and the higher the resulting pitch is. It only works at certain frets such as 12, 7, and 5, because they are 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4 respectively. If you tried at the 13 fret, it would be 1/2.12542(random number greater than 1/2) or such. In order for the string to produce a pitch, you need an integer on the bottom of the fraction. In order to have an integer on the bottom of the fraction, you need to play a fraction of the string such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5.

  661. musictheory 2015-04-15 10:57:15 hamsterwuv
    Glad to help. You can even see the string doing this if you play the low e string open and then lightly touch the string at the 12th fret. You will be able to see the vibration stop at the 12 fret but continue halfway between the fret and the nut and bridge because it is divided into two waves, each with an apex between your finger and where the string is anchored (nut and bridge).

  662. musictheory 2015-04-16 07:30:12 noodle-man
    for guitar this is true too as each octave of the same note can be fretted in different places on different strings. This makes some 2nd fret sounds more open and bright while 7th fret the string below sounds mellow, closed and bassy though they are the same note and same octave. The brighter voicings of these notes cut through other instruments better than the mellower versions. So the note will likely be consonant, diatonic and resolving. Where as color notes that are conflicting with the key might sound better on the bigger strings higher up on the fretboard. But thats just an example, not an end all of course.

  663. musictheory 2015-04-16 12:17:14 SneakStyles
    I have two related suggestions to remedy this. First, identify specifically your musical strengths/comfort zone, and your weak points. From the sound of it, you're able to write sections of good music, but can't string them into a complete, natural sounding song. Naturally, you may think "oh, I'll just practice writing more transitions so I can fit these parts together better." This isn't necessarily wrong, but it's less helpful than if you were to approach it a different way. In my experience, the more vague your musical goals are, the less likely you are to achieve them. Therefore, to get a better idea on how to pinpoint your weakness and work on it productively, you should... Second, look to examples of music that you enjoy. Listen to artists who accomplish successfully what you're going for. Find out what works by using them as an example. Once you've found examples of what works in songs that you like, use music theory to figure out WHY it works. Use any means necessary. Identify a chord progression from an effective transition, then transpose it to different keys, substitute the chords in the progression, play the progression on different instruments, slow the song down, speed it up, play it with a different rhythm or time signature... experiment with the music and get a feeling for it. While doing this, don't forget to also pay attention to the arrangement of the piece. Aside from the chord progression and the melody, what are the other instruments doing, and how does it complement and make the progression effective? Basically, learn the music theory behind it first, then experiment with it. If you try this and find difficulties improvising and changing up the chord progression, then hey, you've identified another area to work on, improvisation! Or maybe you don't know enough different types of chords for successful substitutions. There's a lot you can learn from doing this. You can do a lot with someone else's music, never feel like you're unoriginal or lesser by taking theory from another song and applying it to your own stuff. For learning purposes, you can stick a successful chord progression note-for-note into your own song and that'll always be better than not trying it because you have an aversion to copying others. And when using what you've learned from these examples in your own music, your natural creativity and preferences will take over and it will sound nothing like what you took the musical ideas from. It's a win/win.

  664. musictheory 2015-04-16 15:53:55 iTelope
    Perhaps you could mention the year in which the piece was written, and then say that this was during the Baroque era. It is not a string quartet, it is scored for string orchestra with basso continuo. I'd probably go into some detail of how the continuo is played, mentioning figured bass and so on. Check to see if Bach actually uses the word Lento, I doubt he would have used both Lento and Air as tempo markings. Instead of calling the piece "pleasant," which is subjective, see if you can find some evidence of it being popular, I'd start by going to classicfm.com. Perhaps mention that the first part is repeated. You are also using some technical terms incorrectly. (I have no idea what "consonating and polyfon" mean.

  665. musictheory 2015-04-17 00:05:56 wiz0floyd
    For string instruments it's the quality of the materials. Beginner instruments will be made from wood laminate (plywood) rather than carved from whole pieces. This lends durability and is much cheaper. Intermidiate instruments will often have a fully carved top, and sometimes the back and sides will be carved from a cheaper wood or will be laminate. Pro instruments will be made entirely from hand carved pieces. These instruments will have the most complex tone and resonances. These differences determine the quality and complexity of the tone of the instrument (and price)

  666. musictheory 2015-04-17 01:44:39 xiMbd03u1
    I can speak to differences in guitars. One of the major differences in a higher priced guitar will be the ability to play in tune. With cheap guitars, the fret-board is usually "off" enough that the intonation is significantly off as you go higher on the neck. It is often not possible to get a cheap guitar perfectly in tune all the way across the fret-board, because the bridge may be positioned incorrectly, for example. For acoustics, higher-end models will have solid wood instead of laminate, and will use more wood so that they are heavier and have better resonance. More design work will have gone into the resonance chamber and sound hole(s), to create a pleasing sound for the guitar. For electrics, the pickups will be of much higher quality, creating a sound that is more tailored to the type of guitar (e.g. an Ibanez for shredding or a Gibson for classic rock). Cheap pickups usually have a really weak and thin sound. The hardware, such as tuning pegs, will be higher quality on an expensive guitar. It will have a finish that won't wear off after a year of handling. The tuning pegs may have metal sleeves instead of being set directly into the wood, so that the head stock doesn't get wallowed out from the string tension over time. A higher-end guitar may have adjustability that is missing in a lower-end guitar, such as the ability to adjust the intonation of strings individually, or with more precision. A great example of this is the "whammy bar" that you find on some guitars. On a cheap guitar, it will be very difficult to get the bridge to return to the same neutral position, and strings will often stick in the nut when they move, so using the "whammy bar" just makes the whole guitar go out of tune. On expensive guitars, premium woods, finishes, and inlays may be used to make the guitar look like a piece of art. This doesn't in any way affect the sound or playability, but not everybody wants to be like Jack White--banging out awesome tunes on dime-store guitars. Some people want a musical instrument to be aesthetically pleasing as well. You're going to spend a lot of time looking at and handling the instrument, so you may want it to feel and look good, in addition to sounding good.

  667. musictheory 2015-04-17 09:15:07 DontExcgarate
    Not for the poor string players they don't...

  668. musictheory 2015-04-17 19:14:03 m3g0wnz
    From Walter Everett, *Beatles as Musicians*. The C + 3 - 4 stuff refers to the rehearsal and measure numbers in the Norton Beatles scores. >"Here, There and Everywhere" The Beatles were set to fly to Germany on June 23, and by the 14th they had not finished their work for the LP; McCartney told a reporter, "I'm just writing one more number, then it's finished," and Lennon said, "I've got something going; about three lines so far" (McCartney: "Have you? That's good"); both last-minute compositions would make the album. >One of McCartney's gems, "Here, There and Everywhere," is supposed to have grown from his hearing of the Beach Boys' "God Only Knows" (brand new in May 1966) at the side of the Weybridge pool, but as the composer says, "you wouldn't have known."uo After several takes were attempted on June 14, a remake was begun on the 16th, when most of the recording was done.m First—as in "For No One" and "Good Day Sunshine"—McCartney played a duet with Starr for the basic track, this time a rhythm part on Casino with drums, accompanied at C + 3 - 4 and in the final two bars ("Guitar I") by Harrison's electric twelve-string. The Rickenbacker's so-called Rick-0 Sound stereo capability is taken advantage of at C, the signal sent to two amps, miked separately to the Casino/drum track and to a second track; the tone pedal colors the song's final five notes. Then bass was added to a third track of Take 13; the fourth was filled with backing vocals from McCartney, Lennon, and Harrison and (beginning at C+8 but more audible a bar later) finger snaps. The bass and basic track were reduced to one track, along with a sped-up overdubbed lead vocal from McCartney, sustaining the upper line at C+9-10, all parts now heard right. This and the backing-vocal track (left-center, with reverb) and Ricky-12 "pre-echo" (left) joined a doubled lead vocal (left, descending at C+9-10) added on the 17th. The track was mixed on June 17 and 21. Although the recording process itself was complicated by the composer's slow-to-coalesce vision of the final arrangement, what with only a few Beatles working at a time, and despite its full backing harmonies, "Here, There and Everywhere" presents the sparest and most relaxed texture of the LP. >In order to indicate a few of the motivic and harmonic ideas expressed in "Here, There and Everywhere," its structure is sketched as example 1.13. In the tonally mysterious and tempo-free introduction (A), note how the passing motion in the bass, B-B&#9837;-A (0:02-0:06), imitates a similar descent in the alto register as sung by McCartney (in lead and backing lines), g^(1)-(f&#9839;^(1))-f&#9838;^(1) (0:01–0:06), representing a great development from the G-G&#9839;-A-B&#9837; opening of "You Like Me Too Much." This song is also a masterpiece of registral relationships. One dotted slur in the graph indicates how the introductory pitches in the alto line continue to descend following a registral shift (at 0:05) that reaches over the upper voice to f&#9838;^(2); this gesture will be repeated diatonically in the verse when a second alto descent, from b^1 through a^1 and g^1 (0:25-0:27), dramatically shifts up to f&#9838;^(2) at B+7 (0:28). McCartney recaptures this registral dialog by concluding his song with an ascending arpeggiation (D+3 -4) to allow f&#9838;^2 to finally resolve in the song's final note to g^2. The B&#9837; chord of measure 2 is the opening sonority of the bridge (C+l, 0:56), which borrows from the parallel minor for four bars. Both the boundary-embracing registral interplay and the unexpected move to B&#9837; help portray the composer's "everywhere." Nowhere else does a Beatles introduction so well prepare a listener for the most striking and expressive tonal events that lie ahead. Example 1.13 (this is Schenkerian analysis): http://i.imgur.com/urWPrmk.png http://i.imgur.com/buTM61U.png http://i.imgur.com/uT3AisS.png http://i.imgur.com/NDCYs92.png

  669. musictheory 2015-04-18 06:20:12 Xenoceratops
    Speaking as a composer, the only reason to write a multi-movement work is if the movements are related. Can you find examples of works where this is not the case? Of course. And there is a spectrum: one composer might find it sufficient to plug a theme only at the beginning of the work and at the very end, whereas another composer might derive every single note from a central idea that is present at the beginning of the work (Bartók's fourth string quartet comes to mind, with the exception of the third movement, though that is because of the arch form that he uses). Another method of movement organization is contrast, wherein individual movements purposely do not relate to each other (Górecki's second symphony). However, even then (and perhaps especially then) you need to put the movements in context of one another.

  670. musictheory 2015-04-18 10:41:33 harpsichorddude
    Ben Johnston was arguably Partch's protege; I would highly recommend checking his work out. He adapts a lot of Partch's ideas to more "conventional" mediums (eg string quartets).

  671. musictheory 2015-04-18 21:09:55 Baseyg
    A few points that first come to mind 1. Most people singing in musicals are actors first, singers second. This doesnt mean they are bad singers, just that when they all sing in a very straight forward samey way. This is so that the same musical will sound the same when performed by different casts on different nights. It is rare to request a very unique or specific vocal stlye for a musical especially when many songs call for multiple singers at once or a chorus. In contrast many pop and rock singers have a unique voice making them identifiable from just a bar of music. 2. Most of the instrumentation/orchestration for a musical tends to be big. Most scores for a musical call for a full orchestra for a classical musical or for pop rock musicals, a full band of multiple keyboards/guitars with drums bass and string/horn sections. Outside of musicals, Bands are rarely this fleshed out with most rock bands having 3/4/5 members. 3. Not nessacarily a bad thing but it is very unlikely that musicals are innovative in their music. Songs are written to tell a story or express an emotion and are often written in pastiche or follow a certain style.

  672. musictheory 2015-04-19 04:38:55 hallflukai
    I'll throw my two cents in this mixing basket, why the hell not! 1. The purpose of the songs (lyrics specifically) is much more straightforward than musicals that exist outside of the theater. Sure there will be allegory and metaphor, but it won't be as obfuscated as in other genres. This means the lyrics tend to be more speech-like as they need to get information across in a more concise manner. 2. Oftentimes the music isn't the only thing going on when a song is being done in a musical. There might be a short bit of a dialogue between characters, or a bit of action onstage to establish atmosphere. To do this, the music might incorporate a short vamp so the singer doesn't have to hit an exact time mark for whatever they're doing onstage. 3. On top of that bit of arranging tactics, musical songs tend to have more than one singer. When the musical focal point changes (a different singer takes the lead), composers/arrangers like to change the music along with it. This could be done through a key change, a dynamic shift, or other techniques. What important to note is that this change happens and you notice it changing. Singer changes -> music changes, so it's yet another pattern of musical music you recognize. 4. Of course the instrumentation plays a part too. Now, I'm not super familiar with musicals but to my ear older musicals tend to be more string-centric (think old Disney movies). Eventually musicals took a lot of jazz influences and you had musicals like Chicago and Cabaret utilizing more trumpet, saxophones, and drumkit. And then you have your musicals like A Very Potter Musical, which ahave an even more stripped down-band and more rock influences. One thing I've noticed though, is that even these rock-influenced musicals almost always have a piano (like your South Park link) since piano has such a large range and can cover so much arranging by itself. Basically, since musicals have so many considerations to take in before the music is even written (number of performers, storytelling, instrumentation) they end up being similar. I would be all for an avant-garde musical though!

  673. musictheory 2015-04-24 05:41:50 tree_ent_protector
    if you're playing in A, and you want to create some tension or move to the fifth, then you can start out on a chord like V7/V/V/V which puts you a couple clicks away from A on the CoF at C#7. Then you move to V7/V/V, F#7, then to V7/V, B7, then to the V, E7 which now really wants to resolve to A. In jazz, the good old two-five or two-five-one is often modulated with the use of secondary chords which knowledge of the circle of fifths helps you understand. Let's look at the string of notes on the circle of fifths, F C G D A. They're obviously fifths, but let's choose the key of F, and it will be our tonic, making A the V/V/V/V, but let's modulate some twofives. Key of F || Am7 / D7 / | G / / / | Gm7 / C7 / | F6 / / / || analyzed: || iim7/II V7/II | V/V | iim7 V7 | I6 || The circle of fifths lets you define the key and then instead of trying to think of what the fifth is of the fifth of the fifth of the fifth just so you can build a iim7 on that last fifth really easily by just counting clockwise the number of fifths and then finding the 2 of that note. The CoF helps us build modulations and understand the chords relationships to each other (so many fifths) while the analysis is showing us a different relationship that is valid. Maybe you want to know other ways a specific chord relates to the notes being played other than what the analysis says, so you can play something interesting over it all, in which case you refer to the CoF.

  674. musictheory 2015-04-24 17:54:06 bbrandann
    Have you tried the 3 note per string patterns? This makes it so all modes are broken down into three finger patterns. For example G major would be finger pattern 11<shift>22<shift>33. Frets starting on 6th 357,357,457,457,578,578. The dorian would be 3111<shift,Shift> 22 frets 578,579,579,579,7810,7810.

  675. musictheory 2015-04-25 11:16:42 qumqam
    /r/AskScience This is a physics or electrical engineering question and probably has to do with the harmonics involved. (I would venture to guess that 75 Hz is going to be 1/4 as strong because it hits the harmonic with the string at 300 Hz, but that is just intuition -- and is probably wrong.) It also seems similar to antenna design so that might be a subfield to look at.

  676. musictheory 2015-04-25 21:33:35 itsoonwearsoff
    Physicist and musician here, I can answer your question. The system you describe in the mathematical jargon is called a [damped driven harmonic oscillator](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator#Sinusoidal_driving_force). In practice, the results are highly dependent on the system in question, as each string will have a different geometry and construction, hence different damping ratios and resonant frequencies, and thus different impedances. In other words, there's no easy pattern like some of the other commenters are proposing, you would need to specify a particular system and do some measurements to determine these properties.

  677. musictheory 2015-04-27 15:36:03 Xenoceratops
    Not that this should matter, but your chord progressions sound "backward" to me. Typically, we alternate between a state of tension and a state of repose. For instance, you have Emaj7 Emaj7sus4 B Bsus4 for your verse (I assume these are sus4 chords). If anything, Emaj7sus4 Emaj7 Bsus4 B is what I would expect, because the "sus" part is a tension and the regular form is the repose. Check out The Who's [Pinball Wizard](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AKbUm8GrbM), at 0:17. The progression starts with an alternating Bsus4 and B. Tension, then resolution. When you use E∆ E∆sus4 B Bsus4 ("∆" is the same thing as "maj7," just shorter), you skip the resolution of the suspension. This applies to the whole of your song, and it really is quite fascinating to me. In the key of E, B is the chord with the highest amount of tension. It typically proceeds the tonic chord, E. You do A instead. Okay, that's fine, we can go from V to IV. However, A is most certainly expected to go to E. You go instead to... C#m. (You spelled it D♭m, but it should be C#m.) The last place most listeners would expect to go from here is to Esus4, yet that's where you end up. Phrases do not typically end on an unresolved suspension. Have you tried plain old E instead of Esus4? The funny thing is that if you turn this chord sequence around, it becomes E C#m A B, or [I vi IV V](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50s_progression), which is one of the most popular progressions of all time. If you play with this progression, you'll notice that it starts at a state of repose (E), gets more active (C#m), then gathers tension (A) as it heads toward B, which is the most tense chord in the sequence. Plus, B makes a good transition to the C#m that starts your chorus. The chorus is somewhat better. C#m A is a common progression and A E gives us a nice plagal cadence. But Esus4? I can see it if you resolve it, but ending a phrase on an unresolved suspension is kind of unusual. ~~~~~~~~ I'm just going by the chords here. Melody or something else would help. The things I'm pointing out are not "wrong," per se, just unusual in a weird way. Can you construct a string of chords that don't relate to each other in any tonally sensible fashion and get away with it? Sure. Compared to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, deforestation, and the genocide in Sudan, non-functional chord sequences are but a minor contravention. If you are married to your chords, then go ahead and keep them, but try my suggestions if you find yourself stuck. To distill it for you: Verse: E∆sus4 E∆ Bsus4 B Prechorus: E C#m A B Chorus: C#m A E

  678. musictheory 2015-04-28 02:00:24 buttputt
    I broke a g string while fingering A minor

  679. musictheory 2015-04-28 05:16:06 Micp
    honestly i always found fingering A minor one of the easiest things to do. On that note i also love bending my G-string. It just feels so good.

  680. musictheory 2015-04-30 10:27:35 nmitchell076
    Well, it's not like people needed to figure out what the hz of C is before they knew what to sing when they saw a C. Pitches used to be extremely variable, especially when we were basically a vocal culture. C had no definite pitch, you sang whatever was comfortable in your range. Instruments introduce a little bit of stability into the mix, but it's still pretty ad hoc. You find an instrument that can't be tuned on the fly within your ensemble, then everyone just tunes to that, whatever pitch that is. No one needed to know what exact frequency the note C was. You just said "I'm going to play a C" and played it. And then everyone else said "okay, better make my C sound like that." When the tuning standards were introduced they just said (GREATLY oversimplifying) "huh, people already kind of play within this range of frequencies for this pitch, let's just choose something pretty close to all of those that's an easy number to remember. What about 440?" They selected this for a variety of reasons (I've never seen a fully documented and reputable source explaining the precise reasons in detail), but part of it would have been that A was floating somewhere around 440 anyway. Some people / orchestras played a more flat version, some a more sharp version. So using 254 hz is a fallout from that. No one is going to care if it's 253 hz, it's not suddenly not C. In fact, it really doesn't matter *what* the hz actually is. The players jut have to agree that they are all playing the same note tuned the same way. If C is that ridiculously high number, then your violin string will snap and your singer will refuse to sing with you. So you tune it to around 254 hz because that's a comfortable place for C to be. There's no magic behind tuning. You select a standard reference point that the musicians can all agree on, but it will be somewhat arbitrary, then you invoke whatever tuning environment you're operating in. The frequencies of the notes follow from that.

  681. musictheory 2015-04-30 10:48:05 PaintedMidget
    While I don't think the Cantina example is really all that pertinent, the Psycho example is very intriguing. I actually think what you've said sort of proves my point and the point of this study. Bernard Herrmann wrote the famous theme for the shower scene to accompany a very brutal, disturbing image. By using extreme dissonance and harsh string sounds, Herrmann completely enhances the scene, mood, and film that were created to be viewed primarily by audiences within our Western culture. I can assure you that this scene would not have been nearly as effective if the Cantina music was playing, just as an example. Yes, the music was written specifically for the scene, but it was written using very harsh sounds that Western audiences will associate with fear. Because of these cultural associations, the scene and mood are completely enhanced. Sure, if the Pygmies had seen the movie, known the plot, and were immersed in the atmosphere, they'd most likely have been scared. Interestingly enough, Hitchcock originally intended for the shower montage to be completely silent and told Herrmann not to score it. The composer asked if he could give it a shot, and Hitchcock thought the result brought even more atmosphere to the scene. If it were not for our cultural associations, the music would not have been nearly as successful and probably not included. Now, one simply cannot envision the movie without thinking of Herrmann's screeching strings. edit: I will agree though, it would have been cool if they played some additional music. I consider myself fairly open to most things, but as you suggested, I often feel physically uncomfortable and disturbed when listening to some contemporary electronic art music. But I'm not saying it's bad, and the fact that it's making me feel something at all makes it art. Would have been awesome if they played Babbitt's "Philomel" for the Pygmies.

  682. musictheory 2015-04-30 11:23:07 granttes
    I understand what you're saying, but my question wasn't in regards to tuning, but more of the mathematics behind it. These numbers aren't just made up. The numbers actually represent a pretty approximate number of cycles that a string or a voice vibrates at. I'm sure it's more to strings than to the voice. It does matter what the hz is, because without the numbers, Pythagoras wouldn't be able to come up with the circle of fifths, and we wouldn't have our 12 western keys. I might be in the wrong in sub, since I'm looking for a mathematical answer.

  683. musictheory 2015-04-30 11:40:31 nmitchell076
    Ah yes, the ancient Hz-ometer of 200 BC. :P I jest, but Pythagoras (or whatever Greek scientists whose work with music we now attribute to Pythagoras) certainly wouldn't have had any inclinations as to the precise number of times a perfectly in tune C would vibrate per second. He would have worked with string lengths. If you divide a string in half, you produce a pitch one Octave higher, divide it in half again, you produce an Octave and a fifth, etc. But figuring that stuff out doesn't require that the string be a specific pitch. You can generate that from any pitch, no matter how high or low. Pick any random frequency (let's keep it within the human range of hearing), and a string vibrating at that frequency can be messed with to generate fifths and stuff. So even with pythagoras, you don't need to fix a pitch permanently. It only needs to have a relatively consistent pitch while you're working with it. If you come back the next day and it's 5 hz flat, it won't wreck your mathematical and/or metaphysical system. The precise frequency at which the fundamental vibrated wouldn't have really concerned pythagoras. It's sort of like the pythsgorean theorum for triangles. You don't need to know how many plank lengths are in an inch to figure out that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 . Really you just need to understand proportional length. *Things on relation to other things.* That's the important thing, not some exactitude with regards to the precise number that a thing has by itself.

  684. musictheory 2015-04-30 23:26:56 granttes
    i think this is the answer out of everything. that its after the fact and not before. it was confusing me. and for the longest i couldn't understand how they knew that a string really vibrated so quickly. even if you recorded the string vibrating on video and slowing it down, you still wont be able to see how it vibrates per second due to the overtones. it's not a simple back and forth swing of the string, but many overtones vibrating as well all throughout from end to end. so it turns out that 440 was just applied, right?

  685. musictheory 2015-04-30 23:56:24 vornska
    > even if you recorded the string vibrating on video and slowing it down, you still wont be able to see how it vibrates per second due to the overtones. it's not a simple back and forth swing of the string, but many overtones vibrating as well all throughout from end to end. But there is still a consistent pattern. All the overtones add up to a pattern that repeats on a regular basis. See [this simple wave](http://imgur.com/fgVM2f4) for example. Do you see how there's one high peak & then 2 lower ones before you go back up to the high peak? You measure the time between each maximum peak, and that gives you the frequency in Hz.

  686. musictheory 2015-05-01 05:48:47 utilize_mayonnaise
    I love Gubaidulina. She wrote a piece for string quartet(s) that Kronos recorded. As I remember it, some instruments play in a diatonic collection, and other instruments play in a complementary diatonic collection, so that together they fill out the chromatic space. Then there's another quartet that is doing the same thing a quarter-tone away, so together the quartets fill out the whole quarter-tone space. Something like that. And there's a colored light show. And Catholic mysticism. Awesome.

  687. musictheory 2015-05-01 06:39:02 baseballfan3030
    Glad you picked this up! It's been a hectic semester and I totally forgot about this thread. I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a paper about how Aaron Copland uses the *Fanfare for the Common Man* throughout his *Third Symphony.* Interesting paper and fun to write, but in my (admittedly limited) research, I wasn't able to find a whole lot of literature on it. Maybe everyone thought it was so obvious that it wasn't worth writing a paper on, who knows. I'm also in an advanced orchestration class where I had to orchestrate Bach's Prelude in C# Minor in Book II of the WTC, Schumann's *To Julia* and Satie's *Croquis et Agaceries* for string orchestra plus some additional instruments (harp, percussion etc) of our choosing, as well as a final orchestration project which I just had read yesterday which was Rachmaninoff's *Prelude in C# Minor*. I'm also in a tonal counterpoint class where we've had projects on writing a chorale, a chorale prelude, a 2 voice baroque dance, an unaccompanied baroque dance, a 2-voice invention and a trio sonata. As far as compositions go, I finished the second movement to my first string quartet, a jazz trio for vibraphone, clarinet and bass and the first movement to a woodwind quintet, and I'm currently working on a song cycle for soprano and cello, an unaccompanied euphonium piece, a brass quintet and a piece for harp and viola. I also had a scholarship recital to give on hand drums. It's been a hellishly busy semester but it's finally winding down.

  688. musictheory 2015-05-03 01:14:42 80lbsdown
    I'm writing two papers to finish up my M.A.- one on certain types of hooks in popular music, and the other on Elliott Carter's 5th String Quartet.

  689. musictheory 2015-05-03 01:42:47 Akoustyk
    "Music theory" encompasses a lot. That could be from the math of sound and harmonic series etcetera, right up to how to finger your oboe. The general music theory of any instrument is really the same. But you need to approach it slightly different on different instruments sometimes. Guitar is more physically demanding I find, and it requires learning the same thing from many different aspects. Piano is sort of easy in a way, because if you want to play a note, you just press it. If you want to add a note to your chord, just press it, no problem. On guitar, there are multiple of the same note, and limitations of what your hand can do, and what the instrument can do. You can't fret two notes on the same string, for instance. On piano, you have to sort of learn everything 12 times in a way. One for every key. Although to be honest, the amount of ways you need to learn the one pattern on guitar to be really proficient at it, probably adds up to more than that. And the strength and flexibility required is more than on piano as well. Although obviously the greats always push the envelope of whatever instrument, so if you want to play in the big leagues, no matter what, it's a lot of work. Unless maybe you take up the triangle. conventional theory is the best way to learn if you will write scores, which also happen to be very similar to piano. Idk why sheet music has the staffs going horizontal instead of vertical, but if they were vertical, then it would look a lot like piano. And the way your brain can interpret it is a lot like piano. Guitar is different. It is different work for the brain, so I find it better to organize the theory differently. All these people whining and complaining can't understand that. They've never seen me play. The irony is, they are here talking like I'm an ignorant idiot, whereas if we weren't talking about music, and instead playing it, they'd probably be asking me a bunch of questions trying to learn how to play the way I can. The confidence of ignorance is strong. Right? To be ignorant is not to seek knowledge, to ignore learning, to refuse to grow. That needs confidence. Humble people ask questions and learn, and are weary and searching for where they might be wrong. I know what the music I make is like, that's good enough for me. I know what music theory is like. I have organized it how I have, because that lets me play the way I play. They think the way they think because a teacher or a book told them to.

  690. musictheory 2015-05-03 15:07:11 bluejazzer
    *Hemiola* is what comes to mind for that example; it's where there is a clear feeling of "three against two". The string voice, although barred in four, has strong beats implying a meter in three while the rhythm voice that enters later is clearly in two (or multiple thereof), and the stressed beats create a feeling of three-against-two. Another possibility (although unlikely with that example) is *polymeter,* where you have two different time signatures going at once. It's possible that Björk wrote it to include a 3/4 string section part and a 4/4 rhythm track, but I would imagine that she more likely conceived it as 4/4 throughout with accents placed strategically in the string part.

  691. musictheory 2015-05-06 21:44:39 nmitchell076
    Have you checked out how Debussy accomplishes plagal moves? The first harmonic change in *la fille aux cheveux de lin* for instance, or in the third movement from his [g minor string quartet](https://youtu.be/eJJiUeBx-IM?t=10m1s), around 12:43-12:51

  692. musictheory 2015-05-07 02:06:40 vornska
    Text underlay can be tricky to get right: sometimes to get all the words to fit, you have to fudge their alignment with the notes they go to, & so on. (This was especially true back in the days before notation software when a lot of notation standards, including this one, were set.) Having something actually within the music helps to make it clear how the words & notes are supposed to align even when the words are just printed in an unbroken string under the staff. It also helps clarify issues of prosody in Italian-language texts (and maybe French too?), where sometimes you *can't* tell where the syllable breaks are because you might or might not be expected to elide vowels.

  693. musictheory 2015-05-07 04:44:40 04-
    Okay. The link being named "the third movement from his g minor string quartet" confused me. What video is "12:43-12:51" a part of, then?

  694. musictheory 2015-05-07 04:54:27 Zombie_Giant_Sponge
    No kidding, it confused me too, apparently! That link *was* the prelude. 12:43-12:51 would be [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJJiUeBx-IM), which is Debussy's g minor string quartet.

  695. musictheory 2015-05-09 22:44:39 theeleventy
    What is your main instrument? I find I'm horrible at guessing those midi interval/chords but if I hear them on guitar, especially a steel string acoustic I'm dead on usually. I think timbre affects a lot.

  696. musictheory 2015-05-10 14:20:30 CombatCube
    The weakness is in contrast to the leading string of accented notes. I don't think the lack of an accent would be enough, so I want to put something there to show the opposite of accented.

  697. musictheory 2015-05-10 23:18:13 PullTheOtherOne
    I think he (or she?) meant a super-quiet, almost-inaudible note, not an extended/avant garde technique. It's pretty common in wind and percussion music (especially jazz) to play "ghost notes" which are very light, almost "implied" as a rhythmic placeholder rather than an actual sounded pitch. They're commonly notated with parentheses. I haven't seen them as much in piano and string music (maybe some guitar) but I'm sure they exist. EDIT: Oops, upon refresh it looks like non_troppo already explained this

  698. musictheory 2015-05-11 01:03:04 geoscott
    This notation was used extensively by Schoenberg. I found it in his 3rd String Quartet which was written in 1927. You can see it at IMSLP.org. [Check out the violin part](http://imslp.org/imglnks/caimg/0/08/IMSLP30967-PMLP66832-Schoenberg_sq_3_violin_1.pdf) around bar 154 of the first movement. Schoenberg's use in this particular instance of this piece was to show the performer that the three-note groups have an accent where it's not usually found, and the 'unaccent' mark is a verification, so to speak. Personally, I don't see why you've placed your 'unaccent' notation on an already-unaccented note: the upbeat. Especially since you've already got an accent mark on the downbeat's note, it seems superfluous.

  699. musictheory 2015-05-11 02:49:10 colliningram
    Do you get to play on an actual acoustic piano quite a bit? My theory is that after you spend enough time with an instrument (especially an acoustic instrument) you subconsciously start to remember what notes *feel* like when you play them. I've been playing upright bass for about ten years so I'm sure I've played the open D string close to a million times. I've gotten pretty good at guessing when a song is in the key of D and I think it's because I just know what that frequency feels like. I could be completely full of shit though...

  700. musictheory 2015-05-11 21:09:00 m3g0wnz
    The modes of the major scale are special. That collection of notes—the white keys of the piano, for example—is called the **diatonic collection.** It has a lot of neat properties, one of them being that the diatonic collection can be rearranged into a stack of perfect fifths. So instead of arranging the major scale by the following semitone intervals: 2-2-1-2-2-2-1, you can arrange them by gaps of 7 semitones each. C D E F G A B 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 becomes F C G D A E B 7 7 7 7 7 7 You can keep going, and continue the string of fifths in either direction: Db Ab Eb Bb F C G D A E B F# C# G# D# A# If you put a box around any set of seven contiguous letter names, you get a diatonic collection. So box all the white notes [F C G D A E B], and you get C major/A minor/F lydian/etc. Move your box one note over to the right [C G D A E B F#], and you now get G major/E minor/C lydian etc. This is the one note difference that you are talking about. This is also why changing your diatonic collection by one pitch also moves the scale by fifth. This is a very cool property that is only possible with certain collections of pitches. Melodic minor is not one of these cool collections. Its notes cannot be stacked in perfect fifths. So it won't have all those neat connections that make the diatonic collection so interesting theory-wise (although it obviously sounds interesting music-wise).

  701. musictheory 2015-05-16 05:16:19 TheChurchofHelix
    Well, the highest-pitched string string is still a high E, and I have some slightly higher gauges on the low end to keep the tension up. I've only got five strings on it at the moment, because I haven't found a string gauge that plays that low F with a tone that I like. Chords are very, very different. If you want to play a major chord, the chord shape is 6/7/7 on all strings, as opposed to a lower 5/7/7/6 or a higher 7/6/5. Since I play and write mostly technical metal, my music is more focused on scales than chords, and having scales be consistent across all strings lets me do different things better. Plus, open fifths just become barre chords no matter where you play them on the instrument, so that's cool. The tuning I'm using right now is (F) C - G - D - A - E. The F string has been removed for now. I'm tempted to use slightly lighter strings and tune the whole thing up a whole step (G - D - A - E - B - F#), but we'll see. I've been enjoying playing cello stuff in the meantime. It adds in a whole lot of new repertoire that'd be a little awkward to play otherwise.

  702. musictheory 2015-05-16 07:40:18 TNUGS
    play an A that isn't on your a string. watch A string vibrate. if it doesn't you aren't in tune.

  703. musictheory 2015-05-16 09:42:34 NinetoFiveHero
    Holy shit. I play guitar and I'm honestly kind of mad no one ever mentioned this to me, it's like the simplest way to tune ever. The only string I can't actually see vibrating is the high e cause it's too small.

  704. musictheory 2015-05-19 08:40:26 Foobymaster
    If what you are saying is fret 2 on E string, fret 5 on A string and fret 4 on D string, then that is just a D major chord with no fifth and two thirds with one of the thirds in the bass

  705. musictheory 2015-05-20 03:16:40 Piccolosolo
    Could it have been a V rather than a check mark and upside down U? In which case possibly bowing marks for string players. Also, organ pedalling marks are V for toe and U for heel.

  706. musictheory 2015-05-20 23:02:37 Gardenfarm
    Definitely not mutually exclusive. I don't think that John Williams music has ever engaged or emotionally moved me to my depths the way the best classical music has. John Williams deals in really solid and recognizable single-line melodies on one hand, and the tradition of the kind of stock emotional accompaniment of the silent film organist on the other. Let's compare something like what the mournful music in Munich was aspiring to create in tone to something like [this Schoenberg piece.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-pVz2LTakM) It's not that Munich's music isn't emotional or doesn't work in the movie, but it's just not the hardest thing in the world to direct people's emotions with swelling minor low-string music. To quote Patton Oswalt: you can find a religious experience in a McDonald's hashbrown if that's where you need to find it. In other words, the things required to elicit a basic emotional response aren't actually that hard to find. John Williams is only a modern composer in the sense that he's alive and composing, in terms of his style though, he barely makes it into the 20th century of composers. Although, he'll rip a little Stravinsky or Samuel Barber type stuff for instrumentation effects, and in some of his non-movie compositions that I've heard he rips a little Shostakovich. Arvo Part is still living and active and is very original and innovative, and painfully emotionally gripping, if you saw There Will Be Blood you might [recognize this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vO92REraUo). Otherwise I'd just point you at other 20th century composers for music that is still traditionally instrumented and performed but pushes the boundaries of what you're probably familiar with, and is emotionally inspired by some of the most brutal events in human history and the spirit that persists through them. To name a few Bartok, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Debussy, Ravel, Sibelius, Poulenc, Holst, Satie, or anybody else I already named. I don't really keep up with composers that are part of the professional classical community going on today, I'll listen to things occasionally but generally figure time is a better way to filter what'll actually 'survive' and make an impression in the classical world. Things have obviously changed, we don't live in a world where the most gifted musicians are directed towards music conservatories like they were a hundred years ago, the ability to easily record music pretty much changed everything about sound art, there are a lot of trade-offs in positives and negatives about this, a negative being a loss of a lot of information in the classical world that would have been passed down through academic artisan pupilages, a positive being that somebody who never had any chance of going to a university can listen to a complicated piece of music by themselves over and over as many times as they want.

  707. musictheory 2015-05-22 04:14:53 AugustFay
    Thanks for your reply, I know it's not your fault sorry, I know I'm coming across as ridiculous. This is just the end of a long string of similar occurrences like this for me so I'm just fed up and I'm feeling like it's pointless to even share information cause people just downvote it. Super frustrating. I am all for supportive discussion and info about other styles.

  708. musictheory 2015-05-23 16:18:04 Kcori
    Very nice work! I'm definitely going to use this. It only seems to work in Chrome (tried [Firefox](http://i.imgur.com/e163Dsj.png) and Safari) Suggestions: * An unpitched click track * Ability to insert comments into the loop so you can note sections or whatever. I imagine it would look like the other things in the loop except a different color and with a custom string instead of a time signature * Ability to duplicate existing parts of the loop * Stop and play with the space bar * What ChippyMcChiperson suggested

  709. musictheory 2015-05-24 15:01:23 MiskyWilkshake
    If you don't find that your fingernail clicks against the string too audibly, then it sounds like a perfectly fair way to play if it works for you.

  710. musictheory 2015-05-25 06:49:57 TheChurchofHelix
    The pitch won't actually be higher, but the tone of the string will definitely be more articulate. By using the fleshy part of your finger, you get a fairly soft release, while using a nail is basically the same as using a pick.

  711. musictheory 2015-05-26 12:20:34 uh_no_
    mathematically superior if you like your thirds to be way out of tune.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stretched_tuning piano octaves are almost always wider than 2p in order to make them "sound" in tune. this is due to inharmonicity caused by the fact that a string isn't a perfect theoretical resonator...the harmonics are slightly sharp. in order to make the octave SOUND in tune, you have to tune the upper note to the harmonic of the lower note, which is slightly sharp, which means the octave is slightly wider than any tuning system would say it should be.

  712. musictheory 2015-05-26 13:49:30 adrianmonk
    > Mathematically superior Math is about creating formal systems where you can rigorously reason about things, and occasionally it's even about numbers. It's not about making value judgments. Especially with tuning systems, which are inherently full of compromises and tradeoffs. Math doesn't say anything about which thing is important to give up in exchange for another. Suppose you're taking a road trip in 2 cars, and you have 3 people who all hate each other, as well as another 3 easygoing people. What's the mathematically superior way to arrange the people in the cars? The answer is, it depends on which two people you'd rather have fighting. > I thought octave was always 2p Instruments don't behave in an ideal manner. The frequencies at which a string will oscillate are not exactly integer multiples of each other. They're close, but it's just a first-order approximation, kind of like how newtonian physics is a first-order approximation of mechanics. So, suppose a string actually vibrates at 440 Hz and 880.5 Hz. You've got another string that is nominally an octave higher. Do you tune it to 880.5 Hz to match the other string or do you tune it to 800 Hz to match the mathematical definition of an octave? Normally you tune it to match the 880.5 Hz because that will sound better. Of course, you can go down this road even further and ask what defines an octave. Is it the ratio between two notes in a theoretical tuning? Or is it the ratio between the actual frequencies of two actual notes played on a real-world instrument tuned in a way that sounds good?

  713. musictheory 2015-05-26 18:59:51 Xenoceratops
    You haven't played an instrument before? That's something I would look into changing. Since you know chords and chord progressions, I'll give you a simple way to turn those chords into melodies. Every chord is composed of chord tones. As an example, a C major triad is composed of the notes C, E, and G. You can make a melody out of these chord tones by playing them individually. The melody could be something like C E. You can ornament the chord tones by putting "non-chord tones" between them. A non-chord tone occurs between two chord tones and must be adjacent to a chord tone. In the melody line C **D** E, D is a non-chord tone. It leaves C by a step and approaches E by a step. Another example is C **B** E. B is a non-chord tone that leaves C by a step and approaches E by a leap. The opposite would be C **F** E, where F leaves C by a leap and approaches E by a step. I've outlined these melodic variations [here](http://i.imgur.com/89EqejT.jpg). A non-chord tone must always have a stepwise relationship with a chord tone. C **A** E is not a valid melody on a C chord, because A leaves C by a leap and approaches E by a leap. Since there is no stepwise relationship, the resultant melody will not be smooth. As a beginning exercise in melody writing, I suggest you write a four-measure chord progression and then realize a melody that matches it. You would start with something like [this](http://i.imgur.com/mV7BD8z.jpg). G C G Em Am D G, it's a chord progression in G major, right? What you're going to do is figure out what the chord tones are for each chord. Write them out somewhere like this: G = G B D C = C E G Em = E G B Am = A C E D= D F# A Next, try to string the chord tones together in a way which creates motion. For example, when you are going between the G chord and the C chord, some good melodic movements are B-C, D-E, G-E, G-C, D-G, and B-G. The only choice that is inadmissible is G-G, because it is the same note and therefore there is no motion. Write a single melody note for each chord and only use chord tones. Your first attempt might look something like [this](http://i.imgur.com/FbzySXt.jpg). This will likely be a pretty boring melody. Next, fill in the rhythm with quarter notes and stick with chord tones. Have the last note of your exercise be a half note. [Here](http://i.imgur.com/dAOTCj2.jpg) is a solution that I came up with, given those parameters. Eventually, you'll want to use non-chord tones to give yourself a little more flexibility. [This](http://i.imgur.com/TUzhB5C.jpg) is the same solution, except I've changed the first measure. Instead of G B D B, I've changed it to G D **C** B. C is the non-chord tone. Remember the rule for non-chord tones: they must occur between two chord tones, and they must have a stepwise relationship to at least one of those chord tones. The non-chord tone can occur between two different chords, but it must follow the rule of stepwise relationship. I'll leave you with a couple more melody realizations to use as references: [1](http://i.imgur.com/1oSKnK5.jpg) [2](http://i.imgur.com/3SwLkcZ.jpg)

  714. musictheory 2015-05-27 14:33:28 biophonism
    Thanks for the reply! I'm interested in trying to incorporate a bit of jazz on a string/wind quartet, with slow tempo like cool jazz, as if the alto, tenor and bass were the piano and the soprano a sax, trumpet or any other melodic instrument.

  715. musictheory 2015-05-27 20:35:07 xiipaoc
    I'm sorry, did you mean SATB or string orchestra? For SATB, you just need to get creative with your voicings. And no, that does *not* mean root, third, seventh, extension (though that's often a good four-part voicing). It depends on the sound you're going for. For example, a m9 can easily be voiced 1 5 b7 2, without the b3. An add#4 (or add#11) chord should probably be voiced 1 5 3 #4, with the 5 in there. You can get in some quartal chords -- chords built by stacking fourths. Coming up with good voicings is not easy -- good luck! For string orchestra, you can use divisis and include a lot more notes in your chords. Doesn't mean you should. In all cases, you should just continue to apply the basic rules of voice leading. Dissonances should continue to be resolved in the right direction, for the most part. You should continue to avoid parallel fifths, for the most part. Stuff like that.

  716. musictheory 2015-05-27 21:04:59 biophonism
    Sorry, I meant both SATB and string orchestra (now with double bass). Regarding SATB, isn't it better to omit the fifth so I can use more extended notes? As for the string orchestra, does that mean I really shouldn't do that or that I should just be careful about that? And in this style, why avoid parallel fifths? I mean, I know by doing so I get a richer sound with better voice leading, but couldn't I use it to get a particular effect? Anyway, thanks for the answer and sorry for making even more questions!

  717. musictheory 2015-05-28 06:16:46 xiipaoc
    > Regarding SATB, isn't it better to omit the fifth so I can use more extended notes? Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, you need the fifth there for other reasons. For example, you might be going for the open fifth sound specifically. The fifth is generally a boring note in a chord, harmonically, but it may be very important for your particular voicing from an intervallic perspective. The example I gave with the #11 or #4 is a big one -- #4 and 5 clash. If you take away the 5, you no longer have that clash. If you want a smooth sound, don't use it. If you want a rough sound, maybe you should use it. > As for the string orchestra, does that mean I really shouldn't do that or that I should just be careful about that? It means you should be careful -- you have a much bigger range of possibilities with a whole string orchestra. You can use double stops and you have have divisis and stuff like that. But you shouldn't abuse that because the thinner texture of a four-note chord might be what you're looking for. > why avoid parallel fifths? I mean, I know by doing so I get a richer sound with better voice leading, You answered your own question. Besides, parallel fifths usually sound terrible. > but couldn't I use it to get a particular effect? Of course you could. But you still need to be aware of that effect. There are times when they're OK. The context of smooth voice leading is, generally, not one of those times. But you may have a whole chord moving in parallel several times, for example -- that's a good time for parallel fifths. Maybe you want to have a melody doubled at the fifth. I like doing that -- I love the sound of doubling at the fifth! The basic rule is that if you have a whole line in parallel fifths, that's OK, but if you just have one chord transition with parallel fifths, that's generally very bad (unless the whole chord moves together *for effect*).

  718. musictheory 2015-06-01 11:57:53 subsonicmonkey
    It's not that guitarists don't like flat keys, it's that guitarists don't like keys that they can't play with mostly open string chords (keys of C, G, A, D, E) The keys of B and Bb would both be mostly barre chords, not open, and wouldn't be much of a difference between the two on a guitar. It is probably not the most obvious choice for a blues on guitar, but assuming they are pros and understand the blues form, they're all going to be just fine. The one thing that bugs me about the song is that he doesn't warn them about the beginning hits and coming in with the rhythm on the IV chord, but they magically go right along. But that's movie magic for ya. The basic idea of musicians being able to follow a blues in B is totally reasonable.

  719. musictheory 2015-06-04 02:31:47 bosstone42
    i like your thoughts on this and i think you touch on a lot of the issues that come up with this sort of project. in terms of the more technical aspect of this video, i was sort of hoping he would do a little explaining how haydn's approach differs from, say, palestrina. and since he's an authority on this stuff, i think he could have managed that pretty concisely. that being said, i really enjoyed the way he describes this aspect of the piece--very accessible and at the same time interesting! for the production of the video, i'm a little unsure why they decided to use these two students *as singers*. it's convenient, sure, but it's pretty clear neither of them are really accomplished singers (the B^b he has the woman sing wasn't comfortable, it seems, and they didn't exactly nail the pitches). why not just use a couple string players? i don't think the logistics would've been too cumbersome, and if you're going to produce something nice like this, why not take an extra small step? for the intended audience of this project--wider audience and more publicly functional scholarship is definitely something that is becoming more of a concern. the label "public musicology" is gaining currency now, and it encompasses a number of mediums, such as this or blogging or even music criticism. heck, i would go so far as to say that this subreddit is a manifestation of this, in a way. lots of knowledgeable people in conversation with people who are interested and have questions. there was a [conference at westminster](http://musicinnewjersey.com/conference/) this past january/february that i think, though i might be mistaken, was the first of its kind, and was meant to bring to light a lot of these thoughts and concerns. (someone tell me if it wasn't, because i would love to know more about these goings on.) related, i was in cincinnati a couple weeks ago, and the may festival/symphony has a partnership with the libraries there to give public presentations on music topics. i got to attend one and it went over incredibly well with a largely 'lay' audience. i was so pleased to see that sort of thing out in the open. i think this type of work (and, in my view, this video indicates the potential of doing more specifically theoretical things...public music theory?) is really important and should be taken more seriously, in part because there's interest out there and in part because i think the life of our fields may some day greatly benefit from efforts like these. i'm not sure what kind of view institutions have on putting these things on a CV, but i've spoken to people who put them under "contributions to the field" sort of categories. i think it would be great if there could be a category on a CV/resume for this type of work. just because it isn't ground-breaking (though maybe it is) scholarship doesn't mean it's not interesting/important/good. some of the scholars i respect most are people who produce answers to difficult questions but also speak to the non-specialist well.

  720. musictheory 2015-06-04 04:14:18 Scal3s
    Your terminology eludes me. does the "sub" stand for "Substitution"? That's the only thing I can think of that would resolve half a step down is a tritone substitution/augmented 6th setting. As far as secondary function goes, you can have pretty much an endless string of them, theoretically. So if your progression is Ab7->G->C7->F, then I guess you could analyze that as Ger+6/(V/V) -> V/V -> V7 -> I.

  721. musictheory 2015-06-05 13:24:01 Mr-Yellow
    With strings, you might play a chord in one place, and an open string sympathetically resonates, move it and the relationship is broken. On a synth, this actually becomes a bit easier to explain maybe, take the classic 303 resonance chirp, R2D2 voice if you're unfamiliar with it..... A filter, lets say a low-pass (cutting any frequencies above), with a "resonance" control so you can peak the frequency where it cuts (making a frequency response graph which looks like a cliff with a tree standing on it's ledge), then with the right notes the filter itself resonates and produces a tone at the cut-off frequency. You might have a crackin bassline which has all these fancy high frequency chirps and sparkles in it (produced mainly by the filter and not the main synth oscillating), everytime Bb is hit, but move it to another key and the "sweet spot" is gone (until you adjust the cut-off frequency of the filter).

  722. musictheory 2015-06-05 18:36:44 DamonTarlaei
    Related to what /u/sarkycogs was saying, I have to a certain extent and a friend of mine has to an amazing extent "oboe pitch." Knowing the instrument intimately, it's possible to know what the note is because of how it sounds on the instrument. Similar to string players being able to hear open strings from a mile away, I can hear a C or an F on the oboe very clearly after listening to a player for a little bit. It's not as though an E is just a semitone lower than an F; it also has a different colour. My friend can take dictation like he had perfect pitch on the oboe. Try to get him to do that on a different instrument and he's lost.

  723. musictheory 2015-06-05 19:36:59 Benjabenja
    Symphonic metal orchestral parts are mainly string pads/counter-melodies and brass stabs (obviously a simplification - a piccolo is handy too). Assuming the strings are mic'd and reverbed you could probably cope with 4 violins, a 2 violas, 2 cellos and a double bass preferably with a low C. More low end is helpful since the strings often have low rhythmic "chug" patterns. Brass will need a bit more variety. Ideally 3+ horns for rips and pad chords. 2 trumpets minimum. 2 trombones and a bass trombone [(although more bass trombones are good...)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTDEVUlCClk) A tuba would be nice but probably not essential. For the secret to that edgy Dimmu Borgir sound you'll need a contrabass trombone, or ideally a [cimbasso](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYydzZs2t-8)! Obviously you could probably get away with less, but I think this is the sort of numbers you'd need for a reasonably full sound.

  724. musictheory 2015-06-08 20:32:20 DoctorWalnut
    Sadness and longing permeate through music that isn't even aggressive or in a minor key. The 3rd movement of Beethoven's 15th string quartet for example is in C major and D major (bright keys), but is filled with the most longing and simple sadness in any piece of music I've heard.

  725. musictheory 2015-06-10 06:47:45 TNUGS
    I'm a bass player (upright and electric), and I figure out intervals most quickly by referencing them against the P4, P5, and P8 (which are all in quick reach on the next string or two up). For example, the major third is one half-step below the perfect fourth (or in my head, over one string and down one note). minor seventh is up two strings. Inverted Perfect Fifth is down one string. Second thing, know your enharmonics: A2 = m3 A4 = d5 etc. and your inversions: inverted P5 = P4 inverted M6 = m3 inverted m2 = M7 etc. and your P5's: F -> C B -> F# D# -> A# etc. Lastly, play a quick scale of whatever key the piece is in before you start, I find it helps a lot.

  726. musictheory 2015-06-11 15:12:24 disaster_face
    I think you're missing the point. I can almost tune a guitar perfectly too, but it's not because I have perfect pitch but that I have pitch memory for the way an open E string sounds. It's not just about the frequency of the note but the way the timbre of the string sounds under the right amount of tension. If I tune a guitar without a tuner I can get pretty close and I'm not even a guitarist. It's my 5th or 6th instrument. Similarly, singers without perfect pitch can often get pretty close to pitches without a reference, especially at either end of their range, but they are using the timbre and the way producing the note feels to guide them instead of perfect pitch. So can you duplicate this skill with changing variables? If I handed you a box that had a knob that changed the frequency of a sine wave and asked you to tune it to Bb, could you do it without really thinking about it? If so you probably have perfect pitch or something close to it. Many people with perfect pitch can determine a pitch's intonation to a very high level of accuracy... high enough that a tuner will show it as in tune. Some people with perfect pitch become accustomed to one tuning standard and find it very off-putting when another standard is used (US orchestras tune to A=440, some other countries use A=442). As for its musical usefulness, it's not really all that useful. Someone with well developed relative pitch can do everything that someone with perfect pitch can do, and a whole lot more once they have that one reference pitch. I can't think of a real-world situation where you wouldn't be able to have a reference pitch... i mean you can just play any note very softly and there you have it. That said, having perfect pitch may make it easier to develop relative pitch.

  727. musictheory 2015-06-13 02:52:42 PhilipK_Dick
    Something that has worked for me in the past is to give yourself parameters for writing. Ex: Write a melody on the b-string. Write a melody only in 10th position. Write only the rhythm to a song in ababca structure. Sometimes by narrowing your focus, you can hear new things.

  728. musictheory 2015-06-15 19:01:12 Parapolikala
    I thought about what pallit wrote, and it seems clearer to me if I put it like this: The chord played 022010 can be seen as Emb6 or, as pallit says, as an inversion of CM7 (the B on the A string instead of the B string, the C on the B string instead of the A string).

  729. musictheory 2015-06-18 13:57:19 TheChurchofHelix
    I gave it a bit of thought, and I think the reason the Cb rubs me the wrong ways is more related to the mechanical workings of my horn than anything else. I'm a bass trombonist, using a Bb horn with two triggers that transpose me to Gb or F, or D with both depressed. In the event that you (or anybody reading this) aren't familiar with how brasswinds and harmonics work, think of it as a 4-string instrument tuned (from low to high) D - F - Gb - Bb. Each side gives me notes (partials) from its harmonic series. Taking the Bb side as an example, I have access to Bb - Bb - F - Bb - D - F - Ab - Bb - C - D - F and so on, infinitely up the harmonic series. The only limitation here is player skill and equipment specs. Both E# and Cb are uncommon notes when they aren't passing tones. So, I'd rather read the one that's mechanically easier to play. On the the 3rd partial of the Bb side, Cb is 7th position, which is a really shitty position. That's all the way out at the end of the slide. I basically have to use the F (3rd partial, 2nd position) or Gb (3rd partial, 3.25th position) sides of my horn to make Cb readily playable and to make intonation more manageable. E#, on the other hand, is just F natural, which is first position in its partial and plenty comfortable. I hope that makes sense.

  730. musictheory 2015-06-19 18:28:45 and_It_Swam
    It's generally a way to describe where your left hand is located on the fretboard. It can have 2 meanings. If you simply say "I'm playing in the first position" this means your first finger is above the first fret (not necessarily playing it). Second position means that you move your whole hand a fret up so that you first finger is above the second fret etc. This very common for classical guitar but it's used often for acoustic and electric. If you refer to a scale or an arpeggio though, and you say something like "I'm playing the first position of the A minor pentatonic scale" that means that you are playing the A minor pentatonic scale starting from an A, usually with your first finger on the 6th string, 5th fret. The fret itself is not important anymore, the notes you are playing are. So, if you said something like "I'm playing the second position of the A minor pentatonic scale" this means that you are playing the notes of the A minor pentatonic scale starting from B, for example with your first or second finger on the 6th string 7th fret. This is equally common for all guitar type methods. I know this second one is more confusing so check [this chart](http://www.shredmentor.com/images/fretboard/5-positions-a-minor-pentatonic.png) which might help you understand better. I'm choosing the A minor pentatonic scale because it is very simple and very common. Cheers! EDIT: Second position starts from C on the 8th fret, there's no B. Sorry.

  731. musictheory 2015-06-19 23:45:09 clavalle
    I want to start out with the positives: * Very well designed site; the aesthetics and UX are very pleasing. * The focus on intervals is very good. * I like that you are not afraid to show the dots. * I like the tab underneath, too. * I like the soundslices. In short, you have a **hell of a nice core** to work from. Ok, now the criticisms (all from a good place :) ): Overall criticisms: * Not enough fretboard graphics. If this is guitar-centric you need more fretboard. The piano comparisons are good, keep those. * The organization and rhythm of the text is off within the sections. The material is very structured but the explanatory text is a bit all over the place. * A couple of small additions I think could go a long way. You should describe and explain Standard Tuning early, for example, since so much of the rest of the text depends so heavily on it. You should also explain why the intervals are shown in the order they are since it is not obvious to a beginner. A brief mention of chord theory (foreshadowing presumed future posts) and how, especially, Root, thirds and fifths fit in would be appropriate. Specifics: * You need an intro paragraph. Summarize what you are going to cover and a brief explanation of why. * Instead of concentrating on 'C' on the reference guide, call it 'Root'. Explain what Root means and keep C as root but generalize the reference. * In the 'Octave' section in the part where you say C goes to C, it is a good place to mention what the difference is, too. C2 and C3 and what that means when it comes to frequency maybe. As a reader I found myself asking 'what's the difference?' which is left unresolved. * Explain the difference with the B string in standard tuning earlier and more clearly. It deserves a free standing explanation when it comes to beginners. * When you go into inversions in the 'Fifths' section it is a little confusing. I think it is an interesting topic but it probably deserves its own explanatory paragraph, especially since the organization of the rest of the post depends on it. I also didn't know you you meant by the sentence 'This is the reason for them sounding much alike.' What does 'them' refer to, specifically? The relative difference in tones and the root? The tones individually? It could use some clarification. Also 'If you play the same notes, but the low one on top and the high one underneath, you always get the inversion.' On top of and underneath what? the reader will wonder. Anyway, I hope that helps. It is a post that will be very helpful to a lot of people as is. With a few changes I think it can become a post that people come back to again and again. Thanks for taking the time to put this resource together!

  732. musictheory 2015-06-20 15:56:42 bastianbb
    A violinist with absolute pitch has told me the same thing. In professional string instrument performance, the player should have slightly different pitches for a# and Bb.

  733. musictheory 2015-06-20 19:06:43 Yeargdribble
    Technically there is a B in the A pentatonic major scale, though, like he blues scale, by most people referring to them default to the minor. As for the positions thing, I too have seen this floating around in a lot of circles. Basically the idea is taking a position that sequences the scale up. So the positions are basically the single finger scale positions you end up climbing based on your starting note. So if you're playing A on the 6th string you'd play the first position which is basically a 1 4, 1 3, 1 3, 1 3, 1 4, 1 4 finger pattern up and that's first position. If you start on the C (where your 4 would've been in first position) you'll can start second position and play up and down the scale string to string in pattern of 2 4, 1 4, 1 4, 1 3, 2 4, 2 4. You just keep moving up that way starting on D, E, and G, before you can repeat first position on the 17th fret with A as the starting point again. I did some quick Googling and quickly found a [source discussing](http://guitar.about.com/od/specificlessons/ss/pentatonicscale.htm#step-heading) the positions idea for pentatonic scales almost immediately. I see that positions nomenclature all over the internet. In fact, I was almost certain this terminology was used in the Jody Fisher jazz guitar books, but upon checking found out that he never actually refers to them that way instead just talking about them as different fingerings for the scale across the fretboard. That said, from a pedagogical standpoint, I think the positions thing makes a lot more sense and can really help get the concept across, though it obviously does find some limitation, but essentially it's the CAGED approach to scales. It gives you something to lock on to. If you're familiar with your fretboard and your familiar with how each of these scale position shapes fall, you can move quickly from position to position and quickly get your bearings as to where you're at on the neck and what scale shapes are around you to guide you up and down. That said, I do understand your concern about how muddy the term ends up being since if both are in use your have to rely on context to know what people mean, but that tends to happen a lot in music it seems, and especially in the guitar world.

  734. musictheory 2015-06-24 08:52:50 young_mcdonald
    ^this response. A "melody" is, by definition, 'just' a one-dimensional string of notes. Both of the "types" you mention are melodies with accompanying harmony, but with the harmony voiced in different ways.

  735. musictheory 2015-06-25 02:29:28 nmitchell076
    I think the most suggestive portion of the article was by far Stankis's discussion of the interrupted circle motif in general. I was particularly fond of this passage: > [2.7] Within the context of two-dimensional gridlines, the interrupted circle is like a scope or camera lens that helps the viewer or listener develop degrees of empathy with an object. Imagine a piece of visual art, literature, or music immersing you within the immediacy of an intimate moment or reverie (represented by the circle). Then, this moment abruptly changes as if suddenly awakening (represented the line), as if a fluttering butterfly unexpectedly comes to rest in the palm of your hand. The linear interruption makes you increasingly aware of the circular or enclosed aspect of the moment. This stimulates a simultaneous sense of immediacy and detachment or objectivity. If the butterfly lingers you might be able to snap a photograph. The intimate sensation of the moment becomes two-dimensionally concrete in the captured image of the butterfly. Then, you may begin contemplating the suggested meanings of the butterfly’s beauty, its lines, its curves, and its colors, as if it were a stained-glass window in miniature. The idea of the circular and the line representing two different kinds of engagement with an artwork is interesting, and I think this discussion sheds new light on old discussions. In particular, I'm reminded of Susan McClary's "Getting Down off the Beanstalk: The Presence of a Woman's Voice in Janika Vandervelde's *Genesis II,*" chapter 5 of *Feminine Endings.* Compare Stankis's discussion cited above to the following passage by McClary regarding the Vandervelde: > These two contrasting types of music are extremely rich in metaphorical implication. The cyclic properties of the clockwork resonate with the patterns of nature: seasonal yet timeless, always fascinatingly different and yet always the same. Up against the natural ebb and flow of the clockwork, the string parts are clearly marked with the gestures associated in tonal music with self-determination, with the ongoing struggle of human endeavor. McClary and Stankis both tackle the differences between "circular" and "linear" musical gestures, how they can intersect, and whether they can coexist. I think Stankis's article is a fine contribution to that conversation (which also includes Karol Berger's *Bach's Cycle, Mozart’s Arrow*), and I think these two essays would be nicely read in light of each other. What I'm less convinced of is the utility of the work she goes through to translate musical gestures into brush strokes. I think the spirit is right, that we can conceptualize auditory events as brush strokes and that it can be at times useful. But, I don't know, I just felt like there was something... missing from the discussion that made it feel like it just missed being really interesting. But I don't know. I'd love to hear other thoughts about this part (see the analytical appetizer from last week). People who were really excited by it, what did you like so much about it? I'd love to be convinced that my reservations are just my own, and that what she's doing with that section is more interesting than I think.

  736. musictheory 2015-06-27 10:18:54 oboe-wan-kenobi
    Although the idea of using a microphone and a single player is good in theory (sigh, i hate that that accidentally turned in to a pun), a lot of it has to do with tradition. Composer's started to write with specific sounds in their head based on a large string section. The colour is very fluid, because of so many different players, and they didn't have microphones back then. As such, the large string sections became the norm and that continues. Although the timbral changes play an important role, a lot of orchestral tradition is not necessary. Tuning to the oboe is one example of that. In the past, the oboe had a fixed reed that couldn't be changed or adjusted for pitch so the rest of the orchestra had to tune to them. Several hundred years of instruments that can change reeds later, the orchestra still tunes to the oboe.

  737. musictheory 2015-06-28 04:30:32 inhalingsounds
    This is very important. I played piano for years, then moved on to classical guitar and the piano fell (a lot) behind. I'm now perfecly able to read horizontal lines a lot better than vertical ones because string instruments aren't so *dense* (we only use one hand for harmony).

  738. musictheory 2015-06-29 06:15:25 Caedro
    Hit the bass notes on the 1 of the measure on a guitar to really hear it. Open 5th string for the A minor, 3rd fret of the low E string for the G major and the open D string for the D major

  739. musictheory 2015-07-02 06:46:37 xiipaoc
    I happen to like visualizations. Or at least I did in high school (which was a long time ago). I'd imagine scenes while listening to -- and playing -- the music. Another thing is to feel the beat, feel the emotional content of the intervals and the melody, feel the dynamics, etc. As much as this subreddit might make it appear otherwise, music theory isn't the study of repeating chord progressions. It's the study of how music works. That includes the function of the harmonic bits, sure, but it's much more than that; chords are just the parts that are the easiest to learn and understand on a deeper level. So, forget the chords. Instead, focus on tension and release. How does the piece build tension? Melodic, rhythmic, harmonic tension? How does it release? You can't answer those questions without *feeling* it. So go feel it! Are you a guitar player, by any chance? This reminds me of the Concierto de Aranjuez, second movement (the really famous slow one). In the second half of it, there's a very, very long cadenza. It starts pretty low-key, and gets bigger and bigger and bigger. Then, at the end, there is a phrase where the string section does a little punctuation. Happens again. Third time, no punctuation -- and HUGE hit with the main theme! That's what I'm talking about. Feel THAT!

  740. musictheory 2015-07-03 21:59:35 setecordas
    The specific term for those types of harmonics are 'pinch harmonics'. They are created by slightly muting the string between the thumb and the pick at a single point of contact.

  741. musictheory 2015-07-07 01:48:52 ViolentZucchini
    Hey Rich, I'm not so sure about this plan. You want to read sheet music to be able to, you know, read sheet music right? Associating a note on the screen with a place on your instrument sounds cool, but you have to remember it's guitar-you have 4 of the same G pitches on the last four strings (6th string 15th fret, 5th & 10th, 4th & 5th, 3rd open). Each note on the screen refers to all of them, and if you do end up doing something like what you've laid out, make sure you play the notes all over the neck for the most benefit/least screwing you over down the line. That being said, please don't do this. Sheet music is more like a story than a random collection of individual letters-when you read, you aren't thinking, "oh! There's a g! There's an f. There's an e." You're (eventually) thinking things like "oh! We're in c and descending from g!" And you eventually come across something similar again, and again, and after awhile, every time you see that phrase you'll be able to play it in at least two places. I dunno if that's convincing...it seems almost like someone who wants to be a writer...learning the alphabet with the help of an app, learning how to use a keyboard with the help of an app, and then....learning how to write a story by playing one of those random letter generator typing things, like certain levels of typer shark. If you know the names of the notes and where they are on your guitar, you're ready to start reading music, it'll be slow at first, but that's the point...go really slowly, and really internalize what you're learning about music theory on the way. You've checked out musictheory.net right? They don't have what you're describing, but they have some tools that are similar ish.

  742. musictheory 2015-07-07 03:04:09 Cdesese
    You're really off base with your generalizations about the people with "classical training" who teach in "musical academia." I know many people who teach music theory in music programs with a strong (or even exclusive) classical emphasis who have active and diverse musical lives, lives that include performing, and performing that includes ensembles ranging from string quartets to rock bands. Many colleagues of mine perform, listen to, compose, and study all varieties of music, including classical, jazz, rock, rap, and popular music. Things may be different in other parts of the world, but in North America the concept of the natural minor scale (as well as modes and other scales) is taught to students in programs oriented towards classical music. I teach it to my students. In fact, I teach it to them in a variety of ways: as the natural minor scale, as the Aeolian mode, as the descending melodic minor scale. I teach them how to use it in melodies and chord progressions. As my previous comment details, the natural minor scale is extremely important in classical music. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. You criticize the apparent elitism of classically-trained musicians and teachers, yet your sneering attitude towards them is about as elitist as it gets.

  743. musictheory 2015-07-07 12:28:56 Cdesese
    I'd call that a piece in G major that ends, rather unexpectedly, with a minor tonic, a kind of reverse Picardie-third effect. It's usually easy enough to define the mode of a piece, because one mode or the other is usually much more prevalent. And certain kinds of mode changes--minor to major in particular--are codified in various idioms that don't really complicate things that much, such as the "Picardie third" (it's still a minor-mode piece, it just ends with a major triad), and the recasting of the relative-major subordinate theme of a sonata exposition in the parallel major in the recapitulation. There is music that is truly ambiguous about the mode of its tonic triad (the first movement of Schubert's G major string quartet is a famous example), but it is exceptional for precisely that reason. In such cases, it's better to speak of a tonality only in terms of its tonic pitch, and remain agnostic about the mode.

  744. musictheory 2015-07-08 06:42:29 OZONE_TempuS
    Yup I love their interpretation of Song of Storms with the 6 string fretless

  745. musictheory 2015-07-08 21:42:38 nmitchell076
    I mean, things like FACE or Every Good Boy Does Fine / Deserves Fudge make sense to me. Those are useful. But this? This is just a string of numbers that appear to be basically random to the naked eye. I just don't see how such a device would be helpful, it seems to complicate rather than simplify. But perhaps I just am missing something about it.

  746. musictheory 2015-07-09 13:42:54 Mentioned_Videos
    Videos in this thread: [Watch Playlist &#9654;](http://sbtl.tv/_r3cl3vv?feature=playlist&nline=1) VIDEO|VOTES - COMMENT -|- (1) [Blue in Green by. Miles Davis](https://youtube.com/watch?v=PoPL7BExSQU) (2) [Rush - YYZ (HQ)](https://youtube.com/watch?v=LdpMpfp-J_I)|[12](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/cswjxav) - I really like the dissonance in Blue in Green by Miles Davis. You can check out the chords/melody here if you&#39;re interested. Maj7 #11 chords in general are pretty great, and the A7#9 is also very dissonant but works well. A completely differ... (1) [tUnE-yArDs - Gangsta (Official Video)](https://youtube.com/watch?v=EbkMPHW67xM) (2) [tUnE-yArDs - Water Fountain (Official Video)](https://youtube.com/watch?v=jbiFcPhccu8)|[8](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/cswtzlt) - tUnE-yArDs – gangsta tl;dr - two keys at once in the choruses This is an example of a song using &quot;bi-tonality&quot; – two keys at the same time – as a means of creating dissonance. Admittedly, the verses of this song... (1) [Sonic Youth - Saucer Like](https://youtube.com/watch?v=QCNMfb7440Q) (2) [Sonic Youth - Catholic Block](https://youtube.com/watch?v=SvCjtlJlJ68) (3) [Sonic Youth - Death to Our Friends](https://youtube.com/watch?v=L5MqZaO_7Pc) (4) [Sonic Youth - "Trilogy: A) The Wonder, B) Hyperstation, Z) Eliminator Jr."](https://youtube.com/watch?v=BGys4WhZNYg) (5) [Sonic Youth - Cinderella's Big Score](https://youtube.com/watch?v=xi3ZPT9iSNo) (6) [Sonic Youth - Disappearer](https://youtube.com/watch?v=Y8MFqJ22kSs) (7) [Sonic Youth - Pipeline/Kill Time](https://youtube.com/watch?v=UbFS8Fet0MI)|[7](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/cswk4gd) - Sonic Youth as a band tends toward making dissonance atmospheric and aurally pleasing. This song is a pretty perfect example--both the opening and the &quot;bridge&quot; have a lot of clashing guitar sounds that coalesce really well. EDIT: ... [MESHUGGAH - Break Those Bones Whose Sinews Gave It Motion (OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO)](https://youtube.com/watch?v=m9LpMZuBEMk)|[5](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/cswskbd) - Well, Meshuggah has taken dissonance to the next level. They don&#39;t follow conventional music theory so much, but their playing is phenomenal and the rhythmic component makes the dissonance so much better. Hang on, I&#39;ll link a tune. ... (1) [Shostakovich: Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk (Interlude III)](https://youtube.com/watch?v=q7lpm6QouZM) (2) [Caballé sings finale of Strauss Salome](https://youtube.com/watch?v=-UdYD_9P-JQ) (3) [Béla Bartók - String Quartet No. 4 [1/5]](https://youtube.com/watch?v=NVfOkWBU6Pc) (4) [Stravinsky, Rite of Spring (complete), animated graphical score](https://youtube.com/watch?v=5IXMpUhuBMs)|[5](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/cswlxjz) - [L'incoronazione di Poppea "Pur ti miro, Pur ti godo" (Jaroussky, De Niese)](https://youtube.com/watch?v=_isL0E-4TsQ)|[4](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/cswvgdd) - I love subtle dissonance in 16th-18th century Italian music. Vocal music in particular. Monteverdi has some wonderful moments, one of my favorites Pur Ti Miro has a beautiful second dissonance around 0:45. Also check out madrigals from that era, t... (1) [S. Prokofiev : Concerto for piano no. 2 op. 16 in G minor - 1st mov. (Vinnitskaya)](https://youtube.com/watch?v=Uq7rgu3ZuMg&t=349s) (2) [prokofiev piano concerto no 5 - mov 4 - ashkenazy](https://youtube.com/watch?v=014LWT5IJdw&t=218s) (3) [prokofiev piano concerto no 4 - mov 1 - ashkenazy](https://youtube.com/watch?v=V_pm2KdVzD8&t=164s) (4) [Prokofiev Piano Concerto No.3 Op.26 Movement 3 (Argerich)](https://youtube.com/watch?v=_AdBi5IBrto&t=331s)|[3](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/cswswkv) - Prokofiev&#39;s Piano Concertos expertly use dissonance. Atmospheric. Creepy. Haunting. [Memphis Will Be Laid To Waste](https://youtube.com/watch?v=JY7ahxBa4SY)|[2](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/cswwyc3) - I really love the clash chords implemented by bands like Norma Jean. my favorite would have to be Memphis Will Be Laid to Waste when i was playing in highschool garage bands we&#39;d all write and try to emulate their style. Underoath (Define ... [The Crisis - The legend of 1900 - Ennio Morricone](https://youtube.com/watch?v=LMDtYeKYhLQ)|[2](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/cswmnpw) - The Crisis by Ennio Morricone (1) [Prokofiev "War" Sonata #7 Valentina Lisitsa 1st mov. Allegro Inquieto](https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yd3u48YSHY8) (2) [Prokofiev - Piano Sonata No. 7, Op. 83 III. Precipitato (Pollini)](https://youtube.com/watch?v=5rfle8wSwJM)|[2](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/cswua9o) - I second this, Prokofiev definitely had a talent for dissonance - the buildup to, and subsequent colossale section in your first recording has to be my favorite moment in music. His piano sonatas are also pretty great. [MESHUGGAH - New Millenium Cyanide Christ (OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO)](https://youtube.com/watch?v=4A_tSyJBsRQ&t=184s)|[2](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/csx49j5) - I thought it was really interesting what they did in the beginning of In Death - Is Death, as well as the solo of New Millenium Cyanide Christ: That being said, Fredrik Thordendal is heavily influenced by Allan Holdsworth, which is who I came here ... [Sonic Youth - Bull In The Heather](https://youtube.com/watch?v=8JGBNkLM9_8)|[2](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/cswnsdb) - mm, Bull in the Heather uses it quite a bit also. [Beethoven Symphony n. 3 "Eroica" - Karajan Berliner Philharmoniker](https://youtube.com/watch?v=YObQ6bP0eDQ&t=323s)|[1](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/csx4o6k) - This passage from Beethoven&#39;s 3rd Symphony, first movement Especially when the trumpets come in at 6:02. There are pieces that have a greater level of dissonance. But, considering when this piece was written, and the overall tonal idiom t... [James Holden - Balance 005 disc 1](https://youtube.com/watch?v=1XfUheCpUJ4&t=2062s)|[1](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/cswnftm) - i always like using it to create tension in the piece that resolves and makes your ears feel better. haha. it&#39;s used in a lot of modern techno and minimal when i think &quot;dissonant melody&quot; one of the first tracks i think of i... [THY ART IS MURDER - Reign Of Darkness (OFFICIAL VIDEO)](https://youtube.com/watch?v=47Plg93oJ1M)|[1](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3cl3vv/_/cswsbxf) - Dissonance in death metal is a major component. Thy Art is Murder have a song called Reign of Darkness, and the intro riff is ambient/evil because of the dissonance and changes in meter with each bar. Would recommend checking it out. Edit: here&amp... I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. *** [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | [Chrome Extension](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf)

  747. musictheory 2015-07-09 23:54:59 nmitchell076
    Overtones might play into it a bit, but I think it's probably more to do with what notes are available/unavailable to be played on open strings, in addition to the way notes of that key vibrate sympathetically with the open strings. Mozart also loved the key of D in a lot of works, not just for string writing.

  748. musictheory 2015-07-10 00:38:46 nmitchell076
    I remember when bored in a practice room with a piano, I would often hold down a piano pedal and sing or play (with another instrument) into the strings. If you do this, you'll notice that the piano strings will "pick up" on the note you sing or play, the strings that produce similar sounds to the notes that you're playing will start vibrating, creating a cool little resonance effect. If you touch the piano strings on the inside of the piano, you'll actually feel that some of the strings have started vibrating, while others haven't. If I play a C into the piano with a trumpet, then feel the strings inside, I'll notice that several of the C strings are vibrating pretty hard, several of the Gs less so, and strings like F# or Eb probably not at all. This is what sympathetic resonance refers to. The ability of nearby objects that can vibrate to "pick up" on the notes you are producing. Things will vibrate more the more in synch it is with the overtones of what you are producing. So let's say I'm playing a violin piece, and there's a low D acting as a tonic. I could play this on the open D string, which will produce some sympathetic resonances with the A string above it. But I can't really "juice" an open string with vibrato, can I? So what if I play it on the G string instead? Well, now I can get some vibrato in there if I want it, but also, you'll notice that the open D string that you aren't actually bowing is also vibrating a little bit since you are playing the same pitch below. And the A above it is still providing a bit of sympathetic vibration as well. So you have a bit more of a richly colored note there. Of course, the effects are pretty slight, and I doubt Mozart was thinking too hard about sympathetic resonance when he was writing. But he absolutely would have been thinking about how the key feels under the fingers. Every open string on the violin is diatonic to the key of D. Every open string has a whole note above it in the diatonic collection (as opposed to, say, C, which has a half step above the highest open string), and certain structural pitches are positioned in such a way that they can be realized more flexibly (for instance you can have lower neighbors to your lowest scale degree 5, which isn't available in C; you also have the option of realizing your *lowest* tonic as *either* open or stopped, which isn't possible in any other key, etc.). The violin is just "at home" in D major, it's a very idiomatic key for that instrument. It feels very nice under the fingers (which is probably most important), while also sounding nice due to sympathetic resonance and timbral nuances (which is important, but less so than physical feel, I'd say).

  749. musictheory 2015-07-10 01:34:31 xiMbd03u1
    Although the gist of my comment turned out to be "why interpreting Celtic music by ear can be difficult," I hope I've also outlined some of the ways that you can begin to interpret music by ear for the guitar. Listen for the harmonically richer sound of open strings vs. the sound of fretted strings. Pay attention to which strings are open. You don't need to be able to tell a G string from an e string by ear. Just listen to the downstroke and the strings will sound in order. Try to pay attention to all of the instruments for cues as to when a chord change has happened vs. a moving bass line over the same chord. It can often sound like there are far more chord changes occuring than there really are. Listen for common alterations such as the sus4 to give clues to which chord shape is being played--but be aware that this is less useful in Traditional music because such alterations are less common, and moving chord inversions, bass-lines, or outlining the melody, are seen instead.

  750. musictheory 2015-07-10 03:18:21 el_memador
    My buddy just recently told me about this website called chordify.net that supposedly takes YouTube links and gives you the chord sequences. I haven't tested it out, so if you give it a go, please let me know how it is!! Also, for guitar specifically, I usually just listen to the highest string (usually the most prominent for me), and slowly break down what the chords could be, based off of that one note. Hope this helps.

  751. musictheory 2015-07-10 04:34:27 setecordas
    The rhythm guitar is playing a simple XX-XXX-XXX-XXX-X where the guitarist slides up and down on the first X to the second X each XXX. The rhythm guitar is playing parallel 10ths on the A and B strings with the notes on the A string: GG-GDD-DEbEb-EbFF-FEbEb-EbFF-FDD-DGG-G

  752. musictheory 2015-07-10 14:17:02 setecordas
    Too much activity in the house to record, but I wrote it out in staff notation. http://imgur.com/Hn98mkX Tempo is as fast as possible. The trickiest part is in the third measure. The rest should be straight forward. 'O' over a note means open string. Roman Numeral is fret position, and (2)---------------- means play non open string notes on the 5th string (typo-should have been (5)--------)

  753. musictheory 2015-07-10 21:10:21 ecstatic_broccoli
    I meant having, say, two students play at the keyboard and the rest singing. Orchestral scores have a lot of transposing instruments, so even singing one line really helps with that. Plus, doing it together teaches you to hear the whole score as an ensemble. Even without any singing, I do think having students play duets is a great way to realize scores with more than just a couple of parts. One more thing, another very practical score reading skill is choral scores with SATB, tenors in treble clef sounding down the octave. It's easier than String Quartet score since there's no alto clef, but it's very practical since any pianists that become accompanists almost surely have to read this open score from time to time (and potentially quite often).

  754. musictheory 2015-07-11 03:43:56 IReallyLoveDogs
    Well this might be sort of tough to answer given that the question is sort of vague, but given that you don't know what it is that you're looking for, that's pretty understandable. For a second I was expecting to hear examples from more traditional Japanese music and I was planning to talk about the differences in phrasing and harmony that you might find, but I guess that wasn't quite the right assumption. I guess the best bet is to look into the similarities of the examples you provided, which for the most part seem to be anime openings (not sure about the 4th example but it still sounds animeish). So anime intros tend to be very formulaic, in a sense they're almost a genre within themselves because they tend to follow certain guidelines. First of all, they're all going to be around 90 seconds in length, your second example wasn't but upon watching the actual SAO opening, I see that it was slightly changed to fit the 1:30 requirement (pretty common). With similar length, there tends to be a similar structure as certain elements of a piece will need to be incorporated within the short time allotted. So lets look at the beginning first. All of your pieces feature some sort of softer (instrumental in the cases of 2 and 3) musical phrase as an introduction. Then, just as you point out (about 10 seconds in) there is a shift in the music at the end of the phrase. Usually the instrumentation changes here (going from acoustic guitar/piano to including percussion and bowed string instruments (violins, cellos, etc.). There is a notable increase in energy here, and usually the vocals drop out for the duration of this section. Since you used SAO as an example, lets look at season 2s opening... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ldf7beu58 as expected, the vocal intro with piano followed by the immediate shift to a more driving tempo with orchestral instrumentation and percussion! There tend to be some visual cues associated with the shift that are pretty cliche but found in a lot of openings. For example, here with the gunshot in the video (which marks the transition) we see the title appear on screen. Likewise in the Guilty Crown example, there is a rapid zoom out before the title appears (and of course the strings and percussion). Now you don't have to follow this blueprint necessarily, for example, here's the opening to the first season of Fairytale. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdrGjixAtKU Same vocal intro thing, but with an electric guitar accompanying (with a cleaner tone). Not much of a change really but still something. Then when the shift occurs around 10 seconds, there is the typical shift in instrumentation, but this time with a flute part, a more driving electric guitar accompaniment, and the added percussion. As expected, the name of the show appears here. Hopefully you are starting to notice these similarities. So once the transition part occurs, we tend to transition back to a more vocal oriented instrumentation (things die down a little bit). The singer will come back in with an accompaniment as images of the protagonists are shown. Usually things will pick up again (often accompanied by images of the show's antagonists and whatnot...) until the song builds up to its climax (often featuring dramatic shots of characters fighting or doing generally actiony stuff... The endings sometimes build up and then fade out on a sustained note, or sometimes end on a big hit followed to a fade to black/white as the first scene of the episode is about to start. Well that sort of turned into how to write a shonen anime opening, but hopefully I at least addressed something that you were thinking about or gave you something new to think about. Feel free to get back to me with any questions if I wasn't clear. I leave you with one of the less cliche openings (to my personal favorite show): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw3fN3OPk3A

  755. musictheory 2015-07-13 02:53:04 BdaMann
    Scales are usually played 3 notes per string. The G and B strings complicate things a little because they're only a third apart, so one of those strings will usually have just 2 notes instead of 3.

  756. musictheory 2015-07-15 08:45:49 Xenoceratops
    The rules are vague and the author put in too many fancy exceptions. The game is built around harmony cards, which are chords that you string together continuously to the left and right to make a progression. You complete a hand and collect points by playing the correct cards at the end of the progression and slapping on a cadence card to show that you are finished with the progression. Additional points can be earned by playing special harmony cards (which are things like first-inversion chains, ct°7 chords, and expansion of a chord) as well as voice leading cards, which are played as soprano and bass notes that are predetermined by the card. As an example, on vi, you can play "Do" in the soprano and "La" in the bass. All this sounds well and good, but like I said, the rules aren't laid out very well. [This](http://i.imgur.com/rrStE33.jpg) is a legal progression that I played in a game to show how ridiculous the voice leading cards can get. I'll get to that in a moment. The progression itself is not as bad as some of the ones that I've come up with, but it's still fucking awful. It+6 resolving to vii°6? Somebody forgot to mention that augmented sixth chords resolve in a certain way when they were writing the rules, it seems. It's allowed though, because It+6 precedes a dominant function (represented by "D" on the cards) according to the rules, and vii°6 *is* regarded as a dominant function. Now, when you start stringing wonky harmony cards together and playing the voice leading cards, the melody starts looking (and sounding) wacky. Isn't the point of the game to teach something about harmony and voice leading? Why does the soprano melody on the It+6 I6/4 V progression have to be Fi Mi Ti? That's awful voice leading. Also, the chordal expansion card on the last chord makes me lawl. As does the "Bach" style card that accompanies this monstrosity. [Here](http://i.imgur.com/RsbTDUE.jpg) is a progression that my friend started. There are some errors in it, but I'd like to call your attention to the iii6 card. Dominant function? Are you kidding me? It's hilarious that the iii [6/3 chain] iii6 sequence is legal.

  757. musictheory 2015-07-16 15:18:49 Xenoceratops
    >but are there other **purposes** for them in terms of improvisation. They have a [special purpose](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJJA6WRpvlg). Kidding aside, you can use any pitch collection in any way that you want. Don't just think, "Oh, here's a dominant chord, I have to play X scale." Play around with them and see what you like. I recommend looking at how others use those materials. Bartók frequently used the octatonic scale ("diminished scale" to you) as a source of harmony and melody. Check out the beginning of the finale of [String Quartet No.4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8TcrMFFqJg). (C H/W diminished scale abounds.) In [Aratáskor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsfqeSFPNvs) from the 44 Violin Duos, the two melodic lines utilize solely the pitches of the minor tetrachord, but played a tritone apart so that the net result is the same octatonic scale (except for the last phrase, in which both violins are playing in E♭ minor). So he's obtaining that pitch collection by means of bitonality. He does something kind of similar in [No.109](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BKKl25hWnE) from the Mikrokosmos: at the beginning, the left hand is gets G# A D E♭, the right hand gets B C F G♭ (the same thing, transposed up a minor third), which form an octatonic scale when you put the two together. The hands swap their pitch material occasionally and are unison in a couple spots, but he sticks with that single octatonic scale throughout the piece. [Here](http://www2.nau.edu/~krr2/ct_octindex.html) is some stuff that some internet dude made regarding the same pitch collection.

  758. musictheory 2015-07-17 05:56:45 setecordas
    They did cycle the system to to get quartones, semitones, whole tones, m3's, and M3's. But the idea was more about how to generate specific intervals between the tonic and the P4. Knowing just those ratios, they would be able to generate tetrachords, etc. Consider a typical 4 string lyre (numbers of strings did vary, I believe up to 13). The highest and lowest strings were tuned to a P4. The inner two strings were tuned according to the kind of tetrachord they wanted to make: Enharmonic tetrachords contained two quarter tones and a M3. Chromatic tetrachords contained two semitones and a minor third (think A harmonic minor: E F G# A). Diatonic tetrachords contained one semitone and two whole tones. The diatonic tetrachord is what we base the major scale and its modes on. The pentachord was a variation of the tetrachord with a whole tone at one or the other end, especially of the diatonic tetrachord. When a pentachord and tetrachord share a note at opposite ends, they would add to a heptachord. There is also the hexachord that added the 5th above the tonic and another 5th above either of the two inner strings.

  759. musictheory 2015-07-17 07:40:56 setecordas
    And this nitpicky, but the harmonic that derives the Perfect Fifth is the 3rd harmonic, not the first. The first harmonic is the fundamental vibration, and is the lowest frequency the string or vibrating body can sound. The 2nd harmonic is the octave, the 3rd harmonic is the 5th, the 5th harmonic derives the pure M3, etc. All even harmonics are octave equivalents of lower harmonics. For instance, the 4th harmonic is the 2nd octave of the fundamental and the 6th harmonic is an octave of the 3rd harmonic.

  760. musictheory 2015-07-17 12:01:57 jesusofnazers
    It's based on very simple ratios. All note are part of 1:4 ratio wave length. So guitar string qurtered then quarter ed again etc. 12 times. Those are the basically the 12 tones of the chromatic scale. (I say "basically" because it gets slightly sharper as you go up.) Edit: obviously the thirteenth note is the same as the first note, only its a distant octave away.

  761. musictheory 2015-07-18 06:28:48 EpicPoptartPuma
    On guitar I love Em6 open voicing... well I think it's that at least hahah. Em with an F# added on the high e string

  762. musictheory 2015-07-18 21:22:47 AndrewT81
    The biggest impediment to playing different keys on the banjo is the fact that the 5th string is rarely ever fretted. That means you'll naturally gravitate to keys that have a g natural in them, because any other key will sound wrong (or if you're lucky, modal). You have two options here, one is to simply ignore the 5th string until you're past the 5th fret in any key that doesn't have g natural, and the second is to retune or [capo](http://www.jdmc.com/product/RC-1.html) the 5th string for the new key. It could be an interesting experiment for you to set your 5th string to a new note (like g#) and just start playing and see what key your ear gravitates to.

  763. musictheory 2015-07-18 21:37:31 pantsforsatan
    I am planning on getting railroad spikes installed on the fretboard for the same purpose as that capo sometime this week! For the weekend I'll be tuning the 5th string around to see what sorts of things can happen. I also hadn't really thought of searching for keys that specifically have a G natural before posting... which now sounds a bit like a blonde moment. Thank you for your reply. :)

  764. musictheory 2015-07-18 23:22:49 InnSea
    >I assumed that once I did I would be able to create much more creative pieces but it seems no matter what the key I–V–vi–IV seems to be the best thing to do. So essentially it feels like everything I play is just the same but a key up or down? I've been listening to music of all different types and it does not seem to be that they all sound this way. Just out of curiosity, what happened after this point? Did you try to play those other chord progressions and end up not liking them on the banjo? Did you have any difficulty identifying those chord progressions by ear? My usual strategy for getting out of a rut is to find music that inspires or intrigues me, try to figure out what's going on, and then assimilate those sounds into my own improvisations or compositions. I'd be happy to discuss creative ways to incorporate the 5th string, though if you're getting spikes, it might be enough to work on using those for a while. Here's a simple piece called For Sascha by Béla Fleck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1nraTF0Et4 It uses Bill Keith's / Bobby Thompson's melodic style, i.e., creating a linear melody but not using the same string for consecutive notes. The 5th string is a useful stepping stone in this style. This piece is in Eb major, and the 5th string is fretted a few times.

  765. musictheory 2015-07-19 00:31:15 Daemmerung
    (Piano player here who also picks a little 3-finger style.) In addition to the drone G fifth string, you have harmonics from any open strings vibrating in sympathy with the notes that you've picked. So you always have essence-of-G-major floating around you, unless you capo or pick an alternate tuning: even fully-fingered chords in distant keys (including thumb-muted fifth) have a different sound, because they have no open strings ringing at all. Alternate tunings, even ones that move only a single string plus the fifth, make a big difference, because you now have different open strings contributing new harmonics. For a simple demonstration, play the break up the neck for Cumberland Gap (Scruggs version). Listen to what happens when you leave your middle finger on the third string, as opposed to lifting it to let that third string ring open on the 1-2-5 chord pluck that ends the break. You really should take this to /r/banjo. There are some very knowledgeable folks there.

  766. musictheory 2015-07-19 03:46:22 Rebuhl
    > the 5th string is rarely ever fretted. In the '30s, yeah, that may have been true. Nowadays, it's false. Most players fret the string for a lot of reasons. Watch some of Bela Fleck, Noam Pikelny, John Hartford, or even later Earl Scruggs stuff and you'll see them fretting the high G a lot. When playing in other keys, you move the drone or completely throw it out. Pretty much all keys can be played out of a standard G tuning with some finagling.

  767. musictheory 2015-07-20 13:13:05 Cdesese
    For me the one thing that has greatly enhanced my ability to hear harmonies is simply studying a lot of music theory and studying a lot of music (and listening very carefully). This may sound unhelpful. But here's an analogy: imagine a person dictating a letter to you in a language that you don't understand. You hear a string of sounds, snippets of which you may recognize (phonemes, words, maybe even phrases), but you can't assemble them into any sort of gestalt, because you lack familiarity with the sorts of grammatical and semantic schemata that would make up such a gestalt. By contrast, it is easier to take dictation in a language you are intimately familiar with precisely because you have a large repertoire of such schemas that help you process what you are hearing and take it in larger chunks that you find meaningful. You perceive not just individual phonemes, words, or phrases, but whole sentences and even whole paragraphs. There are good reasons to believe that listening to music works very much the same way: your ability to understand what you are hearing is contingent upon your ability to interpret larger chunks of information as meaningful. You may be able to scrape by transcribing a melody by trying to hear each note individually and poke at a keyboard until you find the right one, but this will be a slow and painstaking process, and in some cases it will be impossible to do (say, if the notes are going by very quickly); but if you can hear a melody not as just a succession of individual notes but as a series of larger chunks (motives, sub-phrases, phrases) made up of certain patterns (scales, arpeggios), you'll transcribe much more quickly and effortlessly. Likewise, you may be able to transcribe a chord progression by focusing on each individual chord and trying to hear its root and quality, but you're sure to fare better if you are able to recognize common harmonic progressions (I-IV-V-I), cadences, sequences, etc. Studying music theory can give you many valuable tools for understanding what you are hearing, be it notes, intervals, scales, chords, chord progressions, forms, and so on. I realized this when, after many years of studying harmony, I suddenly noticed that I recognized a lot of what I was hearing when I listened to music ("hey, that's a deceptive cadence"). So the better you understand music theory (that is, the better you understand music), the easier it will be to hear complex things like harmonic progression. But just reading theory won't be enough; you'll have to apply what you learn to what you hear (listening to music while following along with a score, and analyzing the music, is a great way to do this). You should also drill interval, scale, and chord identification. It also doesn't hurt to try writing some music, tinkering with things and seeing how they sound. No matter what, it will take a lot of time and diligent practice for you to develop your ear. EDIT: Also, [check out the FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/1h8tnm/faq_question_how_can_i_practicehow_do_i_get/) for more ear training improvement strategies and resources.

  768. musictheory 2015-07-21 12:37:41 LarryLarington
    Really like your string piece! Your other orchestral stuff ain't half bad either. ;)

  769. musictheory 2015-07-23 00:16:12 setecordas
    The harmonic series is not used as a basis for 12 Tone Equal Temperament. Instead, it uses 12 equal divisions of the octave such that the frequency of each semitone is lesseror greater than an adjacent semitone by a factor of the 12 root of two. 12 tET approximates the harmonic series, however. First, a discussion of the harmonic series. The harmonic series is a series (theoretically infinite) of integer multiples of a fundamental harmonic (the lowest frequency a string will vibrate). The first harmonic is 1 = the fundamental frequency. The 2nd harmonic is a doubling of the frequency, the 3rd harmonic is 3 times the fundamental frequency, etc... The limit is the harmonic that is used to generate all the tones of the system. Pythagorean intonation uses the 3rd harmonic to generate all of its tones, making it a 3-Limit Intonation System. Just Intonation uses the 3rd and 5th harmonics to generate its tones, making it a 5-Limit Intonation system. Problems arise with using the harmonic series as a intonation system because each individual note has its own distinct harmonic overtones, and generating tones using odd ratios will never reproduce the octave and each note will drift from a pure intervalic relationship with other notes. Various tuning systems were developed that work arpund this by distributing the drift among different intervals. These intonation systems are called Mean Tone. The reason we use 12t-ET is because it is the simplest intonation system that generated 12 tones to an octave in a consistent manner without drift. There are other equal temperament systems that are even better than 12t-ET, such as 19t-ET, 31t-ET, and 53t-ET, but having 19, 31, and 53 notes per octave can make playing music more difficult. Most instruments we play work well with the harmonic series because they don't necessarily produce a lot of inharmonicities that fuzz and blur the tonalities. Instruments that do have a lot complex inharmonicities may require different tuning systems, such as those of Gamelan ensembles. Clarinets are interesting because they produce only odd integer harmonics rather than odd and even harmonics, so they are capable of reproducing intonation systems in a sonorous manner that wouldn't sound particularly good on other instruments. The Bohlen-Pierce scale divides the 3rd harmonic into 13 steps equal or just tuned steps such that all frequency ratios are odd. Check out Xenharmonics for more info.

  770. musictheory 2015-07-23 07:15:08 setecordas
    The first set of chords are just guitar-centric chords. The song is played with a capo on the second fret. First position E Major, G Major, D Major, A Major (with an added F# probably on the 1st string) all transposed a step up with a capo. They aren't thinking in terms of functional harmony, but in terms of basic guitar chord circle of fifths-ish chord strumming The next set of chords are probably a lot less complicated than what you have. I'm pretty sure they are power chords with some dressing on the higher strings. Look to the melody as that is what is most important here. The melody for first verse is in F# Mixolydian (I am the son, I am the heir) then modulates to A Major (I am human and I need to be loved), then to F# Major (Just like everybody else does). Transcribe the rest of the melody and analyze it. I think that's where most of the interesting stuff is happening.

  771. musictheory 2015-07-23 22:07:58 Cdesese
    I wonder if the "nostalgic" sound you are hearing has less to do with the chord progressions and more to do with some of the specific timbres/instruments that are being used. These sounds evoke other genres of music that may have nostalgic associations. Three of the songs incorporate either string instruments (i.e., violins) or choir, which are sounds associated with classical music. A friend of mine once pointed out to me that elements from classical music are sometimes used to create a sense of nostalgia, perhaps because classical music is old music, music of the past, and so it can evoke the past. And nostalgia always involves some kind of engagement with the past. Then one track uses synthesizer sounds that, to me at least, evoke old video game music. For similar reasons, though via a completely different genre of music, these sounds also evoke the past (though a different past).

  772. musictheory 2015-07-23 22:57:40 nmitchell076
    Opera really didn't exist in the 1500s. You might want to check out scores by Monteverdi and Cavalli to look at what the instrumentation is. It was typically a string ensemble, continuo, and maybe a small handful of wind instruments for special effects.

  773. musictheory 2015-07-23 23:29:54 mkerns94
    I think it is vital to find a way to look at types of music that aren't widely considered "art music", or don't abide by regular standards of analysis, and still get an understanding of how they work. I study Sonic Youth and Animal Collective just as intensely as Scriabin or Ligeti; the intricate layered productions of many electronic and hip-hop producers just as much as Duke Ellington or Stravinsky; And Kenrick Lamar's flow is just as inspiring as Wes Montgomery's. It's all here there, up down, loud soft, but there's still unfathomable ways to channel ourselves into a more fundamental essence of sound, pulse and resonance. When all things abstracted and music just "is" a bird chirping over a breaking guitar string can be bliss. tl;dr this is some good weed

  774. musictheory 2015-07-24 17:13:43 aquamarine_tangerine
    You're just reverse engineering how the guitar is tuned. These patterns make sense because with the exception of the M3 between the G and B strings, it's all in fourths. Good for you for visualizing the fretboard. You're on your way to truly discovering your instrument. What you said in your last 2 paragraphs basically told me you just found out how to play your modes in pattern. Learn your scale patterns first before you have another "Eureka" moment. There's only 7 different modes of the major scale. If you stick to 3 notes per string, you're obviously going to have overlapping patterns within those 7 modes. You can break down modes into 3-4 different variations: Major, Minor, Dominant (some add half diminished here too), and Half diminished if you like to separate. Majors: Ionian and Lydian. The difference? One note. the raised 4th. Dominant: Mixolydian. Difference? It's Ionian with a lowered 7th. Minors: Dorian, Aeolian, and Phrygian. The differences? Dorian has a lowered 3rd and lowered 7th. Aeolian adds a lowered 6th on top of that. Phrygian adds a lowered 2nd on top of that. So Phrygian is as minor as you can get before you get to... Half Diminished. The difference? It's Phrygian with a diminished (lowered) 5th.

  775. musictheory 2015-07-25 21:21:01 RyanT87
    From [an earlier comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/2x7cuv/help_me_put_things_into_perspective_about_the/coy28zk) I made on Pythagorean tuning: >There are some really good things in here, but I have to reply to one thing in particular: Although we can think of Pythagorean tuning in the sense of stacking fifths, this is a more modern method and very different from ancient Greek music theory, where you'll inevitably have to go, OP, if you want to to work toward answering questions like these. >Unfortunately not much music from ancient Greece has survived, so we really don't know too much about what was going on. But one thing that seems to be clear is that ancient Greek music theory was not really interested in analyzing music (especially the Pythagoreans, perhaps a bit less so with the Aristoxenians), but more interested in the way mathematics manifested themselves in music (just like in the stars, geometry, etc.). What they were very interested in was superparticular ratios—i.e., n+1:n (2:1, 3:2, 4:3, etc.). They then used these ratios in dividing the monochord, so if you divide a string in half (2:1), you get an octave; two thirds of the string (3:2), a fifth; three quarters of the string (4:3), a fourth; etc. We can then note that the difference between a fifth and a fourth is a step, which works out to the interval 9:8—another superparticular ratio! If we start to add together two of these 9:8s—thus ditone—we get 81:64, which isn't superparticular itself, but was rationally derived from them, so they were cool with it. We can then take the difference between a fourth and a ditone—which is called the leimma, or literally "that which is left over"—and this gives us our semitone.

  776. musictheory 2015-07-26 10:37:38 discountwilderbeast
    That makes sense! I was in the shower morning thinking, "How did they even get to the concept of a fifth?" and it hit me that they would've divided a single string and realized that a fifth was harmonius with the fundamental. Maybe I'm just missing this though, but was is 3/2 for 3/4 of the string? I think I'm thinking too hard.

  777. musictheory 2015-07-26 13:36:11 RyanT87
    There may have been other earlier cultures that arrived at intervals of fifths from their harmonious sounds, but as far as the ancient Greeks—especially the Pythagoreans—it was really about finding mathematics manifest in music (and other areas). I think that understanding Pythagorean tuning in terms of stacked fifths can be helpful, but as far as my understanding (and I'm not a tuning junkie) it seems to be more of a modern conception than representing ancient Greek and medieval tuning systems. As far as understanding the ratios, think of it like this: the ratio represents the number of equal parts you divide the entire string into vs. the number of those parts you let vibrate. So for 3:2, you would mark out three equal parts of the string, place a movable bridge (that acted like a fret on a guitar) at the point so that two of those thirds were vibrating, and that would give you a fifth. (Imagine a monochord kind of like [this](http://www.musixcool.com/members/musixcool/acoustic/pitagor.gif)) Likewise, 2:1—divide the string in half, place a movable bridge there, and pluck half the string (octave). For 4:3, divide the string into four parts, place a bridge so that three of those sound, and pluck it to get a fourth.

  778. musictheory 2015-07-27 17:52:37 Morgoth714
    Notes exist in multiple octaves, and duplicate notes in other octaves do not affect the naming scheme. G major can have all the G, B, and D notes on the piano in it if you want - same with any instrument or even multiple instruments playing separate notes in the chord. A guitar's open G chord has 3 G's in it and an extra B (or D), but if you only played the lower three notes it would be the same as a non-inverted 3 note piano G chord. Additionally, it's possible on some instruments to play multiple of the same note (in the same octave) in multiple ways at once. You can play the 5th fret on the guitar's B string as well as the open E at the same time. In this way you can get chords with multiple extra strings playing the same few notes.

  779. musictheory 2015-07-28 08:07:18 Cdesese
    That kind of texture is usually called "polyphony," in which individual parts play a more-or-less equal role. Do you care about the style of the music? I ask because you're more likely to find examples of this kind of texture in classical music than in contemporary styles. String quartets, like [this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OQgFr5m8e8), are often a good place to find polyphonic textures.

  780. musictheory 2015-07-29 06:47:53 Saetia_V_Neck
    Sorry, I should clarify, I meant with chords. Like I usually end up finding a nice sounding chord but then all I can do with it is move up or down one string, usually the highest or the lowest string. I wanna learn how to write riffs that are more then just that.

  781. musictheory 2015-07-30 20:35:57 setecordas
    The C on the A string is doubling the C on the B string so yoi could leave it out when you transpose the the song. You could also use a capo on the 7th fret.

  782. musictheory 2015-07-30 23:34:01 MiskyWilkshake
    The other good thing about tuning a 3-string to a complete chord is that it makes it simple to work out chords on the fly: say you tune to a major chord (D G B), then you can slide all those notes up anywhere to form a major chord on any other tonic, so (7 7 7) would form your V chord (A D F#), and (5 5 5) would form your IV chord (G C E), then you only need to lower the third (the string tuned to B) to make a minor chord, so (2 2 1) is your ii chord (E A C), and (9 9 8) is your vi chord (B E G). The same applies to any chord quality: want to make a diminished chord? Lower the third (B string) and the fifth (D string), and slide the whole shape up so that the middle string sounds the tonic you want. What about an augmented chord? Raise the fifth (D string) and slide the whole shape up so that the middle string sounds the tonic you want. Want to play a maj7? You'll have to omit a note - you could replace the 5th with the major seventh (+4 0 0) or the tonic (0 -1 0). A Dom7? Same thing, but with that seventh as a minor seventh (+3 0 0) or (0 -2 0). A min7? Same thing as a Dom7, but with a lowered third (+3 0 -1) or (0 -2 -1). You get the idea.

  783. musictheory 2015-07-31 02:19:10 saneliv
    Yeah the bottom 3 strings won't slide up 7 frets very well... the top 3 strings will slide pretty nice to a G7 tho. Agree you don't need the C on the A string... Hope I somewhat helped...

  784. musictheory 2015-07-31 05:02:24 setecordas
    Yes. But more broadly, the harmonics and inharmonicities of different instruments can mean that different intonation systems can be well suited for that instrument verses others. Clarinets only have odd numbered harmonics and so will not soind out of tune (so to speak) in Bohlen-Pierce intonation which only uses ratios of odd integers. The metalic alloys used in the instruments of Gamelan orchestras are able to play pelog and slendro intonated scales whereas a piano or guitar tuned that way would sound out of tune. Bowed instruments, to my ears, sound more sonorous playing microtonal music than hammered and plucked string instruments, possible due to the differences in inharmonicities of those instruments.

  785. musictheory 2015-07-31 06:09:49 wegwirfst
    Things like bells, chimes, gamelan have very different harmonics from string & wind instruments. So they are not used for chords in western music. The sounds of all of our usual strings & winds are combinations of the same harmonics: fundamental frequency F, 2F,3F 4F, etc. They differ from each other in inharmonicity, and they differ in how much of each harmonic is present (including how each harmonic changes as the note is sustained.) I don't think the differences are great enough to make some chords more useful for some instruments.

  786. musictheory 2015-07-31 12:59:05 MiskyWilkshake
    I understood modal mixture to be to parallel modulation what secondary dominance was to other modulations (that is, a temporary embodiment of the same concept, not changing the whole piece's tonality, but instead only borrowing the 'flavour' of one key for use within another). I figure that just as a long string of secondary chords that really establish another key effectively constitutes a key-change, so too does a long string of modal mixture (without un-mixed chords) that effectively establishes the minor mode as the setting of a section (rather than a few thrown in for flavour) constitutes a key-change to a different key with the same tonic. What if you were to repeat a phrase in one key, with the same phrase in it's parallel minor (say: ||: I - vi | ii - V7| i - bVI | ii^(half-dim) - i :||) surely this context is enough to establish it as a separate phrase in a parallel key? I take your point that parallel keys are modes of one another, but I don't see why it should follow that an entirely separate phrase could not be considered as having a separate key with the same tonic rather than the same key in a different mode; especially in cases where the harmonic minor is used. You would not, after all, call a song "in Cmaj" that's in Cmin, and when comparing it to a separate song in Cmaj, you would not say that they are in the same key. You might say that they have the same tonic, or that their keys are parallel to one another, but I don't think that diminishes the fact that their notes hold different relationships. Surely there's a reason that Cmaj and Cmin have different key signatures after all?

  787. musictheory 2015-07-31 16:58:28 bstix
    okay, you have to look at why they are recommending that inversion of the D7. It's because the next chord is Bm, so the bass goes downwards on the notes D,C,B in the original key. If you want to keep this suggested bass line in the new key, you can play G, G7/F, Em. These are pretty basic chords. If you find it hard to finger the G7/F, try skipping the A string and use the B string open to keep the third in the chord: G: E|--3-- B|--0-- G|--0-- D|--0-- A|--2-- E|--3-- G7/F: E|--3-- B|--0-- G|--0-- D|--0-- A|--x-- E|--1-- Em: E|--3-- B|--0-- G|--0-- D|--2-- A|--2-- E|--0-- I don't know the song or if you're playing this by finger picking or by strumming. If you're finger picking, it's easy to avoid the A string, but if you're strumming, you could make a pattern where you play the lowest note and then the rest of the chord, so you don't have to worry about the muted string in the middle of the chord.

  788. musictheory 2015-08-01 01:58:50 disaster_face
    yeah, it's a string of secondary dominants. D7 briefly tonicizes G, G7 tonicizes C, and C7 actually resolves to the real key. Technically the D7 would be a V of V of V

  789. musictheory 2015-08-01 04:38:22 Salemosophy
    Okay, it's bad, but with some context, some of it might be a little helpful. I think the author of the chart relied heavily on elementary music education idioms that are later examined/rejected in college theory courses. But it's still interesting to see where some of it comes from, so here are a few examples of what I'm talking about: * Major : Happy :: Minor : Sad - this whole association comes from learning folk songs and other tunes at a young age. The initial point is to help students recognize "happy" or "sad" at a young age. Later, when the brain is more developed and the child is more exposed to their environment, we can find better ways to make these associations. It's not entirely correct, but to a 4 year old, it's as correct as it needs to be for most 4-year-olds' level of development. * A - melancholic ... C - happy: This is probably coming from early childhood education on keyboard where the minor songs are written in A Minor and the major songs are written in C Major to postpone use of the black keys on the keyboard. This is a common thing I've seen in old beginner piano books. * D - classical: One of the first finger positions/scales that beginning string players learn is the finger position for the D Major scale, and many beginning tunes in string literature are written in the key of D Major or its relative minor, B Minor. I think this is found in the Suzuki Method of music education, where the idea is to make music as easy as possible to achieve early success. The D Major position is one of the more natural positions on the fingerboard of the violin and viola for young students to learn. * E - hard: Hard Rock and Heavy Metal Guitar tuning usually favors the key of E major or E minor, so I think this is where the author got the idea. The E keys are usually the first patterns we might learn on guitar. I'm not saying the chart is good or even trying to defend it. I just think it's interesting to figure out where it came from and how our experience on these instruments might tend to influence how we explain music to others. If the target audience of this chart is a beginner, it might not be accurate, but the association the beginner makes might be easier for them to make than to simply not make any association at all. Sorry, I know that SOUNDS like I'm defending the chart. Maybe I am a little. I think anyone who puts the time and effort into something like this ought to be given at least a little kindness and consideration for their effort, even if it isn't the greatest at achieving its goal.

  790. musictheory 2015-08-01 19:48:24 RocknRollUebermensch
    I think it is entirely possible to be able to identify pitches on certain instruments you're used to hearing. I can pretty much tune a guitar by ear because I know what an open E string sounds like. But I don't know whether this is directly relatable to actually having perfect pitch. From what it's been described to me, it is a whole different perception of sound - people with PP also hear pitches in street noise, spoken language, even wind. I know people with PP who also tend to prefer quiet surroundings because the thing for them is they can't *not* hear those pitches, which can be frustrating. So I think PP goes further than just identifying certain pitches, which can definitely be achieved by practising and training.

  791. musictheory 2015-08-03 23:20:40 dav33asl3y
    Nice points! To your first comment, I kind of get into this in paragraph 6.1 and in the analyses at the end of the article, but don't pursue it too much. It is something I'd like to get into more, though. I'd probably begin by investigating where schemes tend to occur within a song's form and which formal functions they tend to be paired with. I don't know how specific the associations of riff schemes might be, but my sense is that they wouldn't have the specificity of, say, classical topoi, like a pastorale or French overture. I do think they signify "hardcore" as it's own topic, and this is something that David Heetderks investigated in his [article](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/musa.12013/abstract) on Sonic Youth. Basically, Sonic Youth used a standard hardcore riff scheme to engage in a narrative with hardcore, but "re-visioned" it in certain ways, towards their own ends. And, to your second comment, absolutely: the fretboard notation is not really essential to understanding the riff schemes. If I were focusing on pitch structures they'd be much more important. However, I kept the fretboard notations in the article for a few reasons. 1) I thought a lot about the potential audience for an article like this. Sure, it's in a theory journal, but I really wanted to keep some of the essentials at a level that a more general audience could follow. 2) There are times in which the fretboard notation makes things clearer, like in "Nazi Punks, Fuck Off," for example (paragraph 3.2). The final leap to D-flat could be thought of as a very large motion or as a smaller motion when shown on a fretboard. It could have been played on the fifth string, fourth fret, a much smaller motion, but in lunging up to the D-flat on the sixth string, the gesture is exaggerated; it also highlights the riff's closure and lyrical message. In situations like these, focusing on the physical domain provides more (crucial) information. And I guess, to your last point, I think that the actual musical space in this case *is* the fretboard notation and showing each riff as a series of motions; to me, the notation is actually the re-conceived space, given how these riffs were most likely created. This is probably due to my own musical upbringing, as I didn't really learn to read music until my senior year in high school, and in preparation for undergrad auditions. So, yeah, for sure: we don't necessarily need the fretboard diagrams to understand the main points of the article, but there are situations in which the diagrams can help to clarify things or even contribute to a deeper understanding of how a riff unfolds or why it's meaningful. I'm really glad you asked this question, btw. Honestly, it didn't come up at any point during the article submission process, but I'm glad that I was forced to wrestle with the question! Thanks!

  792. musictheory 2015-08-04 13:50:04 underthepavingstones
    i would argue that the vast majority of guitarists playing hardcore punk aren't thinking in terms of music theory or sheet music when they're writing guitar parts, so i think the tab is actually pretty relevant to the idiom it was written in. hardcore is also an intensely physical music, so the actual movement of your body being taken into account could be pretty relevant. also, most string instrument players i've ever interacted with don't read music, or if they understand how, don't really apply it to how they play strings instruments. the exact same pitches repeating over and over again across the neck makes it a little weirder than, say, reading music for a keyboard based instrument or a horn. also, god help anyone unfamiliar with the music trying to understand it from an academic article. if you haven't experienced it in a blazingly hot basement while at least slightly being concerned about your own safety and likely kind of intoxicated, you haven't really experienced it. says the guy who was a show last week where someone got maced.

  793. musictheory 2015-08-04 15:16:41 SLGC
    > Things like bells, chimes, gamelan have very different harmonics from string & wind instruments. So they are not used for chords in western music. Because they have more of a percussive nature? Would it be similar to how you don't typically play chords with drums?

  794. musictheory 2015-08-08 04:57:34 shortbusoneohone
    This is purely speculation, but the fact that all but one of the strings of a guitar are tuned in 4ths has to contribute to some of the movement in fourths in pop music -- the single string not tuned in 4ths is a major 3rd. If the root is on the lowest string, the E string, a smooth transition between the I or i and the IV chord could be to move up one string and play a simple triad chord — so, the root movement would be a fourth. It's also probably just part of the natural progression of music. People used to use stacked 4th intervals to imitate the dense movements of the brass sections in big bands. Now, a lot of the same stacked 4th intervals are found in metalcore and heavier genres of music with drop tuned guitars, but borrowed IV chords have always had a heavy influence on pop music, especially in jazz. Contiguous 4ths of major 7th chords are huge in jazz — the roots just move counter-clockwise around the cycle of fifths/circle of fifths.

  795. musictheory 2015-08-10 01:39:56 AndrewT81
    A lot of good string writing is designed around having the inner voices kind of blend together to give the feeling of a wash of sound. If you're comfortable with your intervals and other basics of classical theory, you can read the specific rules [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_leading). As others have said, the highest voice is usually the easiest to pick out, as is the lowest voice if the strings are the only instruments playing. For the inner voices it's trickier but there are some things you can latch on to. For example in the clip you posted, there's a change in the inner harmonies when the top line hits that chromatic note. Since that inner note sticks out it should be easy to tell what it is. Next you have to figure out what note that voice was playing before it shifted, and that's where voice leading rules can help you out. The idea with well written voice leading is that parts that change should be as close to the original note as possible, and only certain intervals can smoothly move in the same direction as the melody or bass line. With that in mind, you might make an educated guess that the note before that one that sticks out comes down from a higher note (since the melody line is moving up). That's not always the case, but it's a quick and easy way to get started. A great way to help find the possible notes in a section like this is to loop it like you've done and start playing some notes over them on your own instrument, just to see what sounds like it fits and what doesn't. After you've found a list of notes that seem like they don't change the mood of the original, compare the notes in the two different chords. If any of them are the same, then chances are that there's an inner voice playing that note across both chords (since doing so is good voice leading). Any notes left unaccounted for, my technique is to play the note on your own instrument for a few seconds and just get the sound of that note in your head, then listen to the clip paying attention only to that note. Somewhere in the mix it should jump out at you and you can figure out what octave it's in or if it's not played the entire time. Hope some of those tips help, and good luck!

  796. musictheory 2015-08-10 10:55:16 blbd
    All, thanks so much for the thoughtful replies. I clearly came to the right subreddit, you are all very knowledgeable people. I think we covered every weird case except the case where they tell you to tune one string to the wrong pitch, usually the lowest string. When that happens, what do you transpose to get the right result? I guess it means you moved the root note for the chords? Or, when they say the lowest string is tuned weird, is every other string also tuned equally weird?

  797. musictheory 2015-08-11 00:56:55 Benjabenja
    If you mean 'drop' tunings where the lowest string is tuned 1 step lower than usual, all you need to do it transpose the note being played on that string up 1 whole tone (2 frets).

  798. musictheory 2015-08-11 01:17:08 Xenoceratops
    The ability to work with others is at the top of the list. I'll say that there are two parts to this equation: personal skills and musical skills. On the personal front, you'll work better and make more friends if you show up on time, set your ego aside, and know when you are needed (or not needed, as it would be). On the musical end, play in time, know your chords (it's a good idea to know a chord shape for a root on every string, so you can play several different voicings of A7), and be willing to work on what you don't know or are deficient in.

  799. musictheory 2015-08-11 06:03:02 MitziHunterston
    I've been playing classical piano for about 35 years (I was a toddler when I started) and I'm deeply skeptical of whether any such thing as "perfect pitch" exists. I myself have very good relative pitch, but only for tones coming from a piano. If someone plays a note on my piano and I'm in another room, I could easily name the note. For any kind of musician who regularly has to tune their own instrument, or who plays a string instrument or is a singer, such that you have to be able to hear not just whether you're hitting the right note but also whether you're getting it in tune, I think you would also develop the skill to hear whether someone else is hitting a note flat or sharp. But I think it's all a (subconsciously) learned skill.

  800. musictheory 2015-08-11 07:18:18 dacalpha
    # Scale A scale is a predetermined set of notes. Scale and Key are *very* closely related. Let's take the C-Major scale. C-D-E-F-G-A-B-(C) I put the second C in a parenthesis since we are now at the next octave, and C isn't another note in the scale, you're just restarting your scale from a higher C. You could keep repeating that pattern up and down for infinity and it will always be the C-Major scale. You will notice that all of those were **natural** notes, meaning there were no **sharps (#)** or **flats (b)** next to any of them. A sharp symbol means you play one half step above that note, a flat symbol means you play one half step below. On a guitar, each fret is one half step. So if you play the third fret on the fifth string (the A string), that would be a C. The fourth fret on the fifth string would be C#, fifth is D, and so on. There is no B# or E#, you usually just call them C and F, respectively. So you would say that the C-Major scale has no sharps or flats. For the sake of it, let's look at the D-Major scale. D-E-F#-G-A-B-C#-(D) It has two sharps, F# and C#. How do I know the D Major scale has two sharps? Well I memorized it. But I memorized it using [this tool](http://musictheorysite.com/img/circle_of_fifths_triangle.gif) known as the **Circle of Fifths**. It not only tells you what sharps and what flats are in that scale, but by going clockwise around the circle, you can find the **fifth** of each scale. The fifth is exactly what it sounds like, the fifth note in the scale. If you go *counterclockwise,* you can find out what the **fourth** of each scale is. The fourth also is exactly what it sounds like, the fourth note in the scale. #Key Now Key is even easier to understand. If you are playing in a key, that means you are mostly only using notes from a specific scale. Let's say we're playing in the *key* of D-Major. That means that (with a few exceptions) you will only use the notes from the D-Major scale I showed you earlier. That also means that your chords will be built using those notes. Take a look at the song [Twist and Shout](http://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/b/beatles/twist_and_shout_ver2_crd.htm). It's a tune made popular by the Beatles, and it is in the key of D-Major. The main chords in that are D, G, and A. I'm not specifying major or minor when I say those chord names, but it's assumed that they're major unless otherwise stated. The D chord is built using a triad, that's three notes at the same time. So you start on D since that's the **root** of the chord. Then you skip every other note in the D-Scale. That gives us D-F#-A. Do the same for G and A. So Twist and Shout is firmly in the key of D-major, since it only uses notes from the scale of D-Major. #Modes Modes are a bit trickier and honestly tough to understand using just the vocabulary we've established here today, but I'll try. Let's revisit the C-Major Scale: C-D-E-F-G-A-B-(C) Now I started on C and played up using all naturals and stopped at C. As we already know, this is the C-Major scale. But way back at the dawn of time when man rode dinosaurs to whatever jobs came before Google and Boeing, the ancient Greeks came up with a series of pseudo-scales known as **modes**. Now to play a mode, you take a scale, and start on any note in the scale and play to that other note in the scale. It's a little confusing, but I'll give you an example: D-E-F-G-A-B-C-(D) That is known as the **D Dorian Mode**. You'll notice that the notes in that are the *exact same* as the C-Major Scale, but we just started at a different place. You can start at any place in a scale and play from there, making the music **modal**. There are seven modes, each with a different name, and starting on a different scale number 1. Ionian 2. Dorian 3. Phrygian 4. Lydian 5. Mixolydian 6. Aeolian 7. Locrian So let's say I tell you to play me a G-Lydian. That means we'll have to find a scale where G is the fourth note in the scale. Well looking at that handy-dandy Circle of Fifths, we can see that G is the fourth note in the D-Major scale. So if you take the D-Major scale and rearrange it so that G is the first and last note, you'll have the G-Lydian Scale: G-A-B-C#-D-E-F#-(G) And that's all I have to say about that. My explanation of modes wasn't exactly as deep as it could have been, and without having a good handle on hyper-Romantic era music, it's really tough to fully understand the functionality of modal music, but at least now you should have a rough idea of what it all is.

  801. musictheory 2015-08-11 08:02:27 Beercandean
    The key is the basis for the scale/mode. The number of flats and sharps in the key signature on the staff determines the key. Ex: 0 flats/ sharps = C major, 2 sharps= D major, 1 flat = F Major, four sharps = E major. The most basic way to know which notes are altered (sharp or flat) is to pick a note on your guitar and move up the string following the pattern W-W-H-W-W-W-H. (W= 2 frets, H= 1 fret). The note you start on is the root note and the name of the key. That pattern is the formula for the major scale. When you realize which notes are in a specific key ( C: c d e f g a b) you can start on a different note ( C: a b c d e f g) and that reveals a mode of the major scale. The different modes are based on which note of the major scale you start on and follow to its octave using the exact notes from the major scale. Another ex. (D: d e f# g a b c#)= D major (D: e f# g a b c# d) = e dorian from the key of D major. The modes of the major scale are as follows: Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, and Locrian. As you can see there are seven different modes to the major scale. One mode for each note of the major scale. Ionian aka the major scale. Dorian starting and ending on the second note of a major scale. Phrygian starting and ending on the third note of a major scale. Lydian starting and ending on the fourth note etc.

  802. musictheory 2015-08-11 10:50:47 CrownStarr
    > For any kind of musician who regularly has to tune their own instrument, or who plays a string instrument or is a singer, such that you have to be able to hear not just whether you're hitting the right note but also whether you're getting it in tune, I think you would also develop the skill to hear whether someone else is hitting a note flat or sharp. I wouldn't put that in the same category as perfect pitch. Being able to hear intonation (i.e. whether someone is flat or sharp) is like relative pitch - anyone can learn it relatively easy with practice. You can't be a good singer without having good intonation, but you can easily be a good singer without having perfect pitch.

  803. musictheory 2015-08-11 12:58:58 DuckTux
    > They simply twiddle fingers quickly. And piano is simply hitting some keys. Trumpet is just blowing into a horn and pressing a valve. Cello is just pressing a string and bowing. Drums are just taking a stick and hitting something.

  804. musictheory 2015-08-17 06:49:25 mydogskip
    "similar types of works" aren't always grouped together. If three flute sonatas were written at the same time, then they would likely be listed as you said (Op. ?? No. 1, 2, 3). but if they're written at different times they will not be part of the same opus. off the top of my head an example is Brahms' string quartets. The first two quartets are part of Op. 51, and the third is Op. 67. also Beethoven's late quartets were written pretty much in order (though some were months apart) but each of the 6 quartets have their own opus number and another thing... BWV is a system not used because of "pre-dating publishing", but it's a cataloguing system invented by some german dude in 1950. he catalogued all of Bach's music by genre because the composition dates for many of Bach's works are unknown

  805. musictheory 2015-08-17 15:31:47 nhmo
    > I find this cliché pretty tired and not particularly sensitive to the fact that Chopin was 19-20 years old when the concerti were written. It's difficult to call this cliché when it can be supported as you said so yourself. I'm OK with people accepting the orchestration style. But you also have to remember that the 1830s was a breakthrough in orchestration style. All composers struggle in their early faze. Have you heard Schubert's first string quartets? They are AWFUL. But his later ones shows how he later came to master the style. Perhaps had Chopin decided to write more orchestral pieces later in his life that we wouldn't keep using this "cliché"...but he didn't. So as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with criticizing his orchestration style.

  806. musictheory 2015-08-17 23:19:15 Xenoceratops
    You might not like his orchestrsl works, but the second movement of Concerto for Orchestra is practically a masterclass in instrumentation. The timpani writing in the third movement of Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta is highly original, and the antiphonal string choirs in the second and fourth movement show a equal sense of innovation. Even in the string quartets, Bartók demonstrates his skill in instrumental color. The second movement of the fourth quartet and the [third movement of the fifth quartet](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLNev7sX_L8&t=1m35s) come to mind.

  807. musictheory 2015-08-18 02:17:32 OceanicMeerkat
    I am a fan of his string quartets, yes, and like I said earlier the violin concertos are great. I've only played two of his orchestral pieces, and they all seemed quite bare and uncomfortable to me. I'm sure this was intentional, and I know I'm a fan of the more romantic Tchaikovsky/Shostakovich stuff, so it makes I wouldn't enjoy his pieces for larger groups as much. Not exactly a direct answer to OPs question, but just me adding my two cents.

  808. musictheory 2015-08-23 18:03:38 I_scare_children
    In general, on most instruments, this is true, but there are some subtleties that can make some enharmonic equivalents actually different. Singers, string instrument players etc. might in fact differentiate between enharmonic equivalents in specific cases. If you sing/play in G major, F# is your lower leading tone. If you are about to resolve it, you can perform it sharper than the perfect equally-tempered F#/Gb, and it will still sound fine. But if you sing/play in Db major, the Gb is the subdominant tone and singing it sharper that "normal" would sound really bad - it doesn't "lead" anywhere, there's nowhere to resolve it, you're just out of tune and should shut up. Most scales have lower leading tone written with a sharp, and in some scales, it's diatonic (C major and flat majors). You won't have a flat you can make sharper. There are also some cases where you can flatten your flats. On the piano, writing the proper enharmonic equivalent makes stuff easier to play, but on the violins or trombone, it can actually produce a slightly different pitch. When this writing and naming system was being developed, before the equal temperament tuning became the standard, there was an actual difference in pitch between all sharps and all flats, which surely influenced the naming and writing system.

  809. musictheory 2015-08-25 11:45:09 DylanGalvin
    Well, you don't really have to prepare for them, you can substitute them for other chords. If you're playing a ii7-V7-Imaj7 in the key of C you'd be playing Dm7 - G7 - Cmaj7 right? so instead of the usual voicing of Dm7 which would be | x 5 7 5 6 x | (those are the fret numbers of the notes going from the low E to high E string) you could change it to the quartal voicing | x 5 5 5 6 x | and this would change the Dm7 to a Dm11 chord. It's kind of hard to explain via text because the only way to really know when to use quartal voicings requires a good understanding of harmony analysis but if you want the quick way to start using them, just use the minor pentatonic scale as your guide and play the top 4 strings of every pentatonic shape as you move up the fretboard, that will give you tons of quartal shapes and it sounds very funky and similar to lots of Red Hot Chili Peppers guitar parts. Let me know if that helps at all.

  810. musictheory 2015-08-28 01:48:50 1810to1856
    As /u/_The_Professor_ and /u/nmitchell076 mention, Straus's book is indeed a valuable resource. If you're interested in more detailed writings on this particular period, Ethan Haimo's monograph _Schoenberg's Transformation of Musical Language_ is a great read on its earliest years. The last section of the book covers 1908 – 1909, including the Second String Quartet Op. 10, _The Book of the Hanging Gardens_ Op. 15, and the Three Piano Pieces Op. 11. From one [review](http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.08.14.4/mto.08.14.4.quaglia.html): >Ethan Haimo’s new book is both meticulously researched and written in the kind of fluid prose that makes readers nearly forget that they are reading a scholarly work rather than a work of imaginative literature. Haimo is quite simply an outstanding writer. This work also fills a regrettable void in Schoenberg scholarship...

  811. musictheory 2015-08-30 06:52:40 adamup27
    I look at it more of an improvising tool than anything else. If I told you that only the notes C G Ab Bb G F C could be played. In any rhythm you choose, but only in that order, you could come up with hundreds of melodies. Each string of notes provide a near infinite amount of notes. As for sight reading, I'd rather read melody lines of importance too (although spanning different genres and styles).

  812. musictheory 2015-08-31 18:48:07 phearsom_fysic
    Ok, so texture really is influenced by several factors, but the main one is instrumentation. That is, the more instruments playing, the thicker the texture. This is because you can just simply hear more instruments and, generally, more things. Even a string quartet playing parallel octaves, while monophonic (technically heterophonic, almost), is still a thicker texture than one instrument because they are spread across the pitch range. So romantic music has a thicker texture because: a) their ensembles were generally larger than those of previous periods; b) these instruments spanned a wider scope of the pitch range; and c) composers generally wrote more than one line happening at one time. Also, yes, doubling of notes does count as a thicker texture. As for technical textural classification, homophony becomes polyphony when more than one instrument is playing their own, individual melody. Homophony is one melody accompanied by a bass line or harmonic backing. Polyphony is multiple melodies or lines happening simultaneously.

  813. musictheory 2015-08-31 22:20:26 nmitchell076
    I like all of your points, thank you for them. I admit that my reading of this hasn't been as close as other articles (on account of me having to move this month), but I can try to riff off of this a little. I admit that this article felt a bit like a dud, not *wrong* necessarily, but had enough issues to raise my eyebrows several times and didn't really seem to do a whole lot of really interesting things. You mention that the number of pieces might not be large enough. I think you could be right about that, but it also might have been good enough. It'd be nice to have this study replicated using a different randomized sample taken from the same basic pool of works. If the results of that study were consistent, then I'd probably buy that their sample size was representative. Right now, I'm not so sure. Speaking of their sample size, did the authors list all of the pieces they sampled for their study? I recognize that publishing the complete data isn't super viable in print journals, but a format like MTO seems perfectly conducive to providing a link to a spreadsheet containing the pieces they examined and the information they coded from them. There's plenty of information I'd like to be able to see from such a study. In particular, I'd like to know what the genre and nationality clusters are. They mention that IMSLP has a strong piano bias, which makes me think that most of their corpus was for piano. It'd be very interesting to see what the data looks like if you took only the piano stuff or only the string quartet stuff, or only the symphonic stuff, etc. We also have to think about what music is published vs. what music is unpublished. IMSLP is biased toward music that has been published before the 30s. If the piece exists only in manuscript form, then IMSLP would need to rely on the institution that holds the manuscript for digitization. I say this because of opera, opera in the 18th century wasn't usually published, and often only exists in manuscript form. On the other hand, opera scores become more widely published in the 19th century. This *could* mean that the increase of some categories over others might be due to a change not in how music is being composed, but what music is being published (and therefore what has the best shot at being on IMSLP). But again, without transparency in the genre dimension, I can't tell for sure if this is a real issue or not. A corpus study, to me, seems best suited to determining what the basic norms are within various styles and at various points in time. But I'm not sure this study successfully does that when genre and nationality are not taken into account, or at least when that data isn't transparently laid out for the reader.

  814. musictheory 2015-09-01 08:10:10 xiipaoc
    OK, this is *not* a BM7/E. Kinda. Let's start from the start. BM7 -- B major 7 -- has the notes B D# F# A#. So far so good. When you say "over E", that means with E in the bass, so BM7/E would be E in the bass, then the notes B D# F# A# in some permutation. This chord that you see here is almost that. You got E in the bass in the 6th string, then B in the 2nd string, B in the 5th, F# in the 4th, A# in the 3rd. But look at that 1st string. You'd expect a D#, since that's the only note you don't have yet, but this chord has a G#. That's kinda weird, isn't it? This note would cause me to call this chord a BM13/E, not a BM7/E, since the G# is the 13th (same as 6th). (The fact that the D# is missing shouldn't actually bother you, though.) *However*, in jazz, BM7 actually means whatever the fuck you want it to mean, so it's fair to call this a BM7/E. It is, however, not a very descriptive name, because this chord is an EM9#11 (without the 7th, granted). It's a lydian chord -- lydian just means major with a #4, and 11 is the same as 4. This is a major-sounding chord -- look at the E, B's, and G# -- with a 9 -- the F# -- and a #11 -- the A# -- which is what makes it lydian. Technically it doesn't count without the 7th, but in guitar music you can really play only what your hand will let you, so you make do without some of the notes. Without hearing this chord in context, I'd say it's actually a pretty ambiguous chord anyway. Don't worry too much about having to decide if it's one or the other -- but *do* worry about understanding why it could be each choice!

  815. musictheory 2015-09-01 10:55:05 davef
    The 16th fret of the high e string is played in the chord, and that's a G#.

  816. musictheory 2015-09-02 14:11:45 Atheia
    As one of the dozens of string players out there who prefer reading flat keys over sharps, this. You can write in 6 sharps only if you're Scriabin :P

  817. musictheory 2015-09-02 20:42:18 Valint
    6th string is the low E. That's the way I learned, that's the way the books I use teach it. So if your F is on the high E it can be Fmaj7 first inversion. If you mean F is on low E, it can just be Fmaj7.

  818. musictheory 2015-09-03 19:36:16 Calebdgm
    They are forms actually! In the Renaissance, [instruments were still considered less important than voices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_music#Instruments), it was mostly vocal music, so they would set text and that would be the name of the form. There were, however, a few forms of secular instrumental music that are listed pretty well in [this part of the renaissance article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_music#Genres). Contrastingly, in the classical era musical forms were often named after the ensemble of instruments they were written for (ex. string quartet, wind quintet, etc.). A few of the forms like sonata form and the symphony crept into the baroque era, but not into the Renaissance. The exception I've found is that [Opera seems to have had a few predecessors in the Renaissance era](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_opera#Other_ancestors_of_opera). Using my amazing wikipedia skills again, I've concluded that the Passacaglia and the Chaconne don't seem to have existed in the renaissance. I'm sorry to quote wikipedia articles at you, they're just the most convenient way to go about this as far as I can tell. Hope this helped :)

  819. musictheory 2015-09-03 22:28:06 Xenoceratops
    Seconded. Just as we wouldn't call a string quartet or a percussion duo a form, we wouldn't apply the word "form" to a motet or madrigal. These are genres.

  820. musictheory 2015-09-06 16:39:28 Vertual
    Just by quickly looking at your book, it would appear quite the opposite in fact. Thank you for all of the hard work you put into creating this book! I think I'm going to take another crack at the scales using the positions system from 2.1. I tried the by-the-string and by-the-fret systems but there is a lot of moving around. Thanks again for my new rabbit hole!

  821. musictheory 2015-09-07 13:47:23 phearsom_fysic
    Time to crack out my essay from last semester. *rubs hands with anticipation* So basically, the harmonic series was discovered by Pythagoras (that's right, the math guy) when he walked past a blacksmith and heard that a bit of metal being hit gave more than one tone (so the story goes). He then devised a ratio (he used string lengths) that would get you the same sound just... higher (what we call an octave). This ratio is 2:1; or for every time one string vibrates once, another vibrates twice. The other basic ratios are 3:2, (one string vibrating thrice while the other vibrates twice), giving you a perfect fifth; and 4:3, giving you a perfect fourth. These perfect intervals (except for the octave) are no longer used today however thanks to equal temperament, but they sound absolutely 100% pure. The first widely used tuning was the Pythagorean tuning, which stacked the 3:2 ratios (ie perfect fifth intervals) on top of each other. If you start with C you get the following. C - G - D - A - E - B But, you know what, B sounds close enough to C (what we now call a minor second, but slightly off). So why don't we just make it a C, move all the notes into the same octave, and call it a pentatonic scale. Easy! C - D - E - G - A - C But wait, theres more. What if we keep stacking up. C - G - D - A - E - B - F#(Gb) - C#(Db) If we stop there and just flatten the last two a little bit. We get the diatonic scale. C - D - E - F - G - A - B - C But wait, there's even more! What if we keep going? C - G - D - A - E - B - F#(Gb) - C#(Db) - G#(Ab) - D#(Eb) - A#(Bb) - F - C Wow, we just made all the notes. Well, the top C is a little off, but we can just contract it (by 24 cents, called the Pythagorean comma) and it's pretty much perfect. The only problem with Pythagorean tuning is trying to move to different keys on the one instrument. If you change key without retuning your harpsichord, that Pythagorean comma is going to pop up in a different place of every scale. Not fun. A bunch of other temperaments and tunings were developed over time. Some had huge gaps (called wolf tones) between two of the notes to maintain an octave that sounded disgusting, others compromised their pure fifths in favour of pure thirds, which became the new basis for harmony in the 15th century. Eventually, Vincenzo Galilei, father of the famous Galileo, came along and said "why don't we just make it super duper easy?". Thus, equal temperament was born. Although, everything was fucked. Fifths were tuned flat, thirds were tuned sharp. Everything just sounded wrong. But hey, it was easy. And we could transpose between keys without having to retune. And it's been used ever since until, today, it sounds like the most normal thing in the world. **tl;dr:** The pentatonic, diatonic, and chromatic scales were all built by stacking up perfect (like, 3:2 ratio perfect) fifths until we got more or less back to where we started. And, equal temperament ruined harmony, but made it really easy to play with a bunch of other people.

  822. musictheory 2015-09-08 06:42:48 Phrygiaddicted
    example: starting from F F + maj3rd(A) + perfect5th = E. (1*5*3) F + perfect5th(C) + perfect5th(G) + perfect5th(D). (1*3*3*3) if you want to differentiate between the overtonal D above G, and the undertonal D below A, then you need to shift your generating tone down to Bb, and have D at 80 and 81, ie, the 80:81 comma, but, of course, this problem of having two seperate D's has been the wolf-fifth problem for ages. I wasn't suggesting you use *all* the harmonics, we are incredibly biased towards hearing the 3rd and 5th harmonics as important, the 7th falls off fast, and, the harmonic 7th, 11th, and any other note you could generate with primes other than 3 and 5 will NOT sound good with each other, the moment 7 gets involved, you can no longer make pure major/minor triads... F -> C -> A (harmonics 1, 3 and 5) C -> G -> E (harmonics 3, 9, 15) A -> E -> C# (harmonics 5, 15, 25) G -> D -> B (harmonics 9, 27, 45) This includes the enitre diatonic scale, taking only the successive 3rd and 5th harmonics, starting on F. I am "cherrypicking" as you say, to include only harmonics 3, 5 and harmonics 3,5 of those, ignoring primes 7+ Also, to say that subharmonics dont exist, is a bit dubious, sure they dont exist on a plucked string, but the concept of overtones ie: moving from C->G to a note which the previous note contains, as opposed to moving from C->Ab, a note which contains the previous note. Similar to the difference between an authentic or plagal cadence. Subharmonics become evident when you move to a subharmonic note, not before, as you hear the new note contains the old one, not vice versa. This is exactly why the perfect fourth F is never found in the harmonic series of C, no matter how high you go. the 11:8 F+/F#- Tritone belongs to C's tonality. the 4:3 perfect 4th F "hijacks" the tonality, being a subharmonic, and brings C under its wing. edit: as to why only 3,5: the fifths and maj3rds of these notes all coincide with each other, and harmonically reinforce each other with their own harmonic series, the moment harmonic 7ths become involved, everything starts to get all "septimal" and "out of tune". for this reason i see even though it is a higher harmonic number, contextually, the 5th of the 5th is more important than the 11th harmonic of the root, if you get me.

  823. musictheory 2015-09-08 09:48:58 tallpapab
    Once upon a time, there was this guy named Pythagoras. (Yeah, the same guy who was freaked out to find a number that wasn't the ratio of two integers.) He noticed some cool stuff about vibrating strings. When one string is half the length of another, the two strings, when plucked, sounded nice together. In fact, they sounded kind of the same except the shorter one sounded higher. An thus was born the octave. Why is it called that? Well you might ask. Patience, Grasshoper. He also noticed that strings 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, et cetera made nice with the original long string. This niceness is called "harmony". The series of fractions (Pythagoras thought of them as ratios) is called "the harmonic series". When they kept at it until they had eight nice tones they sort of took a pause. Yo, eight! Now we get "octave". These eight tones worked well together and became what we now call the diatonic scale. Do Re Mi Fa So La Ti Do. Some of these notes were a bit closer together than others (sneaking up on half tones here). Now sometime later sad minstrels wrote sad tunes with this diatonic scale and wanted to name the notes. So they started with A and kept on alphabetically until they reached G. Today we call this the A minor scale. Then, in a major development, someone started using the same scale, but emphasizing the C and ending on it. This is the C major scale. Same notes, different emphasis and feeling. It was all fun and games until someone wanted to switch keys on a piano like instrument or one with frets. It turns out that the math give us somewhat different notes for each key. That is to say that the D in A minor is slightly different that the D in say C minor. So a compromise was made from this "true temper" and the octaves were divided into 12 even parts to give these instruments "well temper" or "just intonation". (The Well Tempered Clavier was written, in part, to demonstrate the new technique.) Whoah, 12? I thought there were eight tones. Well there are, but if we divide it up into 12 equal tones we get pretty good approximations of the eight tones in C major and A minor and a bunch of other half steps show up in there too. Sharps and flats. Does this clear it up for you? If not, take a real course in music theory or buy a nice book.

  824. musictheory 2015-09-09 14:14:13 torchflame
    I seem to recall that when string quartets play together without any other instruments they tend towards just intonation.

  825. musictheory 2015-09-10 00:47:01 AmbiguousAnonymous
    I hacked through it on guitar and what I hear was a 6th position D string voicing (bottom up) B D F Bb. I'm pretty sure about that. Listening back I'm less convinced on that Fminor chord though.

  826. musictheory 2015-09-10 08:45:25 Xenoceratops
    Hm. We only used scores in both of my undergrad analysis classes, no books. My professor split the curriculum up by form, so we did small forms (binary, ternary), theme and variations, sonata form, sonata-rondo, then looked at fugues from Bach to Mozart and Beethoven, then Shostakovich, Bartók, Hindemuth, etc. I might suggest grabbing the string quartets of Mozart, Beethoven, and Bartók and dissecting them. Do you have access to JSTOR? I get a lot of mileage out of reading articles. You might also look at university library pages and see if graduate theses are available for download or ILL.

  827. musictheory 2015-09-12 10:50:20 Bb233hz
    dayumn! cool! Im not super, duper, duper, into this kind of stuff but can definitely appreciate what they're doing. thanks for this. Its kind of Protest-y too I think you got it right though. plucking through the intro bit, they're definitely using some minor 9th's im kind of hearing the full triad (c form) with the 9th added on the b string. I don't really hear the 7th too much in the intro. I hear some cool stacking around 140. and I like the death part. what part in particular were you checking out? with two guitars and a bass player who plays like this (a bit more modern, i hear a lot of harmony in other bands) there could be some pretty cool harmonic combos across the three of them. what do you think?

  828. musictheory 2015-09-12 11:58:21 gibby30
    my ear is ok pick-up fill: gm > f#m > gm (lil double stop dude with root on a string, 10th fret) first chords: gm7 > f#m7 (same position as pickup fills, but need the 2 minor thirds, a lower one like the double stop and higher one, where the original m3 would be if you were playing a normal a-string fm) > then EbM7 (A-form) pick-up double-stops: THEN: fm9 quick to F6/9#5 (im sure theres a better inversion lol) >>> fill: Small b chord to a single note f on the b string > eb > d (single notes) then to a quick descending riff alternating between the chord and the open E string: fm triad (f,ab,c - c form) > lowE > lower that f root to an e (e,ab,c) > lowE > then a few chucks on a d,ab,c (similar to a D7b5) >>> then some single notes c,cc,c,BbBb.. Im mainly on the A string 6th to 10th position with the middle finger being the root holder. let me know! im open to critique! I hope this helps too!

  829. musictheory 2015-09-14 05:11:43 misrepresentedentity
    It opens new ideas and gives you a laid out placement to help you visualize where you are in a range so when you transpose to guitar you can find what best fits when it comes to string positions and the slight differences in tones and over tones that different strings will have.

  830. musictheory 2015-09-15 08:42:15 AndrewT81
    Part of what might be causing your non-power chords to sound funny is distortion. When you distort a signal that contains more than one pitch (i.e. playing more than one string at a time through a pedal or overdriven amp), there's a sonic effect that creates ghost notes that you didn't play. If the notes in question are intervals farther down the harmonic series like octaves, fifths, and fourths (standard power chords are a 5th apart, and 3 string power chords are a fifth plus a fourth, with the outer two strings being in octaves), then the "ghost" notes add positively to the chord. When you start straying beyond that, then you get "ghost" notes that interfere with the chords. Generally speaking, clean tone will get you good sounding chords, but power chords without distortion sound flat and boring. With distortion, power chords are full and, well, powerful, but anything more complex will sound muddy and chaotic.

  831. musictheory 2015-09-15 12:48:50 Nidhogr
    If you have time to figure out the right chords, using a capo will let you play pretty much anything with open chords. However, if you want to become a more versatile player, learn the note names on the A and E strings and the hand shapes for 5 and 6 string major and minor barre chords. Thas enough to play rhythm for most country, folk, and rock songs.

  832. musictheory 2015-09-15 22:16:55 eccco3
    Your Barre chords sound bad because your upper strings are out of tune or you're muting strings. Tune your guitar and then play Barre chords with not laying your index finger down hard so that it frets the bottom string but simply mutes the top string, like 3554xx. Later when you're comfortable with that flatten the finger all the way to get those top notes

  833. musictheory 2015-09-19 02:12:40 clackamagickal
    I just got a chance to watch this. Fantastic! I didn't expect I would get a video response to this question. For me, the question came about while wondering how the earliest humans may have created scales.* But this video answered a lot of other general questions I have, too. And I love your breakdown of the modes towards the end. Very helpful! *btw, I was imagining that the earliest string instrument is a bow (as in bow and arrow). If an early bow maker wanted to make a set of bows that, when plucked, gave perfect fifth intervals, he would start with one and then proceed to make the other two -- above and below. Repeat for the two new bows and the craftsman now has a set of five bows that play the pentatonic. Why would anyone do this? Maybe quality control. Or maybe to match the tones of a war horn. But the point is, if you were that craftsman, and presented a set of seven tuned bows to your leader/huntmaster/general, those bows would play the diatonic scale. Supposing there's any truth to this at all, and after watching your video, now I've got something new to wonder about. Instead of asking "how did we get the diatonic scale", maybe a better question is "how did we switch from dorian to ionian?"

  834. musictheory 2015-09-20 02:00:02 NoodleNonger
    The ones that would spring to mind would be piano and other string instruments to be honest. It's hard to make many recommendations if you're insistent about keeping long nails.

  835. musictheory 2015-09-20 02:58:19 Fairy_footprint
    Ironically, baritone saxophone is almost the woodwind equivalent of a cello. Similar ranges and classical Bari sax players sometimes do play cello suites since they sound so well on an instrument. Most saxophones do not go well with string instruments since the sound waves are shaped differently, but a baritone sax is quite different. And since the keys are just buttons, you can keep your nails and try to remember what you learned in grade school! Plus transposition from bass clef(cello) to Eb treble clef(saxophone) is a breeze. You read the ink like it was written for saxophone but change the key signature to fit(add 3 sharps, go down a minor third, etc). As for tenor sax, I would say its close but not as close since that's more of a 'real' saxophone and a Bari is like a different animal IMO. Cello suites don't sound as good on tenor, but transposing would be difficult to do on the fly. Plus it's a different embouchure(mouth position) from the other saxophones, So I would say its pretty alone. Also, no matter how good you get, it won't ever sound like a cello whereas a Bari will. I can link you a few good classical recordings of saxophones and cellos playing the same songs and you can hear the similarities, if you'd like. Source:am baritone sax player and I love JS Bach cello suites. **EDITED FOR LINKS** [Saxophone playing Czardas](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOBQBamjDA) [Saxophone playing Bach Cello suite No.1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXz67syyse0) [Saxophone playing Estilian Caprice](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htroEJ0y0KM) [Saxophone playing Aria] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xWEMukYwQA) [Bari and others playing a Katy Perry song because bari is useful and fun](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-07mQvG788) ___________________________________ [Cello playing czardas](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRXtAAUDm3Q) [cello playing Suite no.1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGQLXRTl3Z0) [cello playing a different Aria](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6MKOY9x_ds)

  836. musictheory 2015-09-22 05:28:33 _The_Professor_
    There are many kinds of accents. All convey a sense of musical stress. But stress arises from so much more than just volume. The simplest accents (and those performed most simply) are indeed about volume. But accents are about much more. First of all, there are accents that have *nothing* to do with volume. The very definition of an "agogic" accent involves no change in dynamics, but rather a lengthening or delay of a note. Agogic accents can be some of the most beautiful moments in music. In addition, musical contour conveys a sense of accent. So, for example, a passage in which every third note is higher in pitch than the others will be perceived in triple groupings because of the contour accent transmitted by the higher pitches, even when all the notes are played at the same dynamic level (and would register the same levels on a decibel meter). Other accents might or might not involve an increase in volume, but the main communicator of stress isn't volume but *articulation*. This differs from instrument to instrument. On a string instrument, the player might bear down on the bow more. On a wind instrument, the player might overblow just a bit. Each of these actions does increase the volume somewhat, but -- more importantly -- it changes the *timbre* of the instrument, which communicates at those moments a sense of musical stress to listeners. Accents actually change the timbre of an instrument or voice, statically and (especially) through markedly different spectral evolution.

  837. musictheory 2015-09-23 07:47:02 aphaelion
    Each string will have its own fundamental frequency (plus harmonics - multiples of the fundamental). You can find the fundamentals on a chart like this: http://en.wikiaudio.org/images/b/b4/MIDI_note_number_to_frequency_chart.png

  838. musictheory 2015-09-23 07:59:43 InTheCrosswalk
    I'm sorry I literally have no idea what I'm doing Q__Q I've never taken a stab at learning any music theory, which is why I'm reaching out to this sub. My general understanding of finding the frequency for this [chord](http://www.justinguitar.com/images/BC_images/181-G-chord-big.gif) is that I just need to add the frequency for each string together. The real problem is that I just get mixed up with all the theory and jargon that I don't understand.

  839. musictheory 2015-09-23 08:12:57 InTheCrosswalk
    It might sound silly but I wanted the frequency of the chord because I wanted to get a tattoo of it. I've always just been a really big science student but also played guitar for 6-7 years now. but theoretically, all I really need to do is add together each individual string in the chord. But according to u/windsynth, that isn't possible?

  840. musictheory 2015-09-23 08:30:51 aphaelion
    What's not possible is getting a single "THE" frequency. It's like asking "What is the ingredient in this cake?" There are many. And the frequencies are not additive - adding them up makes as much sense as forecasting the weather for the next week by adding up all the days. You can't say, "Next week it will be 560°, 80° for each day". Same with the frequencies. You will have several - one for each string. Find which note each string is playing in that chord, then look them up on that chart I posted above. You'll wind up with a list of 6 numbers - those are the fundamental frequencies (plural) of that chord.

  841. musictheory 2015-09-23 09:11:38 thewaterballoonist
    If you were having the waveform tattooed on you, then a chord would be even cooler. A G chord how I play it is made up of the fundamental G, the B a third above it, an open D a fifth above the fundamental G, a G at an octave, a D at am octave and a fifth and a final G two octaves above the fundamental. So breaking that into ratios rather than focusing on specific numbers could yield some really cool art work. Think of a big wave form as your low G. Inside that you'd have your next wave form with a slightly shorter wavelength at a ratio of 5:4 of the first wave. That would be the B. The D would have a ratio of 3:2 with the original. The next G would have a 2:1 ratio. The D on the second string would have a 3:1 ratio with the first wave, and the G would have a 4:1 ratio. Then maybe you put a chord chart of the G chord or write it in standard notation nearby. I'll see if I can figure out a way to draw it so it makes more sense. Edit: So I was trying to figure out a way to make it on mobile and do a screen grab. It's not working, but if you grab a graphing calculator and overlay the following equations it should show what I was talking about. Y=sinx Y=sin(4/3x) Y=sin(3/2x) Y=sin2x Y=sin3x Y=sin4x Consider the harmonic series as well. It's really pretty.

  842. musictheory 2015-09-23 09:47:18 InTheCrosswalk
    So the G chord, in theory, is made up of those three notes. However, in practice, my guitar's G chord is made up of C B D G D C, the first C being on my lower e string (the thickest string). I know it isn't really a "single" frequency". I suppose a better question to ask is, can I add the frequencies of those strings together to get a chord's frequency, or is that not how that works? If I can, how can I find the values for each of those notes? Edit: thank you for your reply!

  843. musictheory 2015-09-23 10:04:18 KarmaCheetah
    If you wanted a tattoo of the frequencies in a G chord, the most minimal you could make it I think would be to have a number for the fundamental of each note in a G chord, so G=abc Hz, B=xyz Hz, etc. Or if you wanted to make it specific to guitar, you would have to have 6 frequencies, 1 for each string. So how about since you can't really have a G chord without a G, just use the frequency of the G on your guitar? The low G on the E string has a fundamental frequency of 98Hz, the open G has a frequency of 196Hz, and the high G has a frequency of 392Hz. [(Source)](http://imgur.com/T7BXhMe) Maybe you could pick one of those that you like the best?

  844. musictheory 2015-09-27 06:51:58 throwawaylilb
    In simple words, yeah, the chord shape is dependent on the tuning you have. The way you play a G chord on a G open tuning will be vastly different than standard tuning (EADGBE). This means for what ever tuning you use, you must change your shapes accordingly. I reccomend sticking with the standard tuning for now, and learning the intervals between the strings, and how chords and melodies can be played in various ways (for example, a melody can be played on one string exclusively, but it could also be played using vertical positions and multiple strings. May I ask, what is the tuning you've been using?

  845. musictheory 2015-09-27 07:01:30 scrdest
    Yes, quite obviously. The easiest example is power chords; in standard tunings it's a finger on E+next finger two frets down on A for the most basic root+fifth, whereas in drop tunings it's the same fret on E and A. If you play the same shape on the same fret on two different Standard tunings, you will get the same chord type, but a different note - what's a C in D Standard will be a D in E standard, for example. What matters to the sound of a chord is the notes and the distances - intervals - between them, not how you finger them. Figuring out how chords are built will take you a long way and if you learn to find intervals quickly you'll be able to build your own chords and voicings on the fly in a way that makes sense musically. AFAIK, drop tunings are mostly for power chord playing to simplify the fingering even further, so there's not that much point to relearn stuff specifically for them - if you know the intervals for standard tunings, you just have to take in account that the 'dropped' string is a note lower than the standard.

  846. musictheory 2015-09-28 10:23:34 MiskyWilkshake
    I *would* recommend learning in standard tuning, just to eliminate one step from learning from online resources or reason tabs. I'm sure there are probably chord-naming websites for guitar that allow you to enter custom tunings, but honestly it's a lot more helpful being able to work it out yourself - just count up the frets from the open string where one fret equals one semitone.

  847. musictheory 2015-09-28 12:16:56 sizviolin
    Agreed. Confirming that for String instruments that is NOT standard notation for spiccato

  848. musictheory 2015-09-28 23:41:51 nmitchell076
    This question comes up a lot, which is why we have a FAQ question about it. But to answer in brief, if you are talking about taking a recording, throwing it into audacity, and transposing it by a semitone or two. Then you're right, we probably won't be able to tell too much, or at least, it won't radically shift our perception of what the song is. However, if you are talking about, say, taking the Bach cello suites, transposing them by a semitone, and then having a cellist perform them, then the music won't really be the same. Most music is written with the physicality of the instrument in mind. Something might be easier in one key and harder in another. Other things might be actually impossible in different keys (a piece that relies heavily on natural harmonics, for instance). This also has to do with the way the instrument sounds. The key of G, for instance, allows you to have a low tonic be an open string of a violin. The key of A means the lowest tonic has to be stopped, and if you want an open string tonic note, it'll have to be in the mid-range. This changes what you can do with these notes. The low G would be pretty open and resonant, but you can juice the low A with some vibrato. So a low tonic note will sound different on a violin if the piece is in G vs. A.

  849. musictheory 2015-09-29 10:50:35 Xenoceratops
    Sorry, this is bullshit. There are perfect fourths and fifths all over the place in these. Think blues scale, natural minor, and harmonic minor. Enigmatic is rarely the right answer. /u/turulo16, do you play guitar? I hope so. I [transcribed the guitar part for the Green Day piece](http://i.imgur.com/iOcIeIA.jpg). I didn't do the da capo and coda and whatnot, but the piece is pretty repetitive and I'm sure you can figure it out. Use some spring reverb (the kind you hear in [surf rock](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y3h9p_c5-M)) on those big rolled Em chords at the beginning and end. There are two main components of this: the orchestration and the riff. I don't have time to cover the nuances of the orchestration right now, but horns playing the chord up high and doing the occasional chromatic or harmonic minor walk while the guitar is holding down a straight eighths riff will get you this sound. Keep the eighth notes going in the guitar, and base the thing around a minor triad (in the key of E: E G B), a minor pentachord (E F# G A B), or a blues scale (E G A B♭ B D), inserting notes that sound 'right' where necessary. The Green Day riff is mostly the E blues scale, with the F# from the minor pentachord coming in at the end. When the chord changes to Am, the entire thing is transposed up a fourth to match the chord. That's standard practice for blues tunes; this is essentially a minor 12-bar blues, though the length of each phrase has been doubled so that instead of 12 bars split into 4-4-4, it's 24 bars split into 8-8-8. The last phrase alternates between B and C (V and ♭VI in the key of E minor; nothing special) for a bit, and at the end, the progression B-C-D# (V ♭VI VII) is just the last bit of the E harmonic minor scale (E F# G A **B C D#**) harmonized with major triads. There is an augmented second between C and D#, which gives the melodic motion a distinctive sound, but it also makes the progression sound like a [chromatic mediant progression](https://people.finearts.uvic.ca/~dclenman/MUS 201B/Week 6/Mediant relationships.pdf). D# is a half step below E, and leads back into Em quite easily. Compare to Henry Mancini's theme for [Peter Gunn](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK-b5PLhrEI). Here is a [transcription](http://i.imgur.com/LOWmUYo.jpg) of said riff. Key of F minor. It looks like the minor pentachord model. In both the Green Day tune and the Mancini tune, they're keeping this repetitive guitar thing at the very bottom of the guitar's range. Some other things that might be useful to you: this [chromatic walk-up/down thing](http://i.imgur.com/AtWvjgU.jpg) is a cliché in this style. Try ending on a [ tonic minor/major 9th chord](http://i.imgur.com/k6AKur7.jpg). I'd do the Muse song right now, but I don't have the time. Sorry. You should be able to apply the same principles. It's in A minor. There is a string section line that goes A G# F E D D# E G. Here is A harmonic minor: A B C D **E F G# A**. Here's an A blues scale: A C **D D# E G**. Capiche?

  850. musictheory 2015-09-29 11:25:03 ryanstephendavis
    Min9maj7 or Min13maj7 chords fosho.... Guitar licks on a single low string in a minor scale with a b5 thrown in and a ton of reverb too

  851. musictheory 2015-09-29 13:40:31 mootfoot
    Guitar with tremolo, bombastic horn arrangements during climaxes (can't really think of how to explain this otherwise... Listen to any spy movie/show theme ever), stepwise chromatic motion in string parts to thicken background harmony, minor line clichés (google it/this is one way to do chromatic motion in string arrangements), and minor major 9 chords. It's a combination of a lot of things. This isn't an exhaustive list, it's just a few things common to the "genre." If you tried to make a song incorporating all of those elements, you'd probably find it sounding pretty spyish and pretty derivative.

  852. musictheory 2015-09-29 23:15:36 zombiedanceprod
    Are you talking about when a player would slide their hand up the string increasing pitch? As a guitarist i know what you mean but im not sure there is a word for it in theory. Or if it has a word, one that i dont know.

  853. musictheory 2015-09-30 03:21:23 x_Gr1M
    So I did a bit more research, and it would seem that a portamento is the more fluid sub-type of the glissando. Glissando is very broadly defined as a glide, or slide, from one pitch to another. By nature of the harp or piano, every note (in tune at least) has it's own distinct exact pitch that cannot be bent higher or lower by fractions during playing. So while you can glissando, you cannot roll through every single frequency as you described with your synth example. However the voice, string families, and competent wind players (to a degree) could indeed produce a sound like that you are describing.

  854. musictheory 2015-10-01 05:10:08 shockwave_supernova
    I dunno if you have already, but my 4 "quick" tips are: learn the notes all over the fretboard, learn all the diatonic scales/modes, learn the order of triads for those scales, and learn at least the basic alphabet of chords all over. Realistically, all this takes months, if not years to fully get down without having to give it too much thought. This is basically total guitar knowledge. Knowing where all the notes are will help you avoid hitting a sour note and to stay in key (if that's what you're looking to do; playing out can sound good too). Knowing the diatonic scales/modes (major, dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aeolian, locrian, pentatonic, etc) will probably open up the biggest door, at least it has for me in terms of more interesting ideas. A good way to learn them is play them in all shapes vertically, horizontally, and diagonally across the fretboard. A good way to form an opinion on the modes - this is crucial - is to play a drone in they key of your choice, I prefer E because I can just pick the low E string, and play the modes over it. Joe Satriani has a great lesson on the modes on YouTube. The order of triads will help you be able to play chords within the key more easily, and avoid always using barre chords. There's tons of info on this online, but basically every scale has a scale degree, and of each degree, a different triad can be played: major, minor, diminished, etc). Being able to play these chords in different keys will add flavor to your solos and increase your overall musical knowledge. Knowing the basic alphabet of chords just continues on that same train. Learn all the open chords, then your 5, 7, suspended, all those chords available to you will tear down basically any remaining barriers to your soloing. It's a long and intimidating list, I'm still working on it myself, but at the end of it all you'll be a totally different player, in a good way! Shameless fanboy plug: tune into Satriani's monthly lessons on Guitar World for more ideas. He has one on building melody and another on blurring the lines between major and minor which I have found incredibly helpful!

  855. musictheory 2015-10-03 05:47:37 xiipaoc
    B means barre, which means that you hold your index finger over all of the strings. (1/2)B means half-barre, which means that you hold your index finger over some of the strings. The Roman numeral is the position of your index finger. So if you see IX, that means put your index finger at the 9th fret. If you see BVIII, barre at the 8th fret. If you see (1/2)BV, half-barre at the 5th fret. As others have pointed out, C also means barre, and there are other ways to denote a half-barre as well, like a crossed-out B. Note that Arabic numerals can mean frets *or* left-hand fingers (1 is index, 2 middle, etc); the letters pimac are the five right-hand fingers; a number (or note letter) in a circle refers to a string (1 is the top string).

  856. musictheory 2015-10-03 09:30:16 Jon91L
    You have the pitches D, C, F# and A from bottom to top. This is a D7 chord. An F# diminished chord should have an Eb, not a D. The 6th fret on the A string will work and it's accessible. And from there you can easily resolve to the D in the bass if that's the direction you're trying to go!

  857. musictheory 2015-10-05 09:50:09 Otaivi
    There is something else you can do to fix the intonation problem. You can get True Temperament frets, these special frets fix the intonation problem. But I think you are locked to one tuning on a guitar if you install them ( I am unsure of that problem but would love to know if that actually happens or is it just some sort of misconception). Also, you need to be careful with choosing string gauges in general when it comes to tuning guitars.

  858. musictheory 2015-10-05 09:50:32 _Chappie_
    The intonation problems of the guitar are not related to the use of tempered tuning. Even if you imagine tempered tuning as the "ideal" tuning you're looking for the guitar doesn't quite get it. Ideally I would like to build a guitar, even an impossibly impractical one if need be, that is as consonant (within the tempered tuning system) as a piano is. I don't have the vocabulary to communicate to you exactly what I mean, but if you have the opportunity pick up a guitar and play E2 (the lowest open string in standard tuning) and E5 (the 12th fret of the highest string). Both of them, being in tempered tuning, should sound perfectly consonant but the unfortunate fact of the guitar is that they really don't.

  859. musictheory 2015-10-05 11:09:26 nlaeae
    > I don't have the vocabulary to communicate to you exactly what I mean, but if you have the opportunity pick up a guitar and play E2 (the lowest open string in standard tuning) and E5 (the 12th fret of the highest string). Both of them, being in tempered tuning, should sound perfectly consonant but the unfortunate fact of the guitar is that they really don't. Yup. Most likely the guitar strings have some degree of inharmonicity in their partials, just like the strings of a piano. With inharmonic partials, even normally consonant sounds can "clash" and sound out of tune. Things can be even worse than that since the frequencies can drift and wobble after the string is plucked - pianos and bowed strings just do not have this problem to the same degree.

  860. musictheory 2015-10-05 11:57:15 GuitarGreg
    In my experience, you need to have a few conditions satisfied to have stable tuning up the neck: Fresh strings - depending on your environment, the acidity of your sweat, and frequency of your playing, this could mean that strings even a day old are already no good. Proper string gauge - this depends on your playing style and tuning. Thicker strings have more inharmonicity but are more stable in general. A proper set up, done for your string gauge, for your tuning, by a competent luthier/tech/player. Generally, plain old E standard is the most stable tuning. The guitar scale was designed around this tuning, and luthiers build their guitars with this tuning in mind. The lower you tune, the more susceptible the strings are to being pulled out of tune by sloppy technique, because the strings have less tension. You can counter this to some degree by getting thicker strings but then you are fighting inharmonicity. Really, the higher up the neck you go, the more impeccable your technique has to be. The same unintentional bending pressure applied (either by pushing or pulling the note toward or away from the bridge, or pushing the note too hard down into the fret board) to a note on the lowest string in the first position would have far less of an effect than it would have at the 19th fret high E. The same pressure applied to two different notes has a relative effect on the pitch, not an absolute one. Because of this, your technique has to be tighter as you go up the neck. I like to think of this in terms of the fact that lower frequencies require more energy to replicate, and more energy to modify. This amount of relative effect is modulated by the fact that each string has a different amount of tension on it, and greater absolute tension (measured in pounds) will deter modification of pitch via bending. So it is tricky to quantify this without incorporating tension into the equation. But my basic idea is that a small amount of relative change at a low pitch is less perceptible than it is at a higher pitch, because the notes in the higher register are further apart from each other, Hz wise, so the same relative shift translated up to the higher register has a greater absolute effect on the pitch, and thus on any harmony that is occurring. In my experience, if you have a well built guitar and a very good player, you can achieve nearly perfect intonation with standard frets. Another trick is to tune your guitar by first tuning one string to a tuning fork or tuning pedal (generally the A string @ 440Hz), then tune the rest of the guitar to that string, alternating high and low strings. So the way I tune my guitar is to tune my A string with a tuning fork, then I tune my B string to the 2nd fret B on A string, then I tune my D string to the 3rd fret D on the B string, then E string to the 2nd fret on the D string, then low E to the high E, then G string by matching 2nd fret G string to the open A string. This accounts for and helps balance the effects inharmonicity of the strings across the register of the instrument, and if you have a good ear and are patient you can generally get very, very good results. This works great with acoustic guitars too, if you are picky about it and spend 5 minutes getting it just right, the chords just sing because all the overtones are matching up much more harmoniously than if you just tune every open string to the so-called proper tuning (82, 110, 146, 196, 246, 329). I think this is generally how piano tuners do their tuning as well, they match the strings to each other, not to an absolute reference point. The thicker piano strings have way more inharmonicity in them than guitar strings do.

  861. musictheory 2015-10-05 12:46:00 adrianmonk
    I don't understand how that would help. What is sympathetic vibration supposed to do? How would it change the pitch of the regular strings? Let's say I play an A and a C# at the 14th fret on the G and B strings. They start vibrating at a frequency determined by the fret position and tension in the strings (but also affected by a few things like string action, how hard I push down with my fingers). Then, if I had these 7 extra strings, by what physical process would it affect the frequency of the 2 strings I actually am playing?

  862. musictheory 2015-10-05 13:10:14 0ptixs
    This is also an issue of inharmonicity - Those notes, if the fundamentals are perfectly tuned together so that E2 is 82.5hz and your E5 is 8x that frequency at 660hz, the octave will probably sound too narrow because the partials of the lower string will drift progressively sharper as they ascend. (I can explain why that is, if you want, but [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inharmonicity) is a wikipedia article on this very topic. Piano tuners take this into account when setting the intonation of a piano, so that this effect is hidden, which is partially migitated by the fact that the strings are able to exist at much higher tensions and lengths than the guitar can. Have you ever noticed that a small piano, even when "perfectly tuned" still sounds more out-of-tune than a 9ft grand piano? Or heck, an in-tune organ (which by the way, is not subject to inharmonicity, like the piano and guitar are).

  863. musictheory 2015-10-05 13:12:19 mootfoot
    Hope I'm not late to the party. But I think that the people pointing to equal temperament tuning are correct (even if you protest). Take fret n of a given string. The frequency of the note sounded by that fret, assuming the guitar is perfectly built and intonated, will be 2^(n/12) times the frequency of the starting note. So, say we tune the A string of the guitar by a perfect 220 Hz, then want to tune the D string by pressing on the 5th fret of the A string. 220 * 2^(5/12) is 293.66ish. But in a perfect world, the true frequency of that D should be 293.33. I don't care to do the logarithmic math to figure out how many cents off that is, but suffice it to say that we're already a few cents off of where we should be. Now, the method of tuning by harmonics is similarly flawed: The A achieved by playing the harmonic at the 7th fret of the D string is in fact a perfect fifth above the open string of D (that is to say, a frequency ratio of 3:2). This means that we end up getting the coveted 293.33 frequency for our open D string frequency, but this means that playing the A string at the 5th fret will sound slightly off from the open D string frequency (since the A string is actually playing 293.66). Hopefully you can see that this problem kind of spiderwebs from here, and there's a billion minute problems with any given tuning situation. Sorry if my explanation is a bit mathy, but that's a very brief glimpse into how equal temperament tuning ALWAYS compromises the "purity" of some intervals. You can reason using this same math that whenever you play a power chord, you're pretty much never going to have a perfect fifth or even a perfect octave, unless you specifically tune those frets to the right frequencies. This gets compounded with more complicated chord voicings. As far as the guitar being specifically poorly intonated... Well, I don't know what to say about that. The reason that the G and B strings are notorious for sounding out of tune is for a couple of reasons: first, the major 3rd interval between them makes tuning them together a bit of a pain, and second, these are typically the largest non-wound strings on a guitar (B string for acoustics, G string for electrics). I don't know the specifics of the physics behind what makes that problematic, but I'd assume it's the fact that they have a lot of surface area and not a lot of grip (unlike wound strings). There's also the fact that there's a lot of luthiers at all levels that for whatever reason don't know how to cut a nut right (come on, people). The wound string thing would also explain the voodoo behind that other guy who made the comment about baritone guitars having "perfect intonation down the neck," since (correct me if I'm wrong) baritone guitars have all wound strings. Who knows? Hope I at least helped point you towards answers you might not have thought of/heard of before. EDIT: I just read GuitarGreg's post on how to tune a guitar. If your goal was to get your guitar to play in tune, then listen to that man. I tune my guitars pretty much the exact same way, and it will save you the headache of trying to tune the strings straight down the axe and ending up with a mess of a tuning job at the end. The "inharmonicity" (I don't know if that's a word, but I don't have a better one) of the guitar that he referred to is what I was talking about above. Cheers!

  864. musictheory 2015-10-05 13:12:31 0ptixs
    > pianos and bowed strings just do not have this problem to the same degree. Bowed string instruments don't have this problem at all, in fact. And as for pianos... I took a course in piano tuning this year, and let me tell you, there are some horribly inharmonic pianos out there.

  865. musictheory 2015-10-05 13:15:12 0ptixs
    I can't imagine why that would be, the length/string tension to string gauge ratio is less than that of a regular (tenor) guitar, so the inharmonicity should be higher, in theory. If anything, I imagine the problem would be worse.

  866. musictheory 2015-10-05 23:13:40 shoolocomous
    Expressive technique without a doubt. This is quite common in modern interpretations of vivaldi, in parts of the four seasons for example are often played with non standard bow tone to highlight the solo part and create this wild, 'uncontrolled' impression. The music is not itself difficult (meaning no pressure) and there is therefore next to 0 chance that a professional string player would create this sound unintentionally. The fact that they are both co-rdinating sounds in this clip should be another clue if it were needed that they are both 100% in control of the sound they are creating.

  867. musictheory 2015-10-06 18:33:08 Xenoceratops
    You just gotta be vigilant. Analyze everything that comes your way. Many non-Western folk and classical traditions make extensive use of modes other than major/ionian and minor/aeolian. Irish trad music uses ionian, mixolydian, aeolian, and dorian almost exclusively. [Check out these two tunes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgMbTjm_WzU): 0:00 - Apples in Winter (E dorian), 1:01 - The Mooncoin (A mixolydian). Scottish tunes are much the same, with the rare lydian number here and there. [Here's a good set](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bZjM7CIJjI): 0:00 - P.M. Jimmy MacGregor (E♭ major) 1:00 - James MacLellan's Favourite (C aeolian) 1:55 - The Snuff Wife (A♭ lydian in the first part, B♭ mixolydian in the second part) 2:50 - Inspector Donald Campbell of Canterach (B♭ major; pentatonic collection - B♭ C D F G). In addition to the diatonic collections, Balkan folk music uses what we would think of as harmonic minor modes. [Boris Karlov - Gankino Horo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_X39UG1nbg) - Makam nikriz, or D dorian #4 (same pitches as A harmonic minor). There is a lot of influence from the former Ottoman empire in that part of the world so the modal system of Turkish classical music is present in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Albania, Serbia, etc. In the Turkish system, they don't really think of scales as this thing that spans an octave, but rather as a bunch of interlocking tetrachords and pentachords. For instance, rather than C major being C D E F G A B C, they'd split it up into C D E F G, and then G A B C. To illustrate the point, here is a composition called [Nikriz Sirto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd-UdtoJVo0). And [here](http://i.imgur.com/2vTlcoX.jpg) is a transcription of the basic melody (without all of the ornamentation). I've pointed out areas where multiple complete ajnas (tetrachords or pentachords) are together. The entire composition is centered on that D nikriz pentachord (D E F G# A), but other ajnas are happening above and below it. Specifically, whenever we dip below D4, we enter the territory of an A hiçaz tetrachord (A B♭ C# D). Notice that the D from A hiçaz is share by D nikriz. When we go above A4, we enter the territory of an A bûselik tetrachord (A B C D). Once again, notice that it shares the pitch A with the D nikriz pentachord. And then there's some crazy shit going on in the second section. [Miserlou](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y3h9p_c5-M), popularized in the West by Dick Dale, uses the pitches E F G# A B C D#, which you'll hear some people call a "double harmonic major scale," or a little more accurately, "hiçaz kar," because it is a hiçaz on top of another hiçaz. E hiçaz pentachord = E F G# A B B hiçaz tetrachord = B C D# E E double harmonic major/hiçaz kar = E F G# A **B** C D# E They share that B. Anyway, more examples before I go to bed. [Boris Karlov - Dajcovo Horo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLanxageaKs) - Makam hiçaz, or F# phrygian dominant (same pitches as B harmonic minor). That isn't to say that you can't find other modes in Western music. Michael Jackson's [Thriller](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOnqjkJTMaA) is in C# dorian. PVG arrangement [here](http://www.mediafire.com/view/a7i7mn3aagf3r3d/MichaelJackson-NumberOnes.pdf). Beethoven wrote a string quartet movement in [F lydian](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiZRq6sJKeg) (though the second bit goes to D major, about 3:30). He headed the movement with the words, "Heiliger Dankgesang eines Genesenen an die Gottheit, in der lydischen Tonart," or, "A convalescent's holy song of thanksgiving to the Deity, in the lydian mode." [Bo Diddley's eponymous song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJj22Z006ec) is in G mixolydian.

  868. musictheory 2015-10-07 03:04:39 MiskyWilkshake
    >Ooooh its the same finger positions. Basically i can just learn these and capo whatever key i want to play? Exactly. And they're all figured for ease of barring (perhaps with the exception of the dim7), so you don't even need a capo. Do bear in mind though that these are very basic voicings, so you don't want to get so reliant on them that you forget how to rearrange, invert, and colour your chords when the music calls for it. >Man this post actually makes me give up on piano and just songwrite on the guitar first, then just match the piano afterwards. Why do you think so many singer-songwriters (who have to match their songwriting to their own singing range) play guitar? :P >The X:s are just the finger all over the fret (from the lowest number)? The Xs just mean that this string is not played. If you pluck with your fingers, you can simply play the other notes on their own with four of your fingers; if you play with a plectrum, then you can either carefully place the pick on the second string and strum all but the last, or else mute those strings marked with an X (by lightly placing your finger anywhere along it's length so that it cannot ring out), and strumming all the strings. >Also how did i know how many frets to jump. This requires some basic knowledge of music theory. The major scale is comprised of the following pattern: TTSTTTS, where a T stands for a Tone, and an S stands for a Semitone. Each fret on a guitar is a semitone apart (making a tone 2 frets). Let's look at C major. The C major scale goes: C D E F G A B, and then back to C an octave up. * There is one tone (two semitones) between C and D, so C will be two frets lower on a guitar than D. * There is one tone (two semitones) between D and E, so D will be two frets lower on a guitar than E. * There is one semitone between E and F, so E will be one fret lower on a guitar than F. * There is one tone (two semitones) between F and G, so F will be two frets lower on a guitar than G. * There is one tone (two semitones) between G and A, so G will be two frets lower on a guitar than A. * There is one tone (two semitones) between A and B, so A will be two frets lower on a guitar than B. * There is one semitone between B and C, so B will be one fret lower on a guitar than C. So, if [X3555X] is a Cmaj chord, and the 3 is the root-note (it is indeed - counting three frets up on an A-string gives you *A#/Bb* - *B* - **C**) then you know that a Dmaj chord must be the same major shape, slid up two frets (because D is two semitones higher than C). Make sense?

  869. musictheory 2015-10-07 14:38:38 Xenoceratops
    There are two methods of looking at the diatonic modes: relative and parallel. * **Relative** compares scales that have the **same notes, but different tonic pitches**. Example: C lydian (C D E F# G A B) and A dorian (A B C D E F# G). * **Parallel** compares scales that have **different notes, but the same tonic pitch**. Example: **C** lydian (C D E F# G A B) and **C** dorian (C D E♭ F G A B♭). My opinion is that parallel is more useful for composers and improvisers. The reason? It deals with qualities and moods rather than an arbitrary ordering of the scales. In the diatonic collection, there are 3 major tonic scales, 3 minor tonic scales, and 1 diminished tonic scale (theoretically). **Major Tonic Chord** * Lydian - C D E F# G A B - 1 2 3 #4 5 6 7 * Ionian - C D E F G A B - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * Mixolydian - C D E F G A B♭ - 1 2 3 4 5 6 ♭7 **Minor Tonic Chord** * Dorian - C D E♭ F G A B♭ - 1 2 ♭3 4 5 6 ♭7 * Aeolian - C D E♭ F G A♭ B♭ - 1 2 ♭3 4 5 ♭6 ♭7 * Phrygian - C D♭ E♭ F G A♭ B♭ - 1 ♭2 ♭3 4 5 ♭6 ♭7 **Diminished Tonic Chord** * Locrian - C D♭ E♭ F G♭ A♭ B♭ - 1 ♭2 ♭3 4 ♭5 ♭6 ♭7 Notice that the flats accumulate as we go down the list. Nice, huh? That tells us something about the character of each mode. As you go down the list, the mood gets darker. What is your instrument? From that incomprehensible string of dashes and 0's in your original post, I'm going to assume guitar. I wielded all of my Finale skills and wrought [this chart](http://i.imgur.com/GYlML2q.jpg) to give you something to look at and practice with. There are two vertical columns, one for major the other for minor, and diminished is floating down there at the bottom by itself. Compare the three modes in the major column to each other (lydian, ionian, mixolydian), then compare the three modes in the minor column to each other (dorian, aeolian, phrygian), and then compare the majors modes to the minor modes. Listen to the feel of each mode. Then, find the most contrasting modes between the major and minor column. These are lydian and phrygian. Lydian is very bright, phrygian is very dark. Now find the least contrasting modes. These are mixolydian and dorian; the only note that they have different between them is 3/♭3 (or E/E♭, if you want to speak in terms of pitch). These are interesting things you can find by comparing modes as parallel entities. Knowing that C ionian and D dorian contain the same pitch classes does not really help you that much; knowing the order of modes from brightest to darkest, and what the quality of their tonic chord is, helps you a lot. You might be interested in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3nmwvy/can_someone_help_me_identify_this_scale/cvpy143) I made in another thread. It's one thing to merely conceptualize modes, but another thing entirely to hear them in practice (and to put them in practice yourself). I suggest you look at some folk music that uses a variety of modes before trying to come at it from a "jazz" angle, because chord-scale relationships are not at all what real modal music is about. Notation for a couple of tunes from that post: [Apples in Winter](http://abcnotation.com/tunePage?a=thesession.org/tunes/299.no-ext/0001) (E dorian) [The Mooncoin Jig](http://abcnotation.com/tunePage?a=sf.ccewest.org/music/abc/Jigs/0029) (A mixolydian)

  870. musictheory 2015-10-07 15:31:05 Confoundicator
    Maybe borrow stringed instruments terminology? Sul tasto - means play the string in the middle to produce a dark, sine-wave like timbre with almost no overtones. Sul pont (ponticello) - means play right on top of the bridge, to produce a bright, piercing timbre rich with overtones. Is there a brass equivalent? I have no idea. Cheers!

  871. musictheory 2015-10-10 03:57:18 crabapplesteam
    As none of the other answers are actually from the classical period, let me throw in [Haydn's Joke string quartet, movement 4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDkWBzH6dkE)

  872. musictheory 2015-10-10 04:49:36 [deleted]
    Personally I don't think it gets any more bizarre than Stockhausen's opera cycle, *Licht*. Everything about it is extreme. It is comprised of seven operas, one for each day of the week. The total time it would take to perform the entire cycle is around 29 hours, and it took almost 30 years to be composed. The entire cycle is composed serially, but not in a way that I've yet been able to understand. Rather than merely using a tone-row, or serialization of rhythm and time ala Babbitt's time-point system, it uses what Stockhausen called a "Super Formula" that takes into account pitch, duration, dynamic, gesture, instrumental techniques, and even the characters of the opera themselves. Again, I don't really understand it too much but there are some good articles about it online. The theatrics are unlike anything else in opera. In the third act of *Mittwoch*, four real helicopters take off and fly above the audience, each carrying a member of a string quartet playing music which is recorded and streamed back to the stage and played through speakers. This is also published as a separate piece called "Helikopter-Streichquartett". I haven't listened to too much of it, but there are some strikingly beautiful things in it from moments that I've heard. Definitely worth investigating more. EDIT: Here is an article on the super formula: http://stockhausenspace.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-brief-guide-to-licht-pt-2-super.html

  873. musictheory 2015-10-11 00:06:03 sstrader
    For those wondering, this links to Steve Reich's Come Out. Excellent piece and one of the iconic early experimental electronic works. A later work of his, [Different Trains](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E4Bjt_zVJc&list=RD1E4Bjt_zVJc) is also notable. Three movement double string quartet with taped voices and train whistles. Very moving.

  874. musictheory 2015-10-12 20:39:40 leonardearl
    First, you need to distinguish between harmonics and harmony. Harmonics are a technique for playing string instruments, as you said. Harmony is usage of chords in the music. When we talk about the harmony of a piece, we're discussing the chords and relationships between the chords it employs. Harmonic texture refers both to the chords themselves and the way they're presented. Two common harmonic textures, for example, are arpeggios (playing the notes of the chords one after another, up and down) and block chords (playing the notes of the chords all at once, as close to each other as possible), though the limit is really the imagination of the composer.

  875. musictheory 2015-10-13 00:44:21 stanley_bobanley
    Based on the James Blake example (and generally, I'd say), I think Pharrell might be referring to the *colourful* chords used throughout. In many Western genres of music, the most basic harmony you can create would involve two or three of the foundational notes in a chord: [The Root, the 3rd, or the 5th](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triad_(music). Harmonies / chords built using these notes exclusively can be considered *bland*. In the James blake example, those first two chords F7 - Bbm(add 9) feature some extended harmonies: 7ths and 9ths (2nds). This is a richer harmonic texture (ie, 4 note harmonies vs 3). To touch a bit on "harmony": This can simply refer to the simultaneity of notes. For example, during ear training tests, chords are played both "harmonically", that is all the notes at once, and "melodically", that is the notes as a melody, often referred to as an [arpeggio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpeggio) or broken chord. [Guitar Harmonics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar_harmonics) come from the same idea of simultaneous notes: When you chime harmonics on a guitar, you're sounding the notes that naturally occur in the overtone series of the pitch that the string is currently tuned to. The string is tuned to a fundamental frequency (or note) and the specific "harmonics" points on a fretboard are that fundamental frequency's overtones. Here's the wiki for that, if you're up for a read: [Harmonic Series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music)

  876. musictheory 2015-10-14 23:00:20 hehyih
    You have a very very very broad question that cant be answered easily. What I can tell you is if you're interested in heavy orchestral music, I cannot recommend Shostakovich enough. His is the metal head of the classical world. Check out works like the 2nd movement to his 8th string quartet, His 4th symphony, the 2nd movement to the 10th symphony, and the cello concerto as a start. You can find the scores online on places like classical-music-online.net

  877. musictheory 2015-10-16 09:39:17 nmitchell076
    Well part of it surely has to do with the centrality of figured bass to the music theory classroom. While one could incorporate figured bass perhaps on a strummed string instrument, it would be harder to teach figured bass using something like a trumpet or a voice (though a solfeggio-based instruction would be sort of interesting). I also think part of it surely has to do with instructor convenience. It's no coincidence that classroom examples in, say, the Laitz textbook are overwhelmingly piano music. I think it's in large part so a competent instructor can bang it out in front of the classroom rather than playing a disembodied recording. Thus the keyboard is already a part of the classroom experience, so to make it a part of the learning experience isn't too big of a step. Still, I think there are places for other types of instruments to enter in. I think Renaissance counterpoint, for instance, works best if you get people singing and using their voices. And I don't think the piano is objectively the best, just that it's certainly easy to see why it has the status in the classroom that it does. As for the sample size of the impact study, this is much the same issue we had with the Horn & Huron. I guess I just don't really have enough experiences with "impact studies" (such that I'm not even sure what that means) to know what cosntitutes a valid sample size for that kind of study. I would like to see institutional variation, kids in a conservatory environment might have a much different attitude towards theory and the keyboard than liberal arts students. But I don't really know! It'll be interesting to read his ideas nonetheless.

  878. musictheory 2015-10-19 09:05:11 EliQuince
    Even classical music generally still falls into the chord-scale thing because that's just what's pleasing to the ear. A more in depth explanation would be like: take a single string, divide it in half you have an octave, keep breaking down the ratio 3:2 etc., and you have the major scale, perfect ratios sound harmonious and imperfect ratios sound disharmonious, past that it's just figuring out how you want to express yourself and keep it sounding musical, using this ratio formula as a basis from which to create tension and release and generally 'tell a story'. It really depends on how you define music- you can break away from this paradigm almost completely when exploring things like Indian music, and you realize that defining what 'music' is, is really the question. You could play any note over any chord and call it music. You could play no note over no chord and call it music. It's an art form, an expression of self. Like I said, the original guys weren't thinking about the theory, they were having a conversation with their fellow band mates in a musical language which, while Western, was also just an expression of self.. I've kind of lost my train of thought and I apologize but I hope I've helped answer your question at least to some degree.

  879. musictheory 2015-10-20 09:37:19 McFystine
    I'm not sure, but this might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_key I think it's also important to note that they managed to change the mood by playing the rythmic part differently (and changing chord progression), but also by using other instruments for the melody, brass instruments playing joyfuly the main melody, while the 1:30 melody is played by string intruments

  880. musictheory 2015-10-21 04:24:00 jigglehorse
    A power chord is not always the root and the 5th. Although it is often perceived as such because power chords are often taught often in the context of the fixed root fifth hand position that you can move around universally on the E A D strings for the root. These two intervals are most commonly used because of there resonance and ability to fit into any major or minor chord's place in an arrangement as a substitute. Power chords can constitute any real two note harmonization between the tonic and any note between the tonic and the octave. You can have tonic + 4th (common in blues[sometimes referred to as a double stop]), tonic + minor 6 (common in a lot of metal music) + tonic + major 6 (common as a pivot chord in a lot of blues and boogie woogie type arrangements[think sliding your index finger from B > C# > D on the A string in an E blues). All of these have potential as "power chords" persay, but none of them will be as "powerful" as the 5 chord, due to it being the strongest interval.

  881. musictheory 2015-10-21 04:56:23 jigglehorse
    This situation is the most common one where you run into problems. So a "fifth" is not actually a specific interval, but an umbrella that 3 intervals fall into. We have the perfect fifth, which is one string over and a whole step up from the tonic. This is what most power chords are made of. But we also have Augmented 5th's and Diminished 5ths. Because a 7th triad built upon a B in the context of a C major scale is Bdim, not Bmaj/Bmin we have to take into account that the fifth is not perfect, but diminshed. I would approach this in 2 ways. First use a d5 instead of a P5 which would be half a steppe down, so F instead of F#. But the more common approach, in my experience, is to treat the B power chord as a transition instead of something you would jam on and play B and G (the min 6 in relation to B) for a brief moment, and shortly follow with C and G (G is the perfect 5th in relation to C). Playing a perfect fifth in a power chord using the 7th degree of a Major scale would require you to alter the scale to be a Major flat 5 but it would sound very chromatic, and you can avoid using a perfect 5th power chord by using one of the approaches I suggested.

  882. musictheory 2015-10-21 05:16:40 jigglehorse
    In major and harmonic variations of minor where the 7th degree is a leading tone. Bands that play in drop tuning are usually playing in minor (natural minor often is used for drop tunings, bands like tool, etc.) where the 7th degree is subtonic, so you can play perfect fifths all the way through the scale. This isn't always the case in drop tuning though. If you were playing in d major in drop d tuning, for example, where c# would be your 7th degree (which would fall on the 11th fret of the E string, one could just play G (the diminished 5th in relation to c#) which would fall on the 10th fret of the a string. So there wouldn't be any particular reason to avoid playing chords that involved diminished or augmented intervals unless they were in open position.

  883. musictheory 2015-10-22 00:35:26 DRL47
    "Double stop" means ANY two notes played together. It comes from string players playing (stopping) two different strings at the same time. It has come to include open (un-stopped) notes as well.

  884. musictheory 2015-10-22 06:34:15 m3g0wnz
    The string section can definitely stand up to the brass dynamically. So can percussion.

  885. musictheory 2015-10-22 07:01:07 m3g0wnz
    Well in an orchestra there are going to be between 12 and 65 string players compared to 6 to 15 brass. So I was assuming there were multiples of each instrument, not single instruments. Staccato doesn't have to do with volume, it has to do with note length, so there's no reason why legato strings wouldn't be heard against staccato brass, even if it was one violin and one trumpet. e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p9MryrMNsU You can hear the strings just fine even while the brass is playing forte. This is why thinking about orchestration from an EDM perspective is so bizarre to me—if you're writing for "orchestra," you're not writing for one trumpet against one cello panned right and one violin panned left with certain volume settings, you're writing for sections of instruments.

  886. musictheory 2015-10-22 23:15:53 scrdest
    For whole tone, listen to King Crimson's *Red* (the song, that is), it's used there prominently in the opening riff. It sounds kinda odd since it has no tonic centre. Hilariously easy to learn on guitar, since it's so damn symmetric - either all odd frets or all even frets, switch to the other one on the next string. IIRC it's been used in soundtracks for transition scenes for dream sequences for the same reason, too. Whole/half sounds like Locrian on steroids, very, very dark and dissonant, all minor seconds and thirds and tritone. Pretty commonly, for a non-diatonic scale in non-classical music, used in metal, for that very reason. HW shares the 1-b2-m3 with Phrygian, so it might give a bit darker Spain-esque vibe, too. I don't have much experience with Altered myself, so caveat... lector? - but you can tell at a glance it's closely related to the HW, except it has a tritone instead of a perfect fifth and doesn't have the major sixth, so it will likely sound even darker than HW.

  887. musictheory 2015-10-23 07:31:45 mage2k
    They've definitely been used aplenty in electronic music where they are very easy to create. For non-electric music you'd need multiple instruments to create the illusion of both a constantly rising or falling pitch as well as it being one really long sustained note. I think it'd be really cool to hear a full string section do it live.

  888. musictheory 2015-10-23 07:39:03 Codile
    > I think it'd be really cool to hear a full string section do it live. Yeah. That sounds really cool. > They've definitely been used aplenty in electronic music where they are very easy to create. I guess they're often used to create build-ups for the bass drops. The build-up usually sounds as if it's steadily increasing, without ever reaching an uncomfortable pitch or leaving the audible range. I never actually realized that even the long build-ups don't do either of those even though they should become uncomfortable after some time.

  889. musictheory 2015-10-23 16:18:48 tactopoda
    I've come across this attempt using a string quartet, I think what they've managed to accomplish is quite impressive. With even more instruments you could achieve something really fantastic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWoe1kSONB4

  890. musictheory 2015-10-24 00:14:25 Mentioned_Videos
    Videos in this thread: [Watch Playlist &#9654;](http://sbtl.tv/_r3pty3h?feature=playlist&nline=1) VIDEO|COMMENT -|- ["Shepard Roots" for string quartet. Alba Sánchez.](https://youtube.com/watch?v=RWoe1kSONB4)|[3](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3pty3h/_/cw9uswj) - I&#39;ve come across this attempt using a string quartet, I think what they&#39;ve managed to accomplish is quite impressive. With even more instruments you could achieve something really fantastic [Endless Stairs 10 Hours - Super Mario 64](https://youtube.com/watch?v=B-udfiFZcko)|[2](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3pty3h/_/cw9wr5g) - One of the most famous examples of using it in music is in Super Mario 64 [WHEN WILL THE BASS DROP? (ft. Lil Jon)](https://youtube.com/watch?v=XCawU6BE8P8)|[1](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3pty3h/_/cwa66nq) - Lol. That reminds me of When will the bass drop (WARNING: it&#39;s fairly gory at the end) [Ricardo, Butch (Butric) - Up](https://youtube.com/watch?v=qR-H36Vgr00)|[1](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3pty3h/_/cw9vhe7) - I apologise in advance.... Butric - Up I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. *** [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | [Chrome Extension](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf)

  891. musictheory 2015-10-24 07:27:38 SuperheroChuck
    But as a cellist, your wife should already know that those are different notes. It was my understanding that all string players understood that you need to tune "enharmonic" notes differently because they are entirely different pitches--a Db major chord with a properly tuned C# would sound grossly out of tune, because the pitches are something like 20 cents apart. How are you the one who's in trouble here? Seems to me like a serious oversight on her part.

  892. musictheory 2015-10-24 07:35:44 theoriemeister
    When students ask me this I ask them, "What do you mean exactly when you say they're the same? Yes, they're the same key on the piano and they sound the same--this is what enharmonics is all about." Once we get into building scales, especially minor scales like a#, g#, and d#, whose melodic and harmonic versions require the use of double sharps, they begin to understand what enharmonics is all about and don't ask that question any more. As for C# vs. Db (et al) tuning on string instruments, check out Ross Duffin's *How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (and Why You Should Care)*. He gets into such differences.

  893. musictheory 2015-10-24 10:14:51 DamonTarlaei
    I've got a violinist friend that I've been talking to a lot of this stuff about recently. I'm a freelance oboist, and play mostly principal, and so I spend a lot of time worrying about intonation of the wind section. I was talking to this friend about an orchestra we play in, and how nice it was to have a section that really understands tuning, and sectional playing. She's a very good player but it was a bit of a weird concept to her. Whereas the winds would be tuning the same chord with each player separate pitches across 3 octaves, spelling out a major chord, and where pitch, dynamics and colour have to match for a perfectly in tune chord. For her, she plays in a section where she is in unison with 4-12 different players, where she can't really hear her own pitch clearly. The concerns I had with widening perfect fifths, bring major thirds down, strengthening the tonic, dominant, and lowest notes to balance the chord etc were not things she had to think about personally. If a chord is unbalanced, the conductor fixes that, matching pitch with her desk partner and the pair in front is more important than nailing the perfect fifth above the principal viola three desks away. Our job descriptions were basically different. In terms of intonation, I spend my time listening down to the second bassoon and making sure there is an anchor for the upper winds, linked to the lowest instrument of the section. Knowing the harmony and anticipating where your pitch needs to be, and nail the intervals is key. It seems that front row string players think a lot more about it, but for the rest of the section, the "they are enharmonic so are the same" seems to be a good enough approximation that even if they are making subtle adjustments naturally, they don't need to actively know what they are doing with intonation. It's more focus on playing with the person to your side and in front of you, both in pitch and rhythm and bowing etc. The thing I don't quite get is how string players often don't realise that the intonation of their open strings is slightly out against a tuner. They typically tune perfect fifths, rather than equal temperament fifths... Sadly, I haven't spent enough time chatting about this with soloists to know what their thoughts on the whole thing are, but would be fascinated.

  894. musictheory 2015-10-24 10:53:11 xiipaoc
    > In equal temperament, they're the same pitch class. In *12-tone* equal temperament, you mean. Of course they are. But that's not the point. Db and C# are two very different names with very different meanings for the same sound, like "here" and "hear". There's this meme going around that C# and Db are actually different pitches on a string instrument. That's not exactly right, because it completely depends on interpretation. The point is that C# and Db are not interchangeable.

  895. musictheory 2015-10-24 11:14:32 xiipaoc
    > It was my understanding that all string players understood You don't understand string players, then. That's OK; anyone who doesn't play winds, brass, or percussion is barely even a musician! (Except string bass. Those guys are OK in my book. Harp, too. And vocalists. Suck it, violin/viola/cello players and nobody else!) Seriously, though, this is not universal, and it doesn't even make sense in a lot of more modern music. I would expect that *some* professionals in some genres would tune this way, but that's not true for everyone. The problem is really that this is a misconception: > they are entirely different pitches--a Db major chord with a properly tuned C# would sound grossly out of tune, because the pitches are something like 20 cents apart. See, you don't get to define what "properly tuned" means. In absolute terms, there's no strict definition for what frequencies C# or Db have to be. It's up to the musician to alter his or her tuning in subtle ways to make the note sound better, and that's going to depend a lot on context. Who else is playing? What are they playing? Are you going to have to reinterpret that C# as a Db in the next measure when the piece modulates? And even if you want to use JI (Just Intonation), you'd have to realize that JI was dropped in favor of equal temperament for a reason. Forget Db and C#. If you go up two fifths from C, you get D. If you go down two fifths, you get Bb, and up a major third, D. Those two D's are not the same pitch in JI! Once you start using JI, you lose a major part of your harmonic flexibility. A more proper way of putting this tuning quirk of (some) string players is that, *when playing melodically*, leading tones are generally raised a bit and major thirds are generally lowered a bit. Note that these two tendencies fuck each other as soon as you get harmony! Say you're in C major. The leading tone is B, harmonized by a G major chord. B is the leading tone, so you have to raise it a bit. B is also the major third of the G major chord, so you have to lower it a bit too. FAIL. Actually, 12-tone equal temperament already raises the leading tone for you. If you listen to music in 19-tone equal temperament, the major thirds are much more in tune, but the leading tones are also much lower. Anyway, the point is that subtly altering tuning based on note interpretation is an option, but it's not required and it's specifically contraindicated by the mathematical realities of harmony that inspired 12-tone equal temperament in the first place.

  896. musictheory 2015-10-24 12:23:52 urh75
    Great explanation. Just would like to add that it depends on the ensemble you are playing in. Matching B with a piano will be different from matching B in a string quartet. Even if the function is the same.

  897. musictheory 2015-10-24 12:55:55 japaneseknotweed
    I think you might not be getting it. >Although a pitch remains the same, it is totally defined by its context. Only on piano/in tempered tuning. In many, many situations the pitch is *not* the same. if you are playing in just/Pythagorean intonation, on an instrument that can make microadjustments, *when the context changes, so does the pitch.* The close, ringing harmonies you hear in orchestral brass flourishes, acapella vocal ensembles, and a ton of string music from quartets to bluegrass, wouldn't have the "shine" if the players didn't make these distinctions.

  898. musictheory 2015-10-24 12:59:42 japaneseknotweed
    Here's a good analogy for civilians: When you walk into the ground floor of a two-storey house, that flat wooden thing over your head is the *ceiling*. When you walk upstairs, it's now the *floor*. It might be the same planks of wood, but its role is very very different. Now, as far as your wife goes, tell her to check that her strings are tuned in perfect fifths. Now, play a double stop between open G and first-finger E on the D string. Make sure it really rings. Now try that same E against the A string above. How does the fourth sound? Try the same experiment with various scales. Use an online app to identify *precisely* which E sounds right when played within a C, F, A and C#minor scale. But try not to be a jerk, OK? String players are not always taught what's really going on, they're just told to listen and practice a lot.

  899. musictheory 2015-10-24 20:51:19 Salemosophy
    Instruments like piano and guitar just have to be tuned in advance to 'just' intervals. An instrument like trombone has a slide that a performer can simply position slightly shorter or longer on some notes to bend them. Brass players can use their embouchures to bend. Flutes can roll out or roll in to bend. Clarinets can move their bells between their knees to lower pitch. String players can obviously adjust their finger positions on the fingerboard (but they usually have a different set of overtones that tend to make them go sharp). Instruments like winds and brass aren't necessarily exclusive to one tuning system or another, but because of the overtones these instruments produce (that contribute to the characteristic qualities of the tone produced by wind instruments), the intonation issues are possibly more apparent. When you think about the colors that a wind ensemble can create, we're talking about a huge collage of sounds. A lot more than just "how instruments are designed/tuned" goes into answering your question, so this is the best I can do for ya.

  900. musictheory 2015-10-25 01:26:02 MmEeTtAa
    It's used whenever possible bud. I'm aware string players can't adjust tuning on their open strings at times, but when chords can be adjusted to sound more in tune they always are.

  901. musictheory 2015-10-25 02:57:12 jason_stanfield
    I'm not so sure about that. (A) As a cellist, she should be aware that the context of key makes a huge difference (a Db will be played *slightly* flat, a C# *slightly* sharp), but that string players need to adjust their tuning on the fly depending on what instrumentation they're with. Even within a string quartet, an A isn't always 440 Hz. (B) This is a technical aspect of a career, not an argument over how books should be arranged on the shelf. If she was a mechanic and kept, I dunno, using an incorrect belt in the motor, or something, it's proper to point out *this isn't the way you do it*. You **do** tread VERY lightly, but it's an important thing to know.

  902. musictheory 2015-10-25 13:04:53 MysteriousPickle
    No, not the same concept. If you come from a piano background, this is all going to sound very foreign to you, because you have no control over your pitch. Almost every other instrument can tune a note differently at will, and good players will do exactly that without thinking about it. First, to answer your question about piano tuning, every instrument is built with compromises. The realities of how piano strings are wound, and the physics of how the strings vibrate dictate the common "stretch" tuning you mentioned. If each string on a piano were to be tuned perfectly to exact octaves, it would sound out of tune to our ears. Octaves on a piano are tuned slightly sharp to compensate for the fact that the overtones of a real piano string (as opposed to some magical string you might study in a physics class) are NOT in tune. Now to try and explain what all the other instruments are up to... Ensemble musicians spend a great deal of their lives learning to play "in tune", but very rarely are they taught what that actually means. Usually it's explained as simply adjusting your pitch so that the beating sound between different players is minimized. Depending on the key, and which note in a chord you're playing, you'll adjust the pitch up our down to sound the most in tune with your surrounding players. A modern piano is tuned to equal temperament, or "the ultimate compromise". What this comes down to is that except for octaves, EVERY INTERVAL ON THE PIANO IS OUT OF TUNE!!! Sorry to yell.... The truth of it is that pianos (and organs) evolved to use equal temperament over many years to make life simpler for composers (and performers) who were increasingly deviating from simple harmonic forms, or wanted to module to keys far removed from the original. If you've got an electronic keyboard that lets you set temperament, go ahead and set it to just temperament in C major, and play a piece in b major. You will suddenly find your ears have a magical connection to your eyebrows. So, why do we not complain that everything is out of tune on a piano? Well, simply put, we're used to it. We're accustomed to major thirds sounding like a clanging pot because we've been listening to equal temperament our whole lives. If you grew up in before the romantic era, you might not have been so accepting of equal temperament.

  903. musictheory 2015-10-25 20:02:51 voxshades
    Everyone else seems to start their theory lessons in C Major because there are no sharps or flats. This works great for piano. But, I think your presentation using A Major, and illustrating it with the A string, works better for guitar. I also liked your recipe analogy. Great job.

  904. musictheory 2015-10-27 23:23:18 greenbluewhite
    Another DAW is Sonar. Your choice will partly depend on whether you are doing things on Windows or Mac. The DAW will record what you play on the keyboard - just the notes, not the sounds. Then you can edit it in a variety of notations. But to get realistic sound out you need one or more soft-synths, which plug into the DAW software. Kontakt is the one I use, but there are several. Listen to the demos and in particular for the type of music you want to write. A synth suitable for hip-hop will not help at all if you want to write a symphony - and vice versa. And getting realstic instrument sounds for wind and string instruments takes a *lot* of manual tweaking and knowledge of how those instruments work.

  905. musictheory 2015-10-28 07:39:21 paulchoixqc
    It doesn't have to be. These are just shitty cheat-sheets used to avoid confusion. Before the 5th fret on the E string, you can play the perfect fifth E and minor 7th G (open string and 3rd fret). You can play the open A string, minor third C on the 3rd fret, perfect fourth D on the open D string, perfect fifth E on the D string 3rd fret, and so on...

  906. musictheory 2015-10-28 13:02:24 WhyTheseNotes
    There's an easy explanation for that. M3 is actually more complex than M10. Think of the overtone series. * Tonic * Octave * Fifth * Fourth (2nd octave) * Major Third * Minor Third (fifth above 2nd octave) The "ideal" major third happens in the 2nd octave. If you play guitar here's a very easy way to confirm this. Go to Drop D tuning. Play the harmonics on 12, 7, 5, 4 Play the open D Major chord. Same notes (with some shifting due to equal temperament). Drop D, open D chord (minus the A string) is the overtone series exactly. All major thirds that are not in the 2nd octave are subtly inverted (if that's what you want to call it) into lower octaves.

  907. musictheory 2015-11-03 22:36:40 klaviersonic
    Get a book of written scales and arpeggios, without tablature. Since you already have them memorized, it will be easy to observe the notation while playing what you already know. This way, you're connecting a concept you've already internalized with the symbolic representation of it. This is similar to the way children learn to read, they've already developed most of the oral and aural vocabulary of the language, so it's just a matter of learning how these sounds and meanings "look" on paper. So focus on letting your eyes connect to what your ears are hearing as you play. Do NOT look at your hands, keep your eyes on the music. In the first stages, it's enough to play a handful of major and minor scales and arpeggios. Eventually you'll want to play through all 12 keys. Of course, you'll want to start playing actual bass lines. Start acquiring a collection of bass parts. Classical, Jazz, Rock, R&B, Funk, Pop. Get used to ignoring tablature in favor of the notated line. There's no shortcut to learning to read, it's a complex mental process, but one that's logical and quite possible for a dedicated musician. You have to put in the work. There's a famous scale system used by many violinists developed by Ivan Galamian. It's unique in that it provides a way to create multiple rhythmic divisions of the scale, i.e. playing in different groups of eighths, triplets, 16ths, and sextuplets. It has a pull-out folio of different rhythmic patterns that you practice against the notated pitches for scales and arpeggios. There's an arrangement for Cello, in the bass clef. Of course, most of the information on fingerings won't be directly applicable, since the tuning and string crossings will be different. Still, it's easily adaptable and it might be extremely useful for reading practice. http://www.amazon.com/Galamian-System-arranged-Schirmer-Edition/dp/B0049BQQZ4

  908. musictheory 2015-11-04 11:04:30 mootfoot
    Well, as a compositional tool, I have to agree. If the chords you choose don't belong to the same key, and you just aim to string together a bunch of phrygian chords, it'll probably sound bad. However, as an analytical tool, I think this kind of thinking will open doors. Instead of just thinking, "oh, this song is in C major," you start realizing that the target notes are typically the chord tones, and that sometimes notes that are in key are bad over certain chords and not over others. For instance, in C major (because it's simple), if I play a C major chord, I can't really use an F as a melody note that isn't a passing tone. If you hold the F over a C major chord, it will probably make a nasty b9 interval with the E in the C chord. But if I switch chords to G7, the V chord of C major, all of a sudden the F is a valid target note - we can explain this by thinking in terms of modes, since in modal thinking, the b7 in G mixolydian (F) isn't an avoid note, but the 4 in C ionian (also F) is. (by the way, I gave a lot of extra info and overexplained not to patronize you but in case OP wanted to follow along) Anyways, I was hoping the basic takeaway of my post was to enlighten the unenlightened as far as what chords are out there besides major, minor, major7, minor7, and dominant 7, and more importantly, why/how they exist.

  909. musictheory 2015-11-06 04:19:51 bad06denby
    A trumpet player friend of mine would write fingering charts for the valves. 3 circles. Fill in black for a valve that was pressed down. As well as just memorizing scale notes in all keys. Unlike string instruments where scales and chords make consistent picture patterns on the fingerboard, one can not really "see" a graph of notes and intervals on other instruments like brass and woodwinds so it seems more important to have the notes in all keys memorized for instruments of that nature.

  910. musictheory 2015-11-07 02:42:43 bad06denby
    Ya, internalizing intervals was best thing for my playing. For piano and string instruments.

  911. musictheory 2015-11-07 10:32:14 96nu
    the five positions on guitar are just for simplicity of fingering. on guitar it's easiest to only have to stretch 3 frets, 4 is hard, and 5 is very hard for people with regular sized hands. the 5 positions are just 5 hand placements/fingerings up and down one octave of the neck, where you can play up and down the major/minor scale where on any one string you only have to play across at most 3 frets, and over all strings, you cover at most 4 frets. for example here's one position: e|----------------------------------[5]-7-8- B|----------------------------5-6-8--------- G|----------------------4-5-7--------------- D|----------------5-[7]--------------------- A|----------5-7-8--------------------------- E|--[5]-7-8--------------------------------- the pitch in brackets is the minor mode tonic, and the pitch is A, so this is A minor. note that you mostly are only playing between fret 5-8 (3 frets), and only once have to go to the 4th fret. further, on any one string you never have to stretch more than 3 frets. the fingering above can make any minor key by moving each pitch up/down an equal amount. for example. if you add 3 to each number you'd have G minor (Low E string 5+3 = 8, the 8th fret is G) edit: and if you look at the scale above there are 7 pitches (once 7 pitches are played, you're back at the original pitch in brackets)

  912. musictheory 2015-11-07 10:38:50 fivesixone561
    Assuming your guitar's tuned to C standard (C F A# D# G C), it's G# on the 5th string, E on the 4th string, G# on the 3rd string, and B on the 2nd string.

  913. musictheory 2015-11-07 22:18:06 nmitchell076
    Ever since Bill Rothstein's pair of articles on national metrical types, I've essentially lost my comfortability with how hypermeter works. So I'm always up for a good hypermeter article! I also like his opening paragraphs, which I'll quote below. > [1.1] Vienna, late eighteenth century: Elise, the young adult daughter of a wealthy family, attends a string-quartet performance. She hears such a work not at a formal concert, but rather at the home of an aristocrat, in a gathering as much social as musical (Klorman 2013, 1–15, 59–60). The performers are likely sight-reading (Klorman 2013, 73). Elise might never hear this particular quartet again, nor will she have the opportunity (nor likely the inclination) to ever study a score (Klorman 2013, 2; Parker 2002, 45). What is “hypermeter” to Elise? > [1.2] As a regular guest at these gatherings, and an amateur musician herself, Elise is well acquainted with the local style. But she has not studied the latest compositional treatises, nor does she pay any special attention to meter. Subtle metrical effects intended for the most knowledgable listeners (Kenner) may be lost on her.(1) Instead, her hearing unconsciously draws on her past musical experiences: these govern what she expects and how she reacts to the unexpected.(2) She is not necessarily able to articulate the substance of these expectations and reactions, but they determine how easily she follows a piece and which of its moments stand out. > [1.3] Throughout this paper, the character of Elise will stand for a community of historical listeners. Their perception of hypermeter likely differed from our own, in ways elaborated below. To describe their understanding of hypermeter, I propose a cyclic model of hypermetrical perception. The model depicts listeners’ moment-to-moment impressions of hypermeter, manifested as sensations of metrical accent, expectation, surprise, confusion, tension, and relief. For greater specificity, I focus exclusively on the minuet and trio in the string quartet. However, the model should be adaptable to all other late eighteenth-century genres. Should be fun!

  914. musictheory 2015-11-08 04:22:38 Killian3494
    Here is probably the closest someone has ever actually gotten to writing in locrian mode. [Shostakovich String Quartet No. 10 Allegro Furioso](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5iq0GNXikE)

  915. musictheory 2015-11-09 02:25:32 crabapplesteam
    Ah! Thank you for posting your math too! Now that I see what you did, it's actually a really simple answer. Basically, if you have 16 steps in your scale according to your method, the 'half steps' at the bottom would be bigger than the 'half steps' at the top, and it sounds really weird. This is why most tuning systems tend to stop at the 16th harmonic. If you try to play a brass instrument, or harmonics on a string instrument, it's actually really easy to hear up to the 12th harmonic. It is possible to even hear up to the 15th harmonic, but these frequencies start to get hard to distinguish. Once you hit the 16th harmonic, things get complicated. Distinguishing the 17th from the 18th harmonic gets hard (or harder yet - the 22nd from the 23rd), and while it is perceptible, it's difficult to use it for any type of practical tuning system. Instead, musicians/mathematicians realized that if you keep moving upward by a 3:2 ratio, eventually, you get back to a note that is similar to the original, only separated by the [Pythagorean comma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_comma). This became the backbone of most tuning systems until the invention of equal temperament.

  916. musictheory 2015-11-09 10:08:24 crabapplesteam
    I'm happy to help - what kinds of things are you looking to know? Basically, there are two types of scale constructions: equal tempered or just intonation. The equal tempered I explained in my other comment, so are you looking to know more about just intonation? If that's the case, the math is quite easy. All intervals can be derived from whole number ratios between frequencies. The most fundamental idea is that 2:1 is an octave. so 8:4 is an octave, or 16:2 would be multiple octaves. From there, we look at the next ratio 3:2, which is a perfect 5th. Like I said, this is the backbone of most tuning systems. If you want to build a 5 note scale, let's start with C and then move up by a 3:2 ratio until we get to our last note - so C, G, D, A, E. Mathematically, this would be 3:2* 3:2* 3:2* 3:2. So the last E would have a ratio of 81:64. Now, because 4:2 is an octave, lets look at the next note, 5:2.. or if we move up an octave 5:4. This is a justly tuned major 3rd so the note E. Our scale already had an E though! So what's the difference? Our first E was a ratio of 81:64, as we arrived there with 3:2 relationships, so how does that compare to 5:4? If we move 5:4 into the same octave as 81:64, we can see that 5:4 is equal to 80:64. So the difference is 80 vs 81:64! The 5:4 ratio is slightly more flat than a Pythagorean 3rd - and it also sounds more pure to our ears. If you'd like I can keep going and explain the rest of the notes in a just tuning system, or feel free to extrapolate and do some research on your own. Also, remember, this is very different from the equal tempered system we usually use. String instruments and choir tend to naturally move toward these just intervals, while keyboard and pitched percussion instruments are locked into equal temperament.

  917. musictheory 2015-11-10 01:33:11 mypetlion3
    Other responders have given you a bit of a guide, but I want to just point out how big of a question you're asking. Choosing the right instrument combinations is a *huge* question. If you went to university for composition, you'd spend a significant chunk of your time there learning about this topic. Composers have become famous for their innovative ways of doing just what you're asking. The subject is called either "arranging" or "orchestration", depending on exactly what you're doing. Now, don't get me wrong. The last thing I would want is for you to become intimidated or discouraged by the task of learning this stuff. In fact, it's great that you've decided to get started on it. Just want you to know that it is a big big subject, and it's OK for you to not know everything, or for you to stumble on it for a while. As with many things, it's always best to just practice and experiment. Try writing a simple melody with your favorite instrument (just eight to sixteen bars, doesn't have to be a full piece yet) and try different combinations of instruments to accompany it. Watch out for things the pitch ranges of the instruments (Do they overlap too much, or not enough? What do your harmonizations sound like when they have to go low enough for your needs? Or high enough?) the dynamic ranges (Do your background instruments dominate the sound, and make it hard to hear the lead part? You wouldn't want four trumpets behind a piccolo for example, because then nobody could hear the piccolo) and the timbres (This basically comes down to taste, and fiddling around to make things work. Do you want the melody to blend with the background, like with a string quartet? Or stand out a bit like with a violin sonata? Or completely disparate like with a duet for tuba and harp?). Just practice and experiment as much as you can, and don't get discouraged. It'll be a lifelong goal to get good at something like this.

  918. musictheory 2015-11-10 20:56:00 PlazaOne
    You've already got some good answers, so I'll just add a few mildly interesting bonus details. The word *diatonic* means any seven note scale made up of five intervals of a *tone* plus two intervals of a *semitone* where those semitone intervals are farthest apart from each other. Here's a [nice picture](http://www.fretzone.com/major-scale-and-its-modes/4581272278) showing this relationship for all seven modes of the major scale, plus links to many other scales. These modes that we use in music today are NOT the same as the modes that were used in medieval music. Although they are generally a good enough approximation, they include a few modes that weren't around back then. For the past couple of hundred years or so in western music we've used a tuning system called [*equal temperament*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament), which is pretty handy for guitar builders (luthiers) as it lets them space the frets along the neck in the familiar pattern. However, using ET means that some of the pitches aren't *properly* in tune. Our ears are so used to this that our brains conveniently filter the discrepancies. The earlier Pythagorean tuning system makes use of the [harmonic series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music)), which would require shifting all the frets around and forcing you to play in just one key before having to re-set them all again for the next song. For example, instead of playing a major third that was four frets above its root (4 frets = 400/1200), you'd need to have the fret located 386 cents above the root. This is just one reason some players like to use altered tunings - such as many slide players using open-E will just slightly flatten their G# string to get it ringing out with a true major third. It's pretty good that you sussed out on your own that those two scales used the same fingerings. Part of the graft of learning to play is about getting your hands to become familiar with repeating things over and over, but in different contexts so you stay interested. Lots of pop, rock, funk and soul tunes would be diatonic, so for a progression that's >|| Cm, Fm, Cm, Gm || you'd play C natural minor over all the chords. But just by switching around so you'll play C natural minor over the Cm chords, then F natural minor over the Fm chord, and G natural minor over the Gm chord, you've gotten yourself into playing a minor blues, which is kind of the gateway into playing jazz. Same approach with the mixolydian over major triads for normal blues. Hopefully your teacher is going to get you eventually playing those scales starting from all seven notes of the major scale, so that you'll be equally comfortable all over the neck whether going up or down. Some players get *stuck* in one or two positions, which can become frustrating for them and their listeners - but to get good you do have to put the hours in, so I hope you don't mind missing a few parties!

  919. musictheory 2015-11-10 22:19:22 klaviersonic
    Hey congrats on your adventure! Yes, you can transpose just the notes below E, you could transpose the whole phrase up an octave, or get a 5-string with a low B and play it as written.

  920. musictheory 2015-11-12 08:19:23 xiipaoc
    I think it's Em. By the way, the sheet music is wrong; the C's should be C#'s. Either that or shit's just very wrong. The first system has F#5's with a C in the staff and a 6 on the 4th string, which is C#. On the other hand, the fourth system has F#'s again and a 5 on the 4th string. Pretty sure those should both be C#'s. As for whether it's Em or Bm, it's kind of debatable, but the melody and harmony both point pretty clearly to Em.

  921. musictheory 2015-11-13 07:38:37 chunter16
    >Do these two notes (E and B) have fundamentally different "qualities" that cause this to happen when played individually? The notes you choose aren't really at issue. If you look at an oscilloscope while they play, you'll see that two notes clipping in one amplifier makes a single waveform, while one note clipping in one amplifier makes a different single waveform. Two instances of one note clipping in one amplifier can be blended in a mix, but what you get is a much different looking waveform than if those two notes clipped a single amplifier circuit. That's not even taking into account the "attack" noise you get from plucking the string, which, when two people play together, won't quite match up. They won't sound messy if the two guitarists are good at playing together, as in many 80s hair metal bands.

  922. musictheory 2015-11-13 10:40:38 Coufu
    If you're playing a C scale on guitar, you're going to start on the same fret as the lowest string that you play the C chord. This could either be the 5th string 3rd fret or 6th string 8th fret. Is that not the "same position" you are referring to?

  923. musictheory 2015-11-13 10:42:06 clearyss
    Probably worth clarifying some terminology here: I think your question should read "why don't I start on the C 'note' in every position?" A 'chord' is multiple notes played together. Secondly, the answer is because the guitar doesn't have the note C available anywhere on each string. It's in very specific locations on the fretboard. So in each position you will be starting on a note, or degree of the C major scale, not necessarily starting on C. More interestingly, playing the same 7 notes in the major scale, but starting from a different degree outlines 'modes'. Example, if you start from A, but play the same notes in the C Major scale (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) that is the aeolian mode, which happens to be A minor - ie A minor and C Major share exactly the same notes...

  924. musictheory 2015-11-13 13:51:12 Kramalimedov
    Even outside the readability of the score, take time to check the playability of each part. The upper note of your cello part will only be possible to play with a correct sound quality by a dozen cello player in the world. And your flute part go simply to low to be playable (Flute cannot play under C4). The picolo cannot play under C3 also, and you put some note under Your basson part go also a lot to low (some C1, only a Contra basson or a 5 string double bass can play these notes and good luck to find such instruments) Trombones will have a lot of problem to play your rythmic patterns above G4, but can play far lower that what you give to them

  925. musictheory 2015-11-13 14:05:57 tallpapab
    You can play a C major scale starting in different positions. Maybe you mean only one where the starting C is on the lowest string? That's, of course, because there's only one of each note in those first 12 frets. C on fret 8. Is this the position you mean? But you can play a C scale starting on fret 3 of the A string. Or do I still misunderstand? e|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-C-|---|---|---|---| b|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-A-|---|-B-| G|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-E-|-F-|---|-G-| D|---|---|---|---|---|---|-A-|---|-B-|-C-|---|-D-| A|---|---|---|---|---|---|-E-|-F-|---|-G-|---|-A-| E|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-C-|---|-D-|---|-E-| o 3 5 7 9 12 e|---|---|---|---|-A-|---|-B-|-C-|---|---|---|---| b|---|---|---|---|-E-|-F-|---|-G-|---|---|---|---| G|---|---|---|-B-|-C-|---|-D-|---|---|---|---|---| D|---|---|-F-|---|-G-|---|-A-|---|---|---|---|---| A|---|---|-C-|---|-D-|---|-E-|---|---|---|---|---| E|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| o 3 5 7 9 12

  926. musictheory 2015-11-14 00:15:51 mootfoot
    Oops! Well, as another guy wrote, there's also the acoustics of the guitar itself, including the fact that guitar strings cause each other to resonate sympathetically, especially in the case of closely related notes (i.e. not far apart along the harmonic series). The fifth is not far along the harmonic series, so the open low E string beefs up the B above it, as B is the 2nd overtone above E in the harmonic series rooted on E. In this case, this is mostly a one-way road, as the ascending fourth is very very distant along the harmonic series, so B won't really cause E strings to resonate in the same way. I still also believe that there's more controlling to be done. When you strike a power chord, you hit those strings with very similar force from a very similar angle at a very close interval. There's not really a precise way to duplicate that except by clamping down the guitar and having a robotic arm do the work in each case. I guess you could try it with an E-Bow if you have one? Plus, you could try bussing both guitar inputs through the same amp modeller in whatever DAW you're using. And since you're doing this digitally, there's always going to be "rounding" at some point, as opposed to going analog. Then there's noise coming through the cable from the TV running downstairs... There's almost always going to be more you can do to get closer, but the moral is, there's a thousand answers and each one is a tiny bit right. Edit: also, all of the guys talking distortion/complex waves are absolutely right. I forgot all about that as a factor, but that's probably more important than anything I said. That's kind of what I was going for when I said to run two guitars through a single speaker (which you were already doing in a sense), but I said it in a kind of reductionist way, which is probably not so good.

  927. musictheory 2015-11-16 22:56:19 DRL47
    It can't be I, iii, bVII, VI, as the III is major. It IS a string of subdominants (not dominants), so I, IV/IV/IV, IV/IV, IV is correct.

  928. musictheory 2015-11-17 01:55:15 McFystine
    I was wrong about the second chord of the break, it's actually F#m7, A#dim7 (6-565-), Bm7, Esus4-E The part just before the chorus, he squeezes C#m7 and DM7 between the two last chords of the break. About the chorus, I mostly agree with tdaddyrex, except the second half. I think it's: first half: AM7, F#m7, Bm7, Esus4-E7 second half: AM7, GM7 (I'm sure),F#m7, F#7 (not sure at all, maybe Gdim7), (squeezes same chord with F# high string - C#m7), Bm7, Esus4-E7

  929. musictheory 2015-11-17 02:17:40 gatesofcerdes
    On guitar you have constraints with the bass notes, you can't play all those notes without open strings, so the fifth *does* matter. You can't play wherever on a string and wherever on another string, we only have four fingers. I agree with you that the notion of the 'add' notation is *useful*, but then you're not solving the problem of inconvenience, you're just moving it somewhere else.

  930. musictheory 2015-11-17 03:07:41 DRL47
    If there is a bass player, what the guitar plays on it's lowest string doesn't matter. You have four fingers, but can use bars, partial bars and open strings. The "add" notation isn't just useful, it is correct, if you don't want the 7, 9, and 11. You can play (frets, bass to treble): 0 x 4 6 3 4, which are E F# C# D G# (1, 9, 13, 7, 3). That is just one possible configuration, you can look up many more.

  931. musictheory 2015-11-17 06:32:41 JadnidBobson
    Cool chord, here's a different voicing I've been playing with lately: X32032 It puts the #4 on the top instead, and I also like adding the major 7 (open b string: X32002). Like others have said it implies C lydian so it should work in a G major or E minor context. Alternating between this chord and E minor sounds good imo, maybe a similar voicing like 024030. [This song by Feist](https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=MLp3z-8CaEo) uses the chord ("lonely lonely that was you" that part).

  932. musictheory 2015-11-17 07:13:38 ljse7m
    Well, I do admit that its difficult to explain these little nuances in words and especially in the beginning. All I can tel from your post is that we are on similar tracks but I have not explained myself completely as yet to convey myself to you. The instability of playing the A A E A on the piano strings will have one beat frequency built into the fifth the E. This is due to the coma in Pythagorean discovery of the fifth relationship from what turns out to be centuries later with better science to be the second and third elements of the harmonic series. That comma causes the E to be very slightly flat. Just a hair however and fortunately for us music lovers, our ear compensates for that to listen to it as a perfect interval. This is easy for our synapse to do this because every sound produced by a vibrating string or column of air and to some extent of membranes IS the harmonic series being bounced off our eardrums and then interpreted, remember that, interpreted by our subconscious. So, when you play those four notes, if the piano strings are in tune, the octave and fifth elements of the series will reinforce each other enough so that even with a bit of beat frequency enough that most trained ears can hear or imagine that perfect harmonic series at least to the 7th element. For sure it can allow us to hear and sing the "perfect" third that is so sonorous and beautiful. If you play those notes and sing accurately what you ear hears (don't play the C# on the piano or it will pollute your ability to hear the perfect third!) You play those notes and you sing the C# as if you were in an a cappella choir and after you really relax and concentrate on the pure pitch and nothing else, and THEN you play the C# on the piano, it will be a little bit below that beautiful sonorous major third that you are singing. Not a whole lot, but you should definately hear it. It is the same thing that happens if you add piano to a well trained a capella choir and the piano sounds out of tune until the choir retunes its singing from mean tuning to tempered tuning. I tried this very experiment one week ago with a doubting piano player and even on his synthesizer, without the reinforcement of the strings overtone series but the shell used on a good synth, that beautiful major third he was singing was ruined when he played the same note on the electric piano. The seventh element would be the same thing if you trained your ear to consciously hear it in the harmonic series but it is more difficult to demonstrate. But it is there and it is ambiguous and it is the main factor in how functional harmony was born and evolved as musicians began to hear or at least feel the presence of the higher overtones beyond those that guided the pre baroque music and the age of counterpoint. I hope you will continue to follow and experiment. I don't know you personally but I suspect that no matter what, you will enjoy seeing the overtone series (also called the harmonic series, ever wonder WHY the overtone series is also called the HARMONIC series? well, this will help to understand that. Thanks for the reply, I hope this clears it up a bit for you and I hope you will participate in this discussion. It is worthwhile!

  933. musictheory 2015-11-17 08:20:02 DiversityAlgorithm
    I'd say I hear the series as tonic, given the choice. A more fitting term I've heard is "in unity" (from George Russell). To be clear, I understand the question as how I hear a naturally vibrating string / column of air / etc.; all of the harmonics reinforce the identity of the fundamental. In order for me to hear that as a dominant, I would need to hear it as a chord (ie definitely separate notes) and the 7th harmonic would need to be rather pronounced, and probably some additional context would be needed to indicate to me that this was not a harmonic overtone but was in fact an unstable interval tending toward resolution.

  934. musictheory 2015-11-17 08:47:41 ljse7m
    Well, shortly I will be posting a link to a lecture series that will show you better than I how it does and its by someone that you should respect as one of the greatest musicians and theorists of our time. I am only waiting until I see what people think of this phenomenon that has been so overlooked over the centuries, early because of a limited science and more lately by tradition and by accepting common knowledge that was working for them at a certain level so why fix it if it ain't broken. I don't know if this is a private message . If it is, I will be more specific. All I will say for now is that you are not understanding where I am going. I will fill you in as I see how the populace of people answer the question. I will not string it out too long but as a teacher, I will not stop students and professionals from telling me what they really think. BUT, THe harmonic series is a rather simple natural occurrence and all I am leading up to is to show how simple this simple physical "truth" can be understood much simpler than I learned functional harmony and it also simplifies understanding how music evolved and WHY it evolved this way. Here is a hint of what I am leading to and I promise I will fill in the details later. This is your quote that is getting to the heart of the matter. "If you have 'tonic' and 'dominant' you have thing A and thing B. By talking about the harmonic series, all you have is thing A - therefore eliminating any chance of tension/resolution because there simply does not exist a 2nd element in the equation." Its not an equation. It is not thing A and thing B. it is ONE law of physics. The thing that I think I mentioned and is certainly "in between the lines" is that ambiguity is a part of the "equation" if you like that frame of reference. The other part of the clue is that the human ear, especially the musical ear is very forgiving. I will pick up the loose ends as we progress through the discussion. BTW does everyone see these emails when I save them? if not I will be using my emails (without names) to allow all in the group to see what we are talking about. I have not had time to investigate how these threads work but I teach by preparation and THEN presentation, and then its up to the student to practice using the information. You certainly have the critical thinking skills to understand what I am saying but you are stuck in a paradigm. It is leading you astray from what I am saying and not saying. Sorry, but I spend a lot of time writing about theory and it is by the responses that I learn how to teach better. If you don't see all of my emails, you may see things differently if you see what others are saying about them. I will get to the point as quickly as I can. All I can say at present is that you are very interesting and informative to converse with. I enjoy our posts and I hope you can understand my perspective. OH, I almost forgot about the 11 or 15th harmonic I just addressed the 11th in another email and the 15th is one that would be still in the evolution process. The leading tone in the music we have since approximately the Baroque period is derived from the ambiguity inherent in the harmonic series which will become apparant when I explain how the Harmonic series created the scales we use in functional harmony as they evolved from the pre baroque contrapuntal period. Its very enjoyable talking to you but I have to take a break. I will be happy to continue but probably not any more tonight. I will be looking for what is posted in this reddit or what ever it is called. I still am calling it a thread until I learn the ins and outs of the posting system and private message and emails. I hope that you will stay in touch and please don't hesitate for clarification. I hope I have addressed some of your concerns(?) or misinterpreting what I have presented. I will clear it up. Thank you. ljse7m

  935. musictheory 2015-11-17 15:34:41 rcochrane
    > if it is stable (tonic) or if it is unstable (dominant) That's not what "tonic" and "dominant" usually mean. Do you mean to ask about perceived consonance vs dissonance of a stack of sine tones (say) arranged in harmonic progression? Maybe posting a link to the sound you want us to assess would help. It would also be nice to know why you're asking! What's the context of the question? > understanding why music evolved as it did. Any answer to this is going to involve history a *lot* more than physics. > In a vibrating string we generally can hear the fundamental and the second element the octave and Pythagoras learned to hear the third element Even if Pythagoras did all the things attributed to him in myth (which is doubtful), he didn't know anything about overtones and nor did the medieval writers who influenced the development of the "Western" system you're thinking of. The idea that sounds are "made of" superimposed trigonometric waves only arrives in the late 18th century -- initial approaches were developed by Bernoulli and Euler, then the whole theory was initiated by Fourier. [EDIT: To clarify, of course the Pythagoreans did discover something about what we would call simple ratios of frequencies; but that's a different matter.]

  936. musictheory 2015-11-17 22:54:40 ljse7m
    What you are saying is one way of looking at the harmonic series but on this point, I am not wrong as nothing that I have said contradicts your point! So I don't see how you can say I am wrong. I will say, however, that your point is only part of the story. By the very nature of the question title to this post shows that. To put it in your context, does the amplification of the partials of a given root, in its natural state, sound tonic or dominant! I am a little puzzled by this right or wrong approach when you are only using different words to describe the same thing! One must remember the importance of context when discussing something in a field such as music when cross contexts run rampart. One of the main purposes of staying on this part of the discussion is to clear up as many contextual errors as possible. I am surprised that you even consider that I believe that the overtones have not always been there. They were here before music itself. I clearly pointed out that Pythagoras did not realize that he only discovered the first three elements of the harmonic as his science could not measure the vast implications of the harmonic or overtone series. One other question of context that I would like you to ponder is the way you describe that Western music started the practice of moving from the fundamental tone of tonic to the third harmonic of dominant. I believe you are on the right track but there is a subtle but important context difference here. Church music began to USE the third harmonic and it happens to coincide to the concept of dominant. I don't see any movement there but as they began to perceive the third element they began to explore how to use it. In that early stage of development they did not even consider the 5th element or the third and the seventh element, when it began to surface towards the beginning of functional harmony of the Baroque era, there was no root movement, There was a bass note but even that was not considered important as a bass note in the modern sense. The thing that their tension/relaxation was based upon was a different approach to what would be considered the Overtone series rather than to name it the Harmonic series as there was not harmony as we know it since the time of the Baroque era. It was the cantus firmus ("fixed song") defined as a pre-existing melody forming the basis of a polyphonic composition as worded by Wiki. All harmony in the golden age of counterpoint was NOT based consciously by the Harmonic series. Here I will define the subtle difference of the two terms which I often use interchangeably as the physical aspect of the two are the same but in truth, Overtone series describes the physics of he vibrations of the ratios that describe the sound produced by the column of air or string or what ever is producing the sound. When you are using this fact of physics as a way of describing the use of the Overtone series, it is better to use the Harmonic series to put one in the context of actual harmony based upon the various aspects of the Harmonic series. In the age of counterpoint, all harmony was the result of the combinations of notes produced by counterpoint and not by root movement. In this case, the OVERTONE series directed to the musicians which notes were consonant or dissonant and Fux does a great dialectic that explains what all this is about and how the musicians evolved through the various species of counterpoint on the road to finally leading to the Baroque era. The age of counterpoint IS NOT functional harmony, its really ALL about the melody and the melodies composed around it. Basically, if a tone is perceived as a part of the harmonic produced by the melodic note of the Cantus Firmus, then it ws consonant. If it was not on one of the perceived Overtone series, it was dissonant and it had to resolve to a tone that was consonant or coincided with one of the tones in a perceived overtone series. How was the overtone perceived when they did not even know it existed? Interesting question! since their first tones that the combined when "moving" up the harmonic series. (notice the slightly different context here than in your post) the third element or the G (dominant in C) wad a consonant note. Why was it consonant? Well it coincided with the harmonic series of C fundamental. Notice that historicallly that if the G was above the C.F. note of C, it was consonant. If it, however, was sung below the C.F. note it was NOT consonant as it became a fourth in our modern terms and was considered dissonant for a while. (the consonant and dissonant also followed the Overtone series and evolve up the ladder but in an entirely different way than came about when the beginning of functional harmony began to evolve in the Golden Age of Counterpoint. Later, 3rds were added to the list of consonant tones as they began to realize that there was something that made the "harmony" sound either right or wrong. Now for the bass note. It too was only one more voice that had to be consonant or dissonant to the C.F. As they experimented with notes, they noticed that SOME notes in the lowest voice seemed to reinforce the sonority of the notes above it! When the consonants were only 5ths and octaves and in some instances the 4th was allowed but only below the C.F. was it consonant. So they treated that as a separate voice but the G note below the C.F was dissonant and had to be resolved. More about that later in a different post. When the 3rds and 6ths were added to the mix of consonant intervals it became interesting. Then MORE of the tones that were consonant to the C.F. created more and more of the outline of the Overtone series and there were more options of places for the various voices, up to 6 or more in lots of cased. and then that lower tone started to become more of a Bass as we know it as they discovered that the low voice would resonate more if it was what we now call the Bass note when it really was the Fundamental tone of the shell of the Overtone series outlined by the higher voices. If you analyze the resultant harmony of the Golden Age, you will see chords that we are familiar with today but they were the result of being consonant to the C.F. and not because of root movement. Root movement only became a factor as we evolved into the Baroque functional harmonic way of looking at music. AND the scholars of the day considered this New Wave stuff to be hearsay and it as a huge battle to keep it from becoming the standard of music. Notice how the subtle context differences can make a big difference when trying to put this all into one holistic context. I hope this gives you something to think about as it does not contrdict your opinion but it enhances it and I think it puts more of the whole into one more understandable context. Thank you for your post. You brought up a very important point of he stage that was set for functional harmony. Oh, in the Golden Age, you will see resultant chords of the X6 x7 types. AND do remember that the Scales used by Pope Gregory was from the Greek scales that are more associated with the different context that Pythagoras promoted with his circle of fifths. When the Monks started to add Organum (careful with that spelling! in a different context that could be important!lol)) then we have the beginnings of increased awareness of what we now call the Overtone series that allow the Harmonic series and the movement of the Fundamental or ROOT to shape our system of Functional Harmony. Again, thanks for bringing up these very important contextual differences. ljse7m

  937. musictheory 2015-11-17 23:56:08 ljse7m
    Sorry, but that is not the truth. If you have an interest in music enough even find this thread YOU ARE CAPABLE of hearing enough to answer the question! Don't sell yourself short. Try this. Just get to a quite place with a guitar or something or the highest fidelity sound of a sustained tone on a string instrument you can find and just listen to that tone for a while. A wave file will work better than am MP3 file as the mp3 is more of a "shell" of the overtone series so it is a bit more difficult to hear the Harmonic aspect of the series. Contemplate the sound of that single note and try to get into a meditative state and try to allow your subconscious to listen with you. Then just decide how you FEEL about the tone. Does it want to go anyplace or is it quite content to just stay there and BE THE BALL so to speak! (Sorry about the Caddy Shack allusion) but that about sums it up. BE the TONE and do you feel like moving or do you feel like you are at HOME. If you still have problems, let me know what instruments you have available to you and I will give you a customized exercise that would make it more obvious to you. Don't overthink it. Are you HOME or do you need a step to have a final resting place. You hear this all the time in what ever music you listen to, Here we are only stripping it down the most basic aspect of music. the single note and the sounds that make up that note. Thanks. Good luck and please don't hesitate The #11th and the b7th are irrelevant here. GO back to the basics and just listen to how YOU hear the tone. The Extensions you list are irrelevant to the hearing of tonic and dominant. The b7 is somewhat relevant, but not for the way you hear it. It is simply a factor that might influence you weather you think you can hear it or not. Just like the "Only the Shadow knows!: . Your subconscious knows as well. You just have to learn how to connect and you will be amazed as to how much you know and hear! Let me know how it works out.

  938. musictheory 2015-11-18 01:00:38 mootfoot
    Now I think you're running around in circles. Whether I hear a note as tonic or dominant does not depend solely (or even primarily, necessarily) on my subconscious processes or the mechanics of my ears. I would argue that it depends much more on the mechanics of the instrument in question. An acoustic piano has different harmonic content than an acoustic guitar - in fact, every acoustic piano has different harmonic content from every other acoustic piano, as you can't make two exactly alike. In fact, the harmonic content will differ from note to note and even from string to string, which means playing one note on an acoustic piano will give you composite of the harmonic content of multiple strings. Say we have a piano with unusually strong presence of the "b7" harmonic (or as close to b7 as it will be) when playing the middle C, played next to a piano with a very dead "b7" harmonic on the middle C. Obviously, the first piano will sound more dominant than the next, but the second piano might also still sound a slight bit dominant. I don't think that this test IS stripping it down to the most basic aspect of music, since the single note is a composite of multiple notes, which is what everyone has been pointing to (and indeed, what you were talking about in the original post). What if I use a synthesizer to create a sine wave - purely the fundamental harmonic? I would argue that listening to the tonic or dominant quality of this sine wave is a more valid test, as it removes a lot of variables of acoustics from the mix. Does it even have a quality? If not, then the qualities you're talking about are imparted by the harmonic series, and no doubt - the harmonic that represents the 3 relative to the fundamental, the harmonic that represents the b7 relative to the fundamental (roughly), and arguably the harmonics that represent varying tensions, are going to give the note a more or less dominant feel based on their presence or absence in the harmonic content of the note in question. I don't think this is a psychoacoustic experiment so much as a simple question combining acoustics and functional harmony. Maybe I'm wrong, and you can correct me if I am, but I believe that unless you reduce the harmonic content to nothing but the fundamental, I think you are asking a question with a primarily objective answer (with the ONLY subjective factor being the #11 and b7, whose denomination can be argued by the listener, since they are off the mark). In the case of a sine wave, by the way, I hear the sound as tonic.

  939. musictheory 2015-11-18 03:36:42 ljse7m
    *Now I think you're running around in circles. Whether I hear a note as tonic or dominant does not depend solely (or even primarily, necessarily) on my subconscious processes or the mechanics of my ears. I would argue that it depends much more on the mechanics of the instrument in question.* Well, that is the way that you hear things at present. You probably heard things a different way at an earlier time in your life. The poster that I was replying to is having difficulty hearing it at all. I gave him ONE way that many people can use, including myself, to hear things. Please remember the context of what I say and try to keep your responses in the same context. I know it is difficult to do that, but its the only way that an open discussion can keep on track and not be diverted by Context shifts, also referred to as Apples/Oranges for short. If that process doesn't help that student, I will provide him with another way of hearing that. I believe that later on in the response I pointed that out. You can listen anyway you want and if it floats your boat. GREAT if it doesn't I would hope that you would try different things to achieve the goal of better listening. * An acoustic piano has different harmonic content than an acoustic guitar - in fact, every acoustic piano has different harmonic content from every other acoustic piano, as you can't make two exactly alike. In fact, the harmonic content will differ from note to note and even from string to string, which means playing one note on an acoustic piano will give you composite of the harmonic content of multiple strings. Say we have a piano with unusually strong presence of the "b7" harmonic (or as close to b7 as it will be) when playing the middle C, played next to a piano with a very dead "b7" harmonic on the middle C. Obviously, the first piano will sound more dominant than the next, but the second piano might also still sound a slight bit dominant. I don't think that this test IS stripping it down to the most basic aspect of music, since the single note is a composite of multiple notes, which is what everyone has been pointing to (and indeed, what you were talking about in the original post).* There. You see. You are starting to get it. Here you are making a case for another statement of mine about the ear being forgiving! In all those cases, the ear still hears a piano. When you play an Amin chord you still hear an Amin chord and when it plays a C major chord in the Key of Cmajor it STILL hears TONIC if it is in the CONTEXT of say a V7 to I Context of harmonic progression.* * What if I use a synthesizer to create a sine wave - purely the fundamental harmonic? I would argue that listening to the tonic or dominant quality of this sine wave is a more valid test, as it removes a lot of variables of acoustics from the mix. Does it even have a quality? If not, then the qualities you're talking about are imparted by the harmonic series, and no doubt - the harmonic that represents the 3 relative to the fundamental, the harmonic that represents the b7 relative to the fundamental (roughly), and arguably the harmonics that represent varying tensions, are going to give the note a more or less dominant feel based on their presence or absence in the harmonic content of the note in question.* * Again, thanks for pointing out my position but with a context change. A sine wave by itself is a pure tone. It may produce a harmonic series when played on a speaker if it is able to move air the same way a flute does. The better the speaker the better the tone produced. If your rig is capable of producing a clear enough sound to recreate enough of the natural sound of he flute (which is a good choice as it is one of the most pure tones and thus would have a better perceptible harmonic series. But if it doesn't, then if you played the octave C and the fifth above that and then then then the root again above the etc you would be producing an out of tune harmonic series. If you can tune each note to match the ratios of the the Overtone series then you would be hearing a pure overtone series and you could juice up each particular note to balance it to insure hearing the upper partials more clearly. In fact, you would also be able to recreate any sound you would like by adjusting each partial to match the acoustic properties of say a clarinet or a trumpet or a shwan as someone suggested. Was that you? I really don't know everyone's names as yet. I have done what I just described on that little keyboard to extract the scales that would be there if you transposed the tones of the series to a linear notation that I used as an example earlier. But as to the whole series, I tend to think that since last Tuesday I gave a play this and then sing this missing note and compare the pitch after you have gotten the sung pitch in tune with the first 4 elements of the series and singing the missing third. I was surprised on the ease of demonstrating that the in tune sung note was higher than the note on his synth. Some that may depend on the sophistication of the mix of overtones in each note to give the synth the various sounds that you described with acoustic pianos above. *I don't think this is a psychoacoustic experiment so much as a simple question combining acoustics and functional harmony. Maybe I'm wrong, and you can correct me if I am, but I believe that unless you reduce the harmonic content to nothing but the fundamental, I think you are asking a question with a primarily objective answer (with the ONLY subjective factor being the #11 and b7, whose denomination can be argued by the listener, since they are off the mark).* Well I don't think it is a psychocoustic experiment either and frankly, I am not sure what that means. It might be true or not if I understood the Context of what that would be. I do know that the context of my giving the student a simple way to see if he can connect to his inner self and learn to listen in a different way with the help of NOT thinking about it but just listening to it more closely. If that doesn't work, I have other ways of learning to hear what is missing so that you can increase your awareness of what you hear as one learns to LISTEN not only to others but to yourself as well. Our minds remember so many things that we do not know how to access. Some people can access their subconscious easier than others. It is at least something that can be learned and improved with practice. The more I know about a student, the better I can match exercises with their leaning styles. Now as to reducing the content to nothing but the fundamental, I don't see how you can jump to the #11 and the b7 or more accurately in MY context, the m7. It is not flatted, it is what it is and in some contexts that those who hear the series as Tonic, would be be hearing an A. Its the same tone, but in one context it would be either dropped by the ear's interpretation of the sound or the A would be the logical choice rather than the min7 which would spell out the Dominant chord. And as stated before, the #11 comes only VERY late, in fact, only in the last century when it became popular mostly by jazz musicians and is still not accepted by some!! and we are beginning this discussion with an old Greek who discovered the beginning of this topi's context of the overtone series' first three elements being discovered what 3000 years ago? And I can't document the Chinese who lay claim to just about everything back 6000 years ago. That puts the #11 way out of context as a test for tonic or dominant but, in what I know abut you so far, If you hear the #11 in a single note and/or the m7 in the single note then your answer would be Dominant. If you don't then you would have to conclude Tonic. Now a quick reminder about the off the mark aspects of the 11th and the 7th. Yes they are off the mark. In the CONTEXT (there is that ugly word again) of my post, that "off the mark" is the point of of this whole discussion. AT least one of the main points. It is that off the mark ambiguity that is the point. That is what you ear or your inner ear hears that causes it to have to make a decision! Is this note an F or an F# ? is this note an A or a Bb? and lol here is that word again, CONTEXT, the context of the music is what our inner ear has to help it decide. But I have said enough about that for the moment. * In the case of a sine wave, by the way, I hear the sound as tonic.* There. Was that so hard?

  940. musictheory 2015-11-19 13:09:12 Exploding_Pies
    Much of this relates to the theory behind tuning systems. Our understanding of tuning begins with Pythagoras, who noticed that when two strings were played together, they sounded more consonant if they were a related by a "simple" ratio (one in which both terms are small numbers). If one string was twice as long as the other, they would sound an octave. If they were in a ratio of 3:2, they sounded a fifth. The reason that these simple ratios sound more pure is related to the way that the harmonics of these pitches line up. Thirds, and by inversion 6ths, have only slightly larger terms, with M3 => 5:4 and m3 => 6:5 and so were also fairly consonant. When building a tuning system with pure 5ths, however, one cannot also have pure thirds. They instead have a ratio of M3 => 81:64 m3 => 32:27, which are much less "pure". As tuning with pure 5ths was common in the middle ages, many instruments did not have access to pure 3rds and 6ths. Thus, music was originally written to make use of pure 4ths, 5ths, and octaves. Composers eventually realized that they could use less consonant interval to good effect, resulting in the now-familiar pattern of tension and release. It may be of interest to note that, in Gradus Ad Parnassum, Fux advocates beginning and ending each counterpoint on a perfect consonance (fifth or octave), but to use more 3rds and 6ths in the middle as they are more "harmonious". 2nds, 7ths, and tritones all have much more complicated ratios, and their harmonics line up much less cleanly, so they were introduced later and under tighter restrictions. In Fux, these intervals, when allowed, must be resolved by step to a consonance.

  941. musictheory 2015-11-19 14:17:40 Xenoceratops
    I wasn't implying that the two were at all historically related or in competition. Carlo Gesualdo anticipated the 19th century in 16th century, Jean-Féry Rebel anticipated the 20th century (and the 19th; the ballet is programmatic) in the 18th century. Gesualdo was remembered, Rebel was forgotten. I'd be interested in why that is the case. I find it interesting that there is this theme, this representation of creation, of tonal order emerging from chaos that some composers picked up on in this particular way: a wildly dissonant introduction that gives way to more conventional music. The Rebel example has already been spoken for, but you also have [Mozart's C major "Dissonance" string quartet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuMs8kD5Des) and [Beethoven's C major string quartet, op.9, no.3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkfVc3EcuQ4), which takes after the Mozart. Does anybody know of other pieces that behave in the same way? I feel like there is a musicology paper waiting to happen here.

  942. musictheory 2015-11-21 00:20:15 lukievan
    I think it partly depends on what kind of music you are trying to write. Obviously, writing a string quartet or jazz tune can take a certain amount of theoretical understanding that most people can't just intuitively grasp. But if you're writing simpler songs, especially ones with vocals, sometimes it's best to ignore the theory stuff and try and connect with the emotion/feel you want to get across. In those cases, it may be better to focus on detaching the intellect and connecting with your heart/soul/whatever you want to call it. Once you've got something going that feels authentic to you, then you can always go back and apply some theory to it and try and spice it up or add more complexity or take something conventional and make it more interesting. I'm also a big believer in the magic of mistakes and "wrong" choices leading to unique and special moments. For me, learning theory has been a long and slow process and it's a bit of a balancing-act. Sometimes the theory constrains me - I will automatically go for certain chords/progressions that I know will work and it feels like I'm just assembling pre-constructed building blocks instead of being "in the flow" of the creative process. But other times the theory helps me get to some interesting places that I wouldn't have otherwise. Maybe it's best to treat theory like a fun skill you are learning - one that may or may not inform every note you write, and not so much the fundamental, necessary underpinning of the entire endeavor of making music.

  943. musictheory 2015-11-21 03:03:59 Bigfrostynugs
    I obviously see what you're saying conceptually, but that's just how we've made things in the world of academic music. When we say "music theory" in an academic context, we're almost never referring to orchestration because it's so vast and considered its own category. That's just how it's always been. You wouldn't go to a music theory class and expect to learn about the range of the clarinet, or what doublings sound nicest in the string orchestra. Yes, orchestration is music theory, but for all intents and purposes we discuss it as its own, separate subject because of how different it is from the rest of music theory.

  944. musictheory 2015-11-22 13:02:29 [deleted]
    Okay, it's a historical thing. On the other hand wouldn't scale based perspective be useful in conjunction with tonality, to give additional insight into things like instances of static harmony, perhaps? Isn't the term mode mixture out of place if a lax meaning of mode is to be avoided elsewhere? They call Pluto a dwarf planet now, maybe everyone's happy if we just similarly append the word "historical" or "modern" for clarity when the need arises? The example was to be a "neverending" vamp-to-fadeout, hypothetically already hypermetrically analyzed to ascertain there isn't a lone pick-up bar or some such. I-V-I-V, I understand to be a way a static harmony may look, which I read is named as such because it *doesn't* functionally progress. A string of true cadential gestures sounds a lot different than a casual vamp, but I may just as well be misinformed and not very in tune with my senses on top of it. If that idea is greenlighted though, I-V-I-IV is also a static pattern, and altering it with a minor substitution gives the I-V-vi-IV pop magic. Are all the four-chord offender songs not tonal by lacking functional harmony? Would reordering the chords just a tad make it represent a functional harmony even if lacking cadential intensity to the voice leading? [Alright, I tried that out a little.](https://clyp.it/jrnaaozn) Is the reliance on ambiguous/non-tertian chords the point?

  945. musictheory 2015-11-22 20:14:21 aquamarine_tangerine
    Yep. G#m(b6). Or E maj first inversion. It wouldn't be a #5 because you have the nat 5 on the A string.

  946. musictheory 2015-11-23 05:37:01 Sihplak
    Going by the tabs [here](http://www.songsterr.com/a/wsa/august-burns-red-marianas-trench-tab-s58912t0), the notes are Ab Eb C G Eb in order, and the notes that sound accented are the first Ab, and the C (8 on higher C string, 7 on F string). However, it does change to 3+2 at the end of the phrase, when it plays C D Eb Bb G. Another reason for why I interpret it as 2+3 might be due to the intervals and chords it implies; The first two notes, Ab and Eb make a perfect fifth, implying that to finish the chord you'd need the third in the middle somewhere, then the next three, C G Eb, spells out the C minor chord, but with the third played after the fifth instead of before, so you essentially have two beats on an Ab power chord, followed by three beats on C minor (the notes then change on the second half of the phrase, changing Ab and G to C and D, but the idea of the pattern stays the same). That's just the general way I interpret it, although I do hear what you mean by saying 3+2, as the first three notes together sound stronger because they're lower, and the last two are lighter which finishes off the 5/8 pattern, which could also work by saying the chords played are Ab major for the first three beats (Ab Eb C) then a major third interval (G Eb) for the next two. Honestly, either method seems valid, and it can probably be left more up to the musician playing it to deem what sounds easier to count or play.

  947. musictheory 2015-11-23 06:39:01 brutishbloodgod
    Opeth is a really phenomenal metal band. Them and Isis I think really changed the broader perception of what metal was back around the early 2000's. Just in general, there's a little bit of variance in Opeth's approach between their first two albums, their middle period (*My Arms Your Hearse* through *Watershed*), and their most recent period where they've gone full-on prog rock. For the middle period, some common characteristics are: * Compound time signatures (lots of 6/8 and 12/8), with a frequent rhythmic pattern being an accented quarter note followed by four unaccented eighth notes. * Melodies doubled at the octave (the guitarists will play what are basically power chord shapes, but using the first finger to mute the string above it rather than playing the fifth on that string, and then having the third finger play the octave on the next string up) * Extended power chords (the guitar use a major barre chord shape across all six strings, but use the middle finger to mute the G string rather than playing the third on that string) * Lots of diminished power chords (root-b5-octave) and added minor ninth power chords (root-5-b9) * Wide variety of melodic palates (Aeolian and Dorian modes, harmonic minor, half-whole diminished, chromatic, I think a few exotic scales here and there) * Moving chords up by leaps of minor thirds to create parallel harmonic motion along a fully diminished 7th chord (as with "Baying of the Hounds"), or playing power chords along a half-whole diminished scale

  948. musictheory 2015-11-24 00:39:00 ljse7m
    The 4 part writing of Bach, is about the connection of chords from one chord to another. IF you are a guitar player (and this is not a slur on guitar players only the nature of their beast) you finger a chord and if you use the bar and play all six strings, that is six string voicing. If you use, as lots of jazz players you only use the three highest three strings that is 4 part voicing. If you are a beginning guitarist and say you have ONE fingering for each chord type and you would slide this fingering to the proper fret to play each chord written to the song, this would be a form of BLOCK CHORDS and everything in the harmony would just be the same voicing of notes and each voice in the chord would be parallel to each other and the individual tones in four part chords would mimic the root movement of the chords. Of course your chords would be very disjunct and there would only be moved in the same manner scattered all over the fingerboard. The sophisticated guitar player had many different fingerings or voicing for every chord type so that he can keep his harmony very close to the same width of frets so that each note from one chord lies in the proximity of a note in the chord close to the one before and after it. Bach 4-part chorales is the standard of how in functional harmony accomplishes this for four voices. Since Bach came from the contrapuntal school of music, he realized the importance of each voice having its own melody. In chorales, however, the congregation often will be singing along with the choir so the congregation would not be likely to be professional singers enough to handle true 4 part counterpoint so he wants this to be easier to sing and to listen to the message of the text of the music as that is the message that is important to the function of the music. So he combines counterpoint and the concept of block harmony (not block voicing) or one chord per word or measure or what ever the harmonic rhythm is in the many contexts that four part voicing is used. The basic idea is that as the voices weave their way through the chords, the harmony must be clearly defined. This leads to voicing rules such as One occurance of the 3rd of the chord, the root is usually in the bass or if not is in there someplace, that the 7th must be there if it is in the chord chosen but also must be only in the chord in one voice. And there are rules that account for non harmonic tones and how they approach and exit the chord tones. There is another aspect of 4 part voice leading and that is where most students of music have problems and lots of beginners just throw up their hands and quit music because they can't get through this one aspect of beginning theory in school and that is: NO parallel fifths or octaves and that includes hidden fifths and octaves! The reasoning behind this is that if octaves are parallel, there is no longer 4 part writing. Its only three parts! and that is not acceptable "IN THAT STYLE" . Since the 5ths are the next closest interval in perfectness to the Octave, they have the same restrictions. The only reason I brought up guitar as being difficult for learning part writing is that you have to be a really good guitar player to do this and to do this in real time with genres like Jazz and constantly changing of keys for brief moments and the more complex chords that are being used (usually with at least 4 notes in the chord, and 5 or 6 fairly common and with all sorts of alteration possibilities, they pragmatically have to play the closest voicing possible with the necessity of the fret board that it is not practical to even attempt to voice lead their chord background on the instrument. Again, this is the nature of the beast, not a slur on guitars or their players. I mean I say it in the same context as one might say "its not the nature of a trumpet player to play 4 part harmony on his instrument!" The guitar is not designed to play counterpoint. Its designed to play chords. A good guitarist will play smooth voicings on the guitar but will not be comfortable playing BACH style voicing of the chords as it is not designed for counterpoint. Maybe this clears up the differences a bit? Please let me know. LJSe7m

  949. musictheory 2015-11-24 07:28:22 Xenoceratops
    Audiation *can be* helpful for score/style identification, but you can tell a lot by how the excerpt looks. For example, if I see [this](http://i.imgur.com/VPquxTC.jpg), my immediate thought is, "Come on, Chopin, this bullshit again?" I say that mostly because of the gigantic ornament, but there are other things that exclude it from certain repertoire: the piano did not come into its own until the Classical era, so the pedal markings and accents (not available on the harpsichord) place it after the 1760's. (Of course, modern editions of Baroque keyboard music normally assume that people will be playing it on piano, and editors will write in expressions, dynamics, and articulations that were impossible on the keyboard instruments of those days.) The key signature (B major) is unusual though not unheard of for the Classical era; you're more likely to see music written closer to the "C major" side of the circle of fifths, with fewer flats/sharps in the key sig. That ornament is the dead giveaway, though. Virtuosic elements like that are typical of Romantic period composers such as Paganini, Liszt, and Chopin. Here's [another](http://i.imgur.com/6OwdAqF.jpg). This should scream 20th century at you. Check out the registral compass: the distance between the lowest note and the highest note is *five-and-a-half octaves*. Music since the twentieth century has a habit of exploiting the extremes of register. Likewise, we have extremes of dynamic: fortissississimo, then pianissimo in the very next measure. [One more](http://i.imgur.com/d0luwER.jpg). The figured bass should tell you that this is Baroque. You might notice that there are three parts. It is likely that this is a trio sonata. A weird thing about trio sonatas: sometimes they are written with four staves, meaning that the trio consists of four instruments. In this case, the bottom two staves will have the exact same notes. Only one of those staves might have the thoroughbass, though. Modern editors will often realize one of the continuo parts for piano, getting rid of the figured bass numbers. However, you can still look for a cello doubling the bass melody of the piano to see if it's a trio sonata. And [one last one](http://i.imgur.com/SBNDgzf.jpg). Changing meter = 20th/21st century. Look at those clefs: it's a string quartet. And is there *really* any difference between ffff, fffff, and ffffff?

  950. musictheory 2015-11-25 02:10:25 nmitchell076
    So by energetics, I merely mean how much "energy" we feel like a musical passage is exhibiting. So an ascending sequence usually intuitively feels more "energized" than a lyrical melody. Galant phrase schemata are basically the collection of stock musical gestures that a composer working in the Galant Style (roughly 1720 to 1780) deployed in their music. A musical schema (to borrow a lovely simile from Gjerdingen) is a lot like a move performed by a figure skater (a triple lutz, for instance). With the string of musical schemata that make up the piece being akin to the string of moves that make up a figure skating routine. Open Music Theory has an overview of what schemata are [here](http://openmusictheory.com/schemataOpensAndCloses) and a list of many basic schemata [here](http://openmusictheory.com/schemataSummary.html). The point of this post is "Hey, what if we said each schema has a certain degree of energy inherent to it?" And then analyzes a piece.

  951. musictheory 2015-11-25 10:28:47 Kennpower
    What I mean for example, is, say I am playing in A. I will start the first box (the C shape box shown in the first link) on the fifth fret of the 6th string (A root). Then, if I want to play in the key of G next, I play the same first box (C Shape) except start on the 3rd fret of the 6th string? As for the patterns, I just mean it shows different boxes for major and minor

  952. musictheory 2015-11-25 13:49:26 Xenoceratops
    Bartók's sonata forms are fun. From most straightforward to least: [Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, Mvt.2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m129k5YcQnU&t=7m02s), [String Quartet No.4, Mvt.1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVfOkWBU6Pc) (has an inverted recapitulation; I II Dev. II I), [Concerto for Orchestra, Mvt.1 & Mvt.5 (28:21)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb37dJFPoFg) (Mvt.1 has something like 8 themes; compare with [the first movement of Mahler's 4th](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnfhInZLmUQ), which gets weird). With the exception of the String Quartet No.4 all of these contain fugati, in case you want to touch upon fugal procedures within sonata form works. I've always been partial to the first movement of Beethoven's [Waldstein Sonata](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbblMw6k1cU): the thematic areas are easy to suss out, but the movement has several twists. Probably a medium level, but this piece helped me to come to grasp with sonata form as a concept. The final movement (14:14) is sonata-rondo form, and a pretty straightforward one at that (except that the last A is a hybrid rondo theme/coda/micro-development section). Of course, there's also the [5th symphony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lHOYvIhLxo), which has two sonata form movements: I and IV (25:06). I feel that this one is on the easier side: [Dvořák - Symphony No.8, Mvt.1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unIMDYXdHIA) - The introduction is used to build up to the recapitulation.

  953. musictheory 2015-11-26 06:14:07 ljse7m
    I don't know if I ever heard such a mishmash of reasons that doesn't get to the basics in quite a while. lol With a few on target reasons but sifting them out if you don't know would be almost impossible! The ear hears the top note most prominently unless really balanced out with all things being equal. The ear also hears the lowest note prominently. The notes between, especially in recordings fall prey to intermodulation distortion and will tend to be muddy at least when it comes to distinguishing the individual voice or instrument or in more sparse orchestrations individual strings. Like on a guitar. if you play a 6 string chord you hear the E strings most clearly and the A D G B not so much. But the rhythm guitarist fits right into the mix because of this. THe sound of the whole chord he plays is what is important and the bass player will enhance this effect as the bass is then the lowest instrument and the quality of the chord type still finds its way through

  954. musictheory 2015-11-26 06:36:31 ljse7m
    This is an amended post as the original one I started got saved by mistake and I didn't know that it had posted. I thought I lost it. sorry for the redundancy. SO.... The ear hears the top and bottom note more easily from the rest. the notes between them will interact with each other more and tend to make the inner voices blend together. In old HiFi days on the better rigs, this was measured with a term called intermodulation distortion. With a low IM Distortion you could hear the inner voices much clearer than on a regular record player, for example. On a guitar, if the player plays a 6 note chord the two E strings will be more prominent everything else being equal This is why old time rhythm guitarists did lots of 6 string chords as they blended together to form a sort of "sound block" of the chord and you heard the pulse of the block of sound defining the chord quality and when played rhythmically created a pulse to emphasize the rhythm. Add the lead guitar and the bass and you had the low notes on the bass combining with the rhythm guitar with the pulse or counter pulse in the bottom and the lead guitar playing melody or melodic licks that would stick out more because of the same above reasons. The singer then would be on top of the rhythm guitar and bass and the lead guitarist would work with the singer so as not to conflict and muddy each of their prominent placings in the orchestration. The same principles apply to all genres of music. The reason that too much harmony in the lower ranges is muddy is related by physics to the structure of the Harmonic series. This natural series of overtones that is found in every musical note starts out very widely spaced and increasingly closer together as the series gets higher and as it gets higher, the overtones get softer. So the most naturally effective orchestration of notes starts widely spaced like an octave above the lower note then a fifth then a fourth then a third then a minor third then a note between that note and the next 4th and then to whole steps and half steps and then quarter tones etc, Now, mixing techniques can alter some of these natural tendencies I mention but these characteristics still are present and generally, in all genres, these principles will win out except if you are into special effects. Now also, if you leave space in an orchestration, the space that is empty will allow the melody played in that space to stand out more than it would normally be heard. I hope that this helps the OP to understand better what he asked.

  955. musictheory 2015-11-26 06:50:57 ljse7m
    beethoven's symphony number 1 is perfect and simple with clear cut thems and all the major parts. As is most all of his piano sonatas but you may run into an occasional rondo or rondo sonata. Mozart will be about the same as will hydan etc. In all cases, the first movement is the one to use. a quick read through will show anyone who should be teaching this form if he picked a good one. with the above three examples, any one that is a Sonata Allegro will be a good one. I like the Beethoven as it was one of the first ones that I analyzed in the college and it is just so perfectly written and clear. Then as you get deeper into the musical forms, you have nine symphonies and each one, I believe have at least one Sonata Allegro form and you can easily see how the form develops with the commonality of the genuis of Beethoven! and the same thing can be said of his string quartets as well.

  956. musictheory 2015-11-27 03:54:39 audiosemipro
    Great question. Really got me thinking. I think there are a few factors for picking the right instrument for the right part. Obviously the range of the instrument is important, you can't exactly play a good bass line on a flute :) The genre of your song will also require different customs. For example, a distorted lead guitar melody might make sense in rock music, but it would not be the best choice for folk. The dynamic properties of the instrument is also important. If you have a melody that requires volume swells, raising the volume of a note after the initial attack, you need to choose an instrument that can do that, like a horn or string. A piano wouldn't be able to get the correct dynamics. Last I'd say is that you want a texturally correct instrument to compliment the other instruments in the song. So if you have a synth pad playing chords in the back of your song, it might be wise not to pick a patch that is going to be really attention grabbing and take up the whole frequency band. You want to leave space for other instruments to shine through!

  957. musictheory 2015-11-29 01:54:19 mathguy8288
    Appreciate the feedback. The notes youre hearing in the background is not supposed to be the "11" as I think I understand you. What I did was separate the entire piece into 210 quarter notes. 210 is 2x3x5x7, the first four primes. Then I filled out the 210 spots with the {2,3,5,7} starting with the 2 at C5 I believe. That's the primary notes you hear. After I filled those in I inserted 3 different low volume background noises that would play every 6, 10, and 15 notes. 210 is also divisible by 6, 10 &amp; 15. One is a very low bass, one is a higher synthesizer sound and the other a string.

  958. musictheory 2015-12-02 00:37:39 sttikjt
    For fretted notes, nothing is changed. For open (no fingering) notes, it's moved 3 1/2 steps higher (basically the note for the 7th fret of that string).

  959. musictheory 2015-12-02 00:49:17 sttikjt
    When you pres down on the string, the string presses down against the fret just past your finger. It basically shortens the effective length of the string, which is what changes the pitch. When you use a capo on the fifth fret, your essentially fingering the fifth fret of every string, shortening all of the strings to that fret. When you finger 3 frets past on one string, that string is "shortened" further. Nothing behind the highest fret being pressed really matters, because that part of the string is basically cut off. -Edit- This might make it a bit easier as well. [Check out these pictures of bar chords](http://imgur.com/a/j4ddV). Small, shitty pictures, I know. If you notice of the fingering diagram, the third fret on the middle string is marked, but no marking on the first fret, while in the other picture the guy is using his index finger to press down all of the strings on that fret. They don't bother marking it because, while that fret is still being pressed down, it doesn't change anything because another fret further down is being pressed. The finger is your capo in this example.

  960. musictheory 2015-12-02 01:51:58 AndrewT81
    You can still use that note chart with a capo, you just need to move the fret numbers to the right. For example, if you're putting the capo on the 7th fret, you're essentially chopping frets 1-6 off of the picture and what's listed on the 7th fret is now your open string. If you're going from tab to notation, all you need to do is add the fret that's capoed to the written number. So with a capo on 7, 3rd fret on the third string would become 10th fret on the third string, which would be F above middle C.

  961. musictheory 2015-12-02 02:45:16 gotthattrans
    FYI that chord in the song is actually D7sus, D-C-G-A: 10-(0)-10-12-10-x (He tends to not mute the A string; this might be random throughout any performance.)

  962. musictheory 2015-12-02 03:44:06 ljse7m
    most of your concerns are relative to what your professor it looking for and what his guidelines are as expressed in class. It looks pretty good to me but I have not used the rules for quite a while. I did not see and parallel 5ths or 8ths but maybe a possible hidden (omited hidden) one or two. I also don't remember if your two notes of the same length in measures 8 and 9 might be going into species 3 or something. I would check your notes to see if your chromatic C to C# is acceptable. I don't remember it being characteristic of the period but in your class it may be OK. Your first P.T. might be suspect. It could be an escaped tone but that would result in a parallel fifth, but and I am not sure about that skip resolution even if you changed that. I think someone asked about outlining chords. Check you guidelines on those issues. Different teachers may have different rules. In second species, I don't remember chromatic tones to be used at all except as a suspension leading tone coming back to the tonic. But things may be looser in your class. The parameters that you question in your post are mostly individual taste unless the teacher specifically asked for or talked about in class. I.e. did he set guidelines for how many 5th or 3rds etc HE suggests. I would think that those issues would be at the discretion of the composer and his sense of what he thinks is good or bad. If it is a strict assignment to follow particular parameters, then that would have to be followed. The guitar string guy seems to be more current on the rules than I am so I would pay close attention to what he is saying. There is a free Fux on line if you don't have one. Good luck and please let us know how you do. ljse7m I would ask if your vocal range of the tenor is in the limits of what was covered in class. It looks a lot wider than the C.F. Again, this is only an issue if you have to follow strict limits of the range of the voices. With those stipulations, I think its pretty good Aloysius. But check out the rules of your master. I do remember that when starting that back in school it was almost expected that you would write multiple solutions as you try to follow ALL of those simple but pesky rules and that trying to correct them was not always the best way. New solutions for clear sections might be more efficient than to try to correct everything. Just a thought. You would not be the first to start fresh after completing an assignment of this type. ljse7m

  963. musictheory 2015-12-02 19:56:43 Xenoceratops
    You need the following: * Ta-ka * Ta-ki-ta These are groups of divisions that you can string together to form meters. There are three ways you can do this: * Nothing but "Taka". Examples: {[Taka Taka Taka Taka](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_XLOBDo_Y)}, {[Taka Taka Taka](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkmrjrfitBo)} * Nothing but "Takita". Examples: {[Takita Takita](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ateQQc-AgEM)}, {[Takita Takita Takita](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8kuQz-VVDs)}, {[Takita Takita Takita Takita](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFlovMGwUoA)} * "Taka" and "Takita" mixed. Examples: {[Taka Taka Takita](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4Apz6PnEp8)}, {[Taka Taka Takita Taka Taka](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpwxGlr0IU)}, {[Taka Takita Taka Taka](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lao58-7Hg2U)} Alright, so now we name these. Listen for chord changes to help you determine how many beats are in the cycle. The ones that consist solely of "Taka" are called "simple" meters. Count each "Taka" in the cycle, and you have the name of the meter. 4 of them makes a meter of 4, 3 of them makes a meter of 3, 5 of them makes a meter of 5, and so on. Simple, geddit? The ones made solely of "Takita" are called "compound" meters. To get the names of these ones, you have to count out each syllable. Ta(1)-ki(2)-ta(3). The shortcut is to listen for how many Takita's are in a cycle, then multiply that number by 3. So, if you have 4 in the cycle, then the meter is going to be called 12. If there are 3, it's 9. If there are 2, it's 6. If there are 5, it's 15. Lastly, the meters made up of both "Taka" and "Takita" are called "asymmetric" meters. You have to count all of the syllables – there's no shortcut. Another thing: in case it did not occur to you, you can represent Taka numerically as 2 and Takita as 3. So, Taka Taka Takita becomes 2+2+3, or 7. Taka Takita Taka Taka becomes 2+3+2+2, or 9. Taka Taka Takita Taka Taka becomes 2+2+3+2+2, or 11. You get the picture.

  964. musictheory 2015-12-03 09:05:51 Violinjuggler
    Or string music.

  965. musictheory 2015-12-05 07:39:55 DComposer
    Transcribed and analyzed Dick Oatts's solo on Stella by Starlight from Standard Issue vol. II. Composed an arrangement of Joy Spring for solo piano using motives learned from transcriptions studied this semester. Schenkerian analysis of Beethoven's String quartet no. 12 op. 127 first movement. Now I'm grading a bunch of poorly written album reviews, only 120 left to grade!

  966. musictheory 2015-12-05 08:24:07 ljse7m
    You will have to just do what you can to start, then you will know what you need to know. Some things to consider. Lots of people don't really mean sight reading when they say sight reading. If you can look through the parts and figure them out relatively quickly there is a good chance you read as well as many in the group.. sometimes they actually mean read at all! You will only know when you get there. Did she hear you play? or just think you are cute and you own a guitar? If she heard you play and asked you, you should be ok. Won't know till you get there. If you want to practice sight reading, search for a free online fake book and if you know any tunes she is playing, read them. If not, just pracctice sight reading. How are you at reading alphabets? Yes9, chord symbols are standard in Preferably 4 string chords as they are easier and you can slide around easier. but practice ii7 V7 I (i) chords These are very common in jazz and i chords are. IF they are serious and you make an effort, usually young groups are very rehearsal heavy. and that may just make up for any shortcomings. Now if they want you to start on a paying gig or even a freebie gig, well, I don't think that they would have asked you if that were the case. The point is, except for the ii V I patterns major and minor. there is little you can do, so relax and enjoy the experience. At worst you will know what you need to work on to get started for them. At best you have new friends that want to learn Jazz and that is not bad at all. Good luck, remember that if there are lots of extensions, just play a chord with the same root and color and you don't have to play all the notes but the most important rule of all is to listen.. Listen to what they play and listen to what you play. AND If you make a mistake, DO NOT STOP. keep your place in the music and continue with your best shot at the next chord.!! THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT> IF you make a mistake, some may notice and some may not but if you stop, everyone knows it and the music suffers more than if you play wrong chord or note. Have fun and learn. ljse7m

  967. musictheory 2015-12-05 11:32:19 Ununoctium117
    Write a Minuet and Trio for String Quartet (done! being performed this Sunday), and write a Piano Miniature in the style of Schumann's Album für die Jugend (due Monday, I have 4 measures).

  968. musictheory 2015-12-06 05:21:44 cheerioh
    As a guitarist I have virtually no doubt that you're not supposed to play the upper 00 (EA) and due to sloppy tabbing it wasn't mentioned (happens all the time). This tab is a maj7 variation on the most basic form of playing a D chord with open strings - (00)0232 where your bass is the fourth string and you never play the parenthesized E and A. They should technically be written as 'xx' - Notch it to typical online tabbing ambiguity.

  969. musictheory 2015-12-06 09:11:27 CedricTheAlarmist
    Replace the A string with another low E maybe. edit: Well, unless he means bringing it up to the next octave, which would make more sense. But in that case I'd also wanna use another string. Maybe a D and tune it up two steps.

  970. musictheory 2015-12-07 00:34:05 TNUGS
    one fret = one half-step try to learn the shape of each interval on your fretboard. example: a perfect fifth is one string up and two frets up (other than from the G to B string, because it's a different interval than other strings)

  971. musictheory 2015-12-08 15:06:04 randomnese
    Depends on the instrument: low string instruments like cellos and basses should stay put and play the ink because they are typically capable of playing one line and the bass line must be heard clearly. Harpsichords have a little more freedom but even then it's mostly just block chords; the modern definition of improvisation that you see in jazz and in florid cadenzas are completely different from the Baroque concept of improvisation (outside of cadenzas), which were mostly just simple notes stacked on top of each other. Most of the challenge came in voice leading correctly as you were playing. Nowadays, most commonly-played Baroque pieces have more-or-less standard ways to realize figured bass like St. Matthew Passion and the Brandenburg Concertos. A lot of them have the bass already realized for the harpsichord.

  972. musictheory 2015-12-08 20:37:59 bstix
    How it sounds depends very much on how you choose to interpret the data in music. Googling the topic, I found [this paper](http://archive.bridgesmathart.org/2015/bridges2015-407.pdf) in which the author assigns the primes to the pitch and the prime gaps to the rhythm. Well, that's one way to do it. I'm not sure I understand from your post, how you want to interpret the data. Do you know how to program stuff? It isn't very difficult to trigger a sound at different rates (pitch) based on the data string of the prime gaps.

  973. musictheory 2015-12-09 03:30:34 disaster_face
    > Forget entirely about modes until you have those basics down -- for some reason guitarists are really prone to getting confused by this topic early on for no good reason. I've thought about why this is so common for guitarists, and this is what I think: It's because modes are often equated with hand positions by a lot of guitar teachers... For example, you can play a major scale from any root note on the low E string all the way up 2 octaves without changing your hand position... then guitarists are often taught to move their hand position note by note (starting from the supertonic, then the mediant, etc.) as a way to reach progressively higher parts of the neck. This is often falsely equated with actually playing those modes from a harmony standpoint, which often isn't what is actually going on. On guitar, it's important to learn to start a scale from any note from a technique standpoint (in order to play fluidly across a large range) long before it's necessary to learn the modes theoretically. A guitarist can be playing a C major scale over a C major chord, but if their hand position leaves their index finger hovering over G on the low string, they will often think of it as mixolydian.

  974. musictheory 2015-12-09 06:28:21 Friedrich_says
    In notation for fiddle/violin it means a unison, ie the same note played on two strings at the same time. Eg 4th finger on the D string (A) and the open A string.

  975. musictheory 2015-12-09 11:13:52 ARE_U_FUCKING_SORRY
    Not sure if it is the most complex, but here are a few 1. [Atushi Ojisama and Ijigen Waltz](http://i.imgur.com/x0rCXpS.jpg) 2. [Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz](http://i.imgur.com/gXXca9p.jpg) 3. [String Quartet No. 556(b) for Strings In A Minor (Motoring Accident)](http://i.imgur.com/0ElVGjb.png) 4. [Prelude and the Last Hope in C and C# minor](http://i.imgur.com/VS24V2y.jpg) 2, 3 & 4 are by John Stump Edited with more info and stuff

  976. musictheory 2015-12-09 13:23:42 phalp
    How about Ben Johnston's [7th string quartet](http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2010/03/the_mount_everest_of_string_qu.html), which happens to use more than 1200 different pitches in its third movement?

  977. musictheory 2015-12-09 22:31:20 joulesisenergy
    I mean, yeah why not. Anybody can do anything. And people in the same section, 99% of the time, are playing the same part. You'll find in scores though that when pieces are orchestrated they aren't orchestrated into your standard SATB choral set-up, simply because orchestras aren't choirs. Depending on who you decide to orchestrate for, let's say strings only, the cellos and string basses may take notes lower than a bass voice is comfortable taking, and a violin may take notes high than a violin is comfortable taking. And there may be more than 4 distinct notes in any given chord/verticality to account for the wider spread, or the fact that you have more than four distinct instruments on stage when you have a full orchestra. Remember that when you orchestrate, you are adapting a piece for a group of people that have different capabilities than the group of people the piece was originally for. So the chords will be voiced different, texture might change, secondary parts may be added, etc. I suggest studying pieces that have been composed for one instrument/group of instruments (usually piano) and orchestrated for a different group of instruments. Here are some famous ones, all early 20th century French/Russian because that is the best music: 1. Maurice Ravel's [Ma mère l'oye suite](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL2fjpoS3Kw), originally written as a piano duet for the Godebski children, the daughters of two of Ravel's patrons, and then later [orchestrated by the composer.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3rir1bWTyI) Ravel had a wonderful mind for orchestration, creating precise analogs to the sounds of the piano in the orchestra while at the same time creating an entirely new piece using the expanded tone palette of the orchestra. The last movement, Le garden féerique, is particularly stunning in its transition, and does a little bit of what i think you're aiming to do, which is use a chorale-like texture in an instrumental setting (right at the beginning with the strings). But the parts fit well on the instruments, and this texture eventually expands into what is eventually the grand conclusion. 2. Erik Satie's [Trois Gymnopédies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WNCBPdetG4), any one of which you will find as the first track of any "soothing" YouTube playlist. Claude Debussy took the [first and the third Gymnopédies and orchestrated them.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVQCo3jTNrw) (The second he thought was not suited for orchestration.) Lots of added parts not in the original piano piece, including the harp arpeggios in the second of the two of the orchestration*, creating a related but different mood than the original piano piece. The piano piece is very introverted, this one seems very otherworldly. 3. Modest Mussorgsky's [Pictures at an Exhibition](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8z1_A-Zlbw), everyone's first introduction to odd meter (unless it was [Take Five](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmDDOFXSgAs)) and mixed meter (unless it was [Blue Rondo a la Turk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAlVasHbipo)).** [Orchestrated by Ravel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSumsdfyiv8) because the French and the Russians were bros for life. I love how the opening theme is initially interpreted as a brass fanfare, then is orchestrated differently through each of the Promenades, and then the whole orchestra gets to play when it shows up in the The Great Gate of Kiev, the final movement. All of the sheet music for these pieces should be available on IMSLP. Above all, remember that orchestration is not just assigning parts in a piece to a different instrument group. Don't just give the violas the alto part and make them pretend they are singers, because violas are bad singers. Give the violas a viola part. Give the trumpets a trumpet part. Give the orchestra an orchestral piece. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Don't give the orchestra a choir piece. \* Debussy, oddly, called the third Gymnopédie the first and vice versa, so that the first piece in the orchestration is the first Gymnopédie/actually the third, and the second piece in the orchestration is the third Gymnopédie/actually the first. I'm gonna blame the editors for that one. ** R.I.P. Dave Brubeck. Time Out was a really friggin good album.

  978. musictheory 2015-12-09 23:08:17 Mentioned_Videos
    Videos in this thread: [Watch Playlist &#9654;](http://sbtl.tv/_r3w0osj?feature=playlist) VIDEO|COMMENT -|- [Brian Ferneyhough - String Quartet No 6](https://youtube.com/watch?v=piBqsmYcj0s)|[24](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3w0osj/_/cxsfla3?context=10#cxsfla3) - Brian Ferneyhough and the &#39;New Compexity&#39; school. [Black Queen by Dreamer/Flying Cows Protracker Mod](https://youtube.com/watch?v=1fE3N8_UWdY)|[5](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3w0osj/_/cxsmexb?context=10#cxsmexb) - Complexity can mean many things. I am going to put my vote on this: Music theory wise it may not be that interesting, but the programming is needlessly complex, just to make the visual illusion that the pattern sequencer plays both backwards, forwa... [Meshuggah - I](https://youtube.com/watch?v=YmpUNQYwxBg)|[2](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3w0osj/_/cxsrt8l?context=10#cxsrt8l) - maybe not the most complex, but I&#39;ve yet to see any band memorize the whole song and perform it flawlessly, including the composers themselves: Meshuggah - I [Climbing a Mountain: Arditti Quartet rehearse Brian Ferneyhough 'String Quartet no. 6'](https://dailymotion.com/video/x3024at)|[1](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3w0osj/_/cxsuk8u?context=10#cxsuk8u) - Here you go. [brian ferneyhough bone alphabet](https://youtube.com/watch?v=wTvzfP23zwk)|[1](https://reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/3w0osj/_/cxsu7fl?context=10#cxsu7fl) - I just tried searching for that video, which I&#39;ve seen before, but I can&#39;t find it. Here&#39;s one of him rehearsing Bone Alphabet: I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. *** [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | [Chrome Extension](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf)

  979. musictheory 2015-12-10 16:36:59 Xenoceratops
    >1) Are there any composers that have written pieces for strings, using counterpoint in one or more voices to be played against another voice, which uses glissandi and harmonics / as well as being played conventionally? The [third movement](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn-Dstxnmi4&t=2m23s) of Bartók's music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta comes to mind. You could look at [Elliott Carter's string quartets](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m4341zPZNY&t=4m13s) as well. Why are you asking? >2) Who are some modern jazz artists that make good use of modern tonalities, techniques, and technologies? What's do you consider to be "modern tonalities, techniques, and technologies"? Try [Michael Dessen Trio](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOUs5QO9hf4) and [Louis Sclavis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_Fo7Tvw9Yg). >I'm looking for artists with a similar harmonic vocabulary to a late Bill Evans (tonalities, scales, and techniques popularized during the impressionist period and beyond — lydian-dominant, whole tone, octatonic, chords w/ extensions) So you're really looking for an older style of music. >Also if possible, tasteful use of these techniques would be ideal; that's a pretty subjective request, but good musicians often have good taste. They know when someone is going over the top, trying to do something different, and they know when in an attempt to do something different, an artist or musician ruins the aesthetic appeal of their music. [Well said, bruh.](http://e.lvme.me/8ykgov5.jpg)

  980. musictheory 2015-12-11 00:42:01 musical_cyclist
    1) Beyond Bartok, and Careter, check out Ben Johnston's string quartets 2) Check out Snarky Puppy, Bob Reynolds, The Bad Plus, Steve Coleman, and Philipp Gerschlauer (microtonal jazz)

  981. musictheory 2015-12-11 04:20:38 nmitchell076
    So is your problem that you don't see how the systematic theory of hypermeter is useful for considering choreographical matters? I'm not sure I agree, perhaps if we limit the subject of choreography only to the surface level steps. But often other such changes will occur on the hypermetrical level (you might go four measures in one direction, and then switch and go four measures in another, with the changes in direction corresponding to hypermetrical downbeats). Hypermeter "choreographs" musical actions as well, changes in harmony, phrase shapes, etc. This involves the coordination of the various "dancers" (such as the members of a string quartet) together as they perform their musical "dances"

  982. musictheory 2015-12-11 04:43:34 Mattszwyd
    [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp3BlFZWJNA) is for 52 string instruments, but I find all of his writing for strings to be exceptional.

  983. musictheory 2015-12-11 09:01:24 gayd3n
    I think so... so let's say i play the 6th string of my guitar (which is a low E) and then the first string (the high E) - those are different octaves but it's the same note so octaves only apply when you're dealing with the same note at a higher/lower sound?

  984. musictheory 2015-12-11 09:08:40 Shuckle17
    If you play an A on your guitar, then go down the neck (same string) playing each fret until you get to the A, that is one octave. *fixed G to A, apologies for confusion

  985. musictheory 2015-12-11 13:28:10 ljse7m
    OK, I just went through all the octave exercises and they are all correct. So there is some reason that you are missing. 1. Do you realize that the second tone is not always an octave? They are different intervals. There are some fifths as well as other intervals but if you were missing the higher fifth, you could be getting the overtones confused that are inherent in the piano string. 2. If you listen closely, you can here some of the octaves up you can hear theovertons of the octave "syncing in" to the lower one. It almost sounds like a buzz in some cases. In these cases, you might be hearing the almost subliminal higher octave overtone kicking in as your ear syncs is together. 3. you might be hearing a subliminal resulting overtone when a descending 5th as the higher octave which is also in the overtone series. 4. your earphone or speaker on the computer, most of which are really effen horrible as far as fidelity goes and this can also, especially on some intervals, really practically omit the lower or higher overtone on the second note do to what I seem to remember as being called "inter-modulation distortion" or IM distortion which is the inability of being able to reproduce clearely the inner voices between two pitches. But the Octave exercises are perfectly accurate. I scored perfect on all without repeats of the pitches except for one where I had to repeat as the ear bud slipped out of my ear. Also, his piano is not perfectly in tune. Close but on the middle tones and higher, there are three strings in each pitch and some of them seem just a bit, very small amount, but still a bit off. This makes the piano sound just a bit "tinny" and this can help to emphasize some harmonics inherent in the strings and cancel out other ones. And with an untrained ear, this can be confusing as you are trying really hard to concentrate and this can make you over interpret what you are hearing and not having a trained ear, that could throw you off. I didn't go further with the quiz as I did not feel like skipping and his explanations are longer and more complex with extraneous things thrown in that really is more confusing then helpful unless you already understand what he is saying and if you do understand what he is talking about, then its just boring. I would suggest that you do it again, and play all the exercises repeating the pitches at least 3 or 4 or more times and see if that helps clear things up. Give it a little time between repeats to "clear the pallet" so to speak and and maybe try to sing the two notes and see if that helps. It is not cheating as there are no grades and you will be training your ear to hear what the exercise is asking you to do. I didn't find that he really. When I am teaching my students ear training, I sometimes have them play 2 or 3 or 4 tones in the harmonic series with octaves and 5ths and have them sing another interval kike a major third that is not being played. Their ears will begin to find that there is a specific pitch for that major 3 that sounds right when they sing even though the 3rd is not being struck on the piano. Then if they play the 3rd on the piano that they are singing, ti will be out of tune due to the tempered scale of the piano. I won't go into the theory here but only to say that this helps them to hear the overtones that are subliminal to what we conscious hear, but the real perfect tuning of the overtones bring you in because you are hearing them but your brain is not accustomed to processing the subliminal tones unless you are trained to allow them to do that. Anyway, I hope this gives you something to think about and maybe help you to hear the primary, actual pitch of the notes (the singing really helps this skill) and not being "tricked" into hearing a lower or higher overtone. do to slight micro out of tune strings on the piano or maybe a "hard" felt on the hammers that will emphasize a normally subliminal higher or lower over tone series to fool you into thinking it is the real pitch. Practice should cure this. Let me know how this works out. ljse7m

  986. musictheory 2015-12-11 13:55:24 ljse7m
    There are a couple of problems with your question. You either compose or arrange. Composing is more related to theory than arrange. When you compose you are creating new music and theory is the study of created music by analyzing it and understanding how the composer got the desired result and this usually involves scales, harmony, voicing, form, expression and all those theory terms. Arranging, is really just orchestration. You don't analyze or have to understand much about the theory except basic theory as to how to notate, how to write notes on the stave and things like that. You have to know what is the melody and what is harmony but you don't have to understand it to arrange. SO if you can write out the notes for a rock tune, you can isolate the melody, and basically copy it on another staff and name it Violin I and you have arranged the melody with the violin playing the melody. If you know the names of the tones you play on the guitar for the chords, you can take these notes and put them on other instruments and you have arranged them for other violins or clarinets or trumpets and you have arranged them for whatever you have playing them. You may have a 6 note chord on the guitar and if you wanted to you can just copy each of your notes on the guitar and write a different instrument for each note and you are arranging the harmony to another medium but you don't need to understand WHY those notes work as they do musically. THAT would be composing. SO if you want to arrange, gett your self a synth (unless you are rich and can hire string players) and score something you know for a number of instruments in something like Finale or MuseScore (its free) or any sequencing program, and then play it on the synth or that on line Note something or another you hear mentioned here, and listen to what you got. Then if you like if fine. If not, try to do it another way to make it sound like you envision it and you are on your way to arranging. I you want to compose NEW music, well, theory is a good place to start, but to save time, you need a "need to know" teacher to sort out what theory you need to know to get the genre that you want to compose in and learn the theory that is applicable to that genre by analyzing the music that you want to emulate. If you need clarification on this, simple contact me. I will try to help. ljse7m

  987. musictheory 2015-12-11 14:21:42 EternalOptimist829
    My ultimate goal is to compose something like a symphonic poem though I know that's probably years away. I played in band up until 8th grade so I know a little bit, not a whole lot. I hear harmonies really well so I like to layer pieces. I have made songs on my DAW but I've really never gone more than maybe a melody with 2-3 harmonies deep or anything like that (I'm no Bach lol). Any more complex and I'm simply "arranging" the score. This is why I thought a string quartet could be a good platform to learn on as it would provide a way to layer some harmonies with a melody yet not be too overwhelming in deciding which parts will follow what or introducing to many rhythms into the scene. I have experience with layering melodies and harmonies only I was using piano rolls and stuff like that. What I need to know is all the technical terms for stuff so when I use that notation software I know what the symbol is for what I hear in my head.

  988. musictheory 2015-12-11 20:22:22 Mattszwyd
    "Autonomy and Dialogue" would be a resource best suited for understanding his late (or late-late, depending on who you ask) style, in which the composer returns to a more direct and intimate compositional idiom after years of continually exhausting all harmonic possibilities. (I believe David Schiff describes it best: "After years of ploughing the soil, it was time for the harvest.") The problem with Carter is the length of his compositional career; it comprises several different stylistic periods, as well as several very different procedures (both harmonic and rhythmic) that it must be understood as a linear trajectory. Starting with pieces like [[Voyage](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBLKKMzUzkE)]() and the [Piano Sonata](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX6K2hNblA0), it may not seem too outlandish that we end up with pieces like "[Of Challenge and of Love](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHnkD4YgzII)" down the road, but only after a few **decades** of monolithic, complex works like the [Double Concerto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sebIvdCHcCE) and his [Fourth Quartet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN6PHgAZkak). I would probably start by reading up on the early String Quartets first (Jonathan W. Bernard's "Problems of Pitch Structure in Elliott Carter's First and Second String Quartets"; Tiina Koivisto's "Aspects of Motion in Carter's Second String Quartet"), which leads nicely into his use of registrally-fixed harmonic structures (starting with Jonathan Bernard's "Spatial Sets in Recent Music of Elliott Carter," then moving on to Andrew Mead's "Pitch Structure in Elliott Carter's *String Quartet No. 3,*" leading up to another one of Mead's articles, "Twelve-tone Composition and the Music of Elliott Carter.") And then there's the rhythmic element, which I think is summed up succinctly in Bernard's "The Evolution of Elliott Carter's Rhythmic Practice." Anything bearing the name Link, Roeder, Mead, Bernard, Capuzzo, or Schiff will be highly credible. I thought CUP was an interesting read, but seemed to posit fresh, new (and of course, numerically-charged) significance to the concept of common tones. Useful, but only after one has become familiar with all that happened before his late period.

  989. musictheory 2015-12-12 01:21:59 bread_commander
    To quickly answer your question, no. When the term "Sonata" is thrown out there, usually people have the multi-movement large scale works of the 19th century in mind, which were typically played by a solo instrument accompanied by a keyboard instrument or by a keyboard instrument itself. To make matters confusing the first movements of these works were faster allegro movements that came to be categorized as "sonata form" movements. Typically the first movement of a Sonata piece written in the 19th century will be written in this form. But it gets more interesting when you realize that more often than not, you see the first movements of Symphonies and String Quartets written in the "sonata form." To learn more about the sonata form, better than a hack like me could explain, I highly recommend Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts episode on the subject. In his episode on the Sonata Form (linked below) he explains it in a way a child can understand, which can be helpful for even a college music theory student. [Part 1](https://youtu.be/z7iHwqAj3Ws) [Part 2](https://youtu.be/mLl_5WVsTs0) [Part 3](https://youtu.be/5NNEiofhc90) [Part 4](https://youtu.be/0-4Q_QY51E0)

  990. musictheory 2015-12-14 23:23:08 GrandNonsense
    Exactly. I expect the reason so many violin concertos are in D major is because that key is so resonant with the open strings of the instrument. Perhaps tonal qualities/ moods are lest obvious on an equal-tempered piano, but on a string instrument, the player is not chained to equal temperament.

  991. musictheory 2015-12-15 17:46:19 teristam
    I think Baroque music has three major characteristics: 1. Counterpoints, lots of them. 2. Long string of notes, having an almost restless rhythm 3. Usually the same feeling through a piece I think chords may not be the most important factor in creating a Baroque feel.

  992. musictheory 2015-12-15 18:52:20 FenceLaVa
    Truth be told historically the string section is the "foundation" of the orchestra. It carries most of the musical ideas and weight, being so versatile in its playing prowess and variability of techniques. Naturally interesting and masterful orchestration relies on all the other instrument classes as well, but I think that beginning to arrange and write for string orchestra is a good place to start. Bear in mind that to orchestrate well you need a Lot of knowledge on all the instruments of the orchestra, their capabilities and strenghts, idiomatic writing, how to put together an effective score etc. And doing a lot of score reading to see how the masters accomplished this is necessary. IMSPL is your friend!

  993. musictheory 2015-12-16 03:19:28 discountwilderbeast
    I used to take lead sheets and score for jazz band for fun: 2 Altos, 2 Tenors, Baritone, 4 Trumpets, 4 Trombones, and rhythm. You can treat each section as its own instrument that way plus you can play around with timbre (for instance, Glenn Miller would give a Tenor the melody, double the melody an octave above on Clarinet, and the fill in the rest of the chord). Alternatively, you could write for a wind ensemble, basically an orchestra sans strings plus saxophones. If you are trying to write a symphonic piece, you have lots more to consider. The hardest thing for me starting out is learning the ranges of all the instruments are their capabilities (don't score a low A natural for an alto or tenor sax unless you want them to put their foot in the bell). What I would do is get your melody, get your chords, and frame your music. Sketch out some introductory material, that sort of thing. You're also going to have to decide how to score your chords: spread voicing, cluster voicing, unison passages, and all that as well. If I was writing a piece for jazz band, I would say: Alright, so I want a 16 bar introduction, saxes get the four bars backed by trumpet punches, then the trombones and the low saxes and trombones get the next 8, backed by a simple trumpet counter melody, and the final four bars of the intro are a concerted passage but trumpet 2 will lay out because the first verse is a solo for him. Then you'd go on to chords for those passages, ect. You can start with something as simple as a brass quintet or string quartet or even a choir, though.

  994. musictheory 2015-12-16 04:11:29 dylanthepiguy2
    > String notes Do you mean like instant semiquavers (motor rhythm I believe it's called)

  995. musictheory 2015-12-17 04:03:17 TheEpicSock
    Not completely bullshit. Back in the days before equal temperament was a thing (basically pre-1920), keyboard instruments were tuned to different temperaments, most of which involved tuning the fifths or thirds on the piano to be in tune in a "simple" key like C or G major. This meant that the intervals between each step were different for each keys, rendering some keys unusable (F# major was notorious for having many "wolf-tones" that made the instrument sound crass and out of tune), and composers likely developed a sense of "characteristic" in the keys this way. Obviously, this varied a lot from instrument to instrument depending on just how the thing was tuned. Bach came along with his Well-tempered Clavier as a demonstration of his tuning system - all twelve keys were usable, in both the major and minor modes. However, this was still not an equal-tempered system, and each key still did not sound quite the same. Various forms of well-temperament (the most popular of which was Werckmeister III) became used throughout Europe (and Bach's was eventually lost) - until the age of Stravinsky where equal temperament was preferred (and made possible by technology). Nowadays, the popularity of equal temperament has mostly eliminated any real distinction between the keys - so you're right that these associations are mostly bullshit in the modern context, at least on keyboard and string instruments. Brass instruments (and less so, wind instruments), due to the physics of the instrument, are unable to be tuned to equal temperament, so each key still does sound different. In addition, depressing more valves on a brass instrument (and adding more tubing) makes the sound slightly darker - so a key like (written) C# major would sound different than a key like F or Bb major.

  996. musictheory 2015-12-17 11:25:34 garylogan
    that little open A string riff when the song gets going (after the D-E-F chord intro) has always been one on my favorite guitar parts. Still one of the coolest acoustic songs to play IMO.

  997. musictheory 2015-12-20 05:38:24 milks_still_warm
    On any given guitar(standard tuning) the lowest four notes and the highest five notes are the only ones that can't be played elsewhere on the neck. It seems that when a piece in standard notation is written with the intention of being played on the guitar there will be included directions above or sometimes below the staff throughout to indicate the where on the guitar a given phrase/passage/note should be played. They can be Roman Numerals to indicate position(what fret number your first finger should be stationed at) or a circled number to indicate which string a note or notes should be played on. Sometimes these directions aren't included. In these cases we are left to make our own decisions.

  998. musictheory 2015-12-20 11:00:08 xiipaoc
    > how do you know when one of those notes is played higher up the neck? You don't. If you see, in the middle of the staff, A C E, what do you play? Probably 2nd fret 3rd string for the A, 1st fret 2nd string for the C, and open 1st string for the E. But what if, while you're holding that chord, you're supposed to play an A above the staff? What do you do then? Well, what you *should* have done was to play the A on the 7th fret of the 4th string, and barre the 5th fret for the first three strings. How do you know? You look ahead. Or you play through it, realize that there's a better way, and play it the other way the next time after you stumble through it once. You can always pencil in notes to yourself in the music (and you should generally do that).

  999. musictheory 2015-12-20 13:14:30 avant-garde_funhouse
    Breath marks are used in string writing too: usually interpreted as a bow lift.

  1000. musictheory 2015-12-20 16:07:26 TheEpicSock
    Some publishers use "checkmarks" (that look like upbow marks for string players) to indicate breaths.

  1001. musictheory 2015-12-20 16:17:32 250lespaul
    In woodwinds/brass/choral contexts it's a mark to take a breath. In string ensembles it's a mark to lift the bow.

  1002. musictheory 2015-12-21 01:26:49 xiipaoc
    I'm not sure why your instrument matters here. I'm glad you have a seven-string guitar, I wish my guitar didn't only have six, but that's completely irrelevant. As for the key, it's kind of ambiguous the way you've written it. It would depend on rhythms and such, and it would depend on the rest of the piece. It looks like you might be in F#m right now in this one riff, but I'd need to see the rest of the harmonies to know if that F#m is just this one chord or if it's the key of the whole piece. And it could even be A major going to D major, or many other things. The one bit is that I'd write that C as a B#, since it's going up to the C#. But, again, it depends on rhythms and harmonies.

  1003. musictheory 2015-12-21 03:03:28 Kenny__Loggins
    You know what E minor looks like? Just shift that whole shape to the second fret. Your index finger bars straight down (called a Barre chord) and you use your other fingers to fret the 4th fret on the A and D string. Also, you can just find these notes in other places and play them. That's the nice thing about theory. You can construct the chords yourself from the triads anywhere on the neck. If you don't know how triads are constructed, that would explain where you're lost on connecting theory to playing. Do you understand that fairly well?

  1004. musictheory 2015-12-23 14:36:30 Akoustyk
    I highly doubt it, I think each key change is just a half step, and she maybe steps up about 5 times or so. So, like A or Bb or something if they start in F, which I can't confirm, but that could be right. I'd say either around F, or around D, because that's right up near the 10th fret for a A string or E string tonic.

  1005. musictheory 2015-12-24 00:00:12 DRL47
    "Double stop" comes from string instruments. Two notes that are "stopped" (played with a finger on the fingerboard), when played together, are a "double stop". It has come to also mean open strings.

  1006. musictheory 2015-12-24 06:09:04 DRL47
    No, the "stop" refers to the string you are holding down to play. The open strings shouldn't sound. Because of the radius of the fingerboard on a violin, it is difficult to play all four strings at once. You would only bow the two stopped strings. "Stopped" does not mean muted.

  1007. musictheory 2015-12-24 10:51:36 DRL47
    Think of "stopped" as being where the sounding length of the string is stopped by your finger. It isn't the sound that's stopping.

  1008. musictheory 2015-12-25 06:22:21 DGrantVH
    The thicker the string the lower the pitch. Also how tight the sting is also affects pitch. Tight = high Loose = low

  1009. musictheory 2015-12-25 06:31:26 phalp
    It's the mass of the string per inch. More mass means lower pitch. That's why a steel string is thinner than a nylon string designed for the same pitch. It's not the same for a woodwind because a woodwind's pitch is derived from the speed of sound if I'm not mistaken.

  1010. musictheory 2015-12-25 07:05:49 amyisgonnakillme
    If you tune them to the same note, the thicker string will be louder with all other things constant. A thicker string will also show less of that effect where a plucked string starts sharp and gets flatter immediately after plucking.

  1011. musictheory 2015-12-25 10:08:16 wpowell96
    I don't know how much math you know, but this can be explained by solving the wave equation on a fixed interval i.e, a string. In the solution, the frequency of vibration is proportional to the wavespeed, which is c = sqrt(tension/mass per length). From this you can see that increasing the thickness, or mass per length, lowers the wavespeed, and therefore, the pitch of the resulting note.

  1012. musictheory 2015-12-25 10:43:08 FrozenThunder101
    It depends. I'm using the guitar as an example: You can have a set of strings that are gauges 8-38 and a different set that is 12-52 and they can both be tuned to E standard (E A D G B E). Though with the thicker strings, if you are using alternate or "dropped" tunings (Drop C, Drop B, etc.) the thicker strings will be able to handle that as there is more tension and it will be able to maintain the pitch, as if you attempted dropped tuning the thinner strings, you will get less tension which gives you less control over the string due to it moving more, also creating a less stable pitch when compared to the thicker strings. But if the style of music that you play lends itself better to bending and vibrato (such as blues, rock and certain styles of metal) the thinner strings may do you better, as they are easier to bend than thicker strings.

  1013. musictheory 2015-12-25 11:42:46 DRL47
    Thickness, length and tension all affect the pitch of a string. They can also affect the tone: a shorter, fatter string will sound darker (more bass) than a longer, thinner string playing the same pitch.

  1014. musictheory 2015-12-25 13:16:01 Sgroh87
    It can, but thicker strings tuned to the same pitch will have more harmonics due to the higher tension. Compare a bass guitar with a standard 34" scale to a short scale 30" bass. Same gauge and pitch, but the shorter string will be looser and sound muddier than the longer, tighter string.

  1015. musictheory 2015-12-28 05:10:38 noturtles
    That site is the equivalent of music horoscopes. Although the key of a piece is correlated with the mood of a piece, it's definitely not as specific as that site would suggest and I would argue that it is in fact the mood/style of the piece that determines the key, not the other way around. For example, a lot of rock songs are in either the key of A or E major or minor. This is because these keys are easy to work with on a guitar. So one might grow to associate these keys (especially certain chord progressions within them) with the style of a specific pop artist. But this association rises more from practicality than any innate quality of the key. Another concept I think you'll find interesting is how composers can use keys to suggest a style of playing, and thereby influence the mood. My favorite example is using a key with a lot of accidentals to keep string players from using open strings, making a wider use of vibrato and creating an overall more beautiful sound. Another thing to keep in mind is that certain keys, especially on the piano, often seem to naturally suggest the use of certain chords or melodic phrases. This might only be the case for me, but if I'm improvising in the key of c minor, the shape of the scale makes me use the relative notes differently than I would if I were playing in a minor. To give a concrete example, my melodies use G-Ab-G (5-6-5) more often in c minor than they use E-F-E (also 5-6-5) in a minor. This is because the physical distance between Ab and G on the keyboard is closer than Ab and Bb, so if I go from the G to Ab, I'm more likely to return to G than carry on to Bb. In contrast, the physical distance from E to F is the same as the physical distance from F to G, so if I go from E to F, I am just as likely to return to E as I am to carry on to G. Let me know if it would be helpful for me to upload a video explaining this. It's a bit hard to explain through text.

  1016. musictheory 2015-12-29 07:23:46 LarryLarington
    Can confirm! Just read about it recently EDIT: Meaning changes with context, but when written for a string instrument (ex: violin, viola), it most likely means left-hand pizz.

  1017. musictheory 2015-12-29 09:43:55 TheEpicSock
    And in violin/viola music, it means to pluck the string with the left (rather than the right) hand.

  1018. musictheory 2015-12-29 12:31:09 hwqqll
    Good point about doubling the root rather than the 9th. At the same time, when you slide the chord up and down the neck, you'll usually mute the first string, since an open 1st string only works for D9. In that case, you would use the x5455x chord shape. Playing the x5453x shape without the first string would give you a D7 chord with an omitted fifth. Basically, it's best to learn both the things we're mentioning here.

  1019. musictheory 2015-12-29 16:54:51 jtizzle12
    You guys seem to be overcomplicating things... It's as common of a D9 chord voicing as you'll get on guitar. No add, no slashes. Just D9. If you want the 5th, bar the 5th fret on the top E string for an A. It's a dominant (think V) chord, so it belongs, diatonically, to the key of G. No need to double roots or 9ths. You're not a pianist. People choose to have a guitar in their groups as chordal instruments because of the smaller voicing possibilities. D11 (not add 11, not 7/11) doesn't sound that "good" to you because the 11th on a major sonority (chords with major thirds) tend to create conflicts due to the sort of crunchy sounding half step between third and in major 7 chords, the 4th and 7th (which creates a tritone, a sound that implies a dominant chord, and in a major chord, you're not really trying to do that in most cases). Alternatives? Raise the 11th. Dominant 7#11 chords are widely used and sound great, and they add some much desired chromaticism to the music. Dominant 7#11s create another tritone, but it works because it releases the minor 2nd interval between the 3rd and 4th. Also, dominant chords can be substituted by their tritone. G7 can also be Db7. The third and 7th stay the same, they just switch places. If you have a G7#11, then the root and #11 would also stay the same, just switch places.

  1020. musictheory 2015-12-29 18:48:19 LukeSniper
    It's just D9. Calling it D7add9 is just silly and unnecessary. If you want to get really technical, you can call it D9(no 5), but that's also unnecessary. Or you could add the 5th fret to the high E string and get the full D9... whatever. It's pretty basic blues harmony, and can be found all over rockabilly music. The reason the added 11th (the G note) makes it sound muddled and more dissonant is because it forms a minor 9th interval with the F#, which is a very unpleasant sound.

  1021. musictheory 2015-12-29 19:59:18 LukeSniper
    There are several different ways to notate which specific string to play a particular note on. The most common is to put a little number in a circle above the note. You could also use position marks. [This image shows a couple different ways] (http://www.rubycliff.com/TheoryManual/NotationGuitar.gif) But, typically it's all inferred from context and experience.

  1022. musictheory 2015-12-30 07:38:48 TheEpicSock
    Practice One finger placed on the string to determine the pitch, another is used to pluck the string. Paganini's 24th caprice has an entire variation devoted to this sort of badassery, highly recommend you check it out. There's a great video of Heifetz playing it in YouTube.

  1023. musictheory 2015-12-31 01:34:42 AndysSeveredHead
    Inside picking is when you change to a lower string after a downstroke, or a higher string after an upstroke. Outside picking is just the opposite. Depending on what picking style I use, can sometimes affect my playstyle and how notes sound. Paul Gilbert uses alot of outside picking. Check out that song at the time stamp: clearly pentatonics, and schunky sound of the notes says "palm muting" to me.

  1024. musictheory 2017-01-01 02:22:23 nmitchell076
    It's hard to speak meaningfully about "laymen" as a coherent group, as there are a thousand different perspectives that laymen can have, and only a subset of those will match the kind of character you describe. I've encountered people like that before, certainly. I've also encountered English majors who have never played an instrument sign up for undergraduate theory classes (or even graduate theory seminars) in order to learn how to listen to music. And of course there's a whole spectrum between those two poles. My own strategy is to just engage with the individual on their terms and try to see if there's any way I can help them sharpen their hearing. Maybe they're receptive to focusing their attention on a particular musical aspect ("maybe next time you listen, pay attention to this..."), maybe they'd be interested in biographical information about the composer, perhaps they'd like to think about ways in which people might have listened to this music in previous eras (ie "string quartets were often written for 'specialists,' so composers felt more okay about doing sophisticated things in those genres"). Or maybe they aren't receptive to any other ways of listening at all. So bottom line, you have to come to them, see what they value, try to uncover ways of listening they might be receptive to, and finding terms to communicate that to them. But all that will vary from person to person, so it's hard to offer more than those generalizations. I have found that people are often receptive to listening for "topics," when music references other music. ie, deploying things that sound like marches or military music, suddenly juxtaposing that against something that sounds like a "learned style" fugue, and then switching gears again to a folk dance. And then connecting that to various "characters" the music can be said to have. It's often pretty intuitive for people to hear.

  1025. musictheory 2017-01-01 07:06:27 vornska
    I'd be skeptical of any simplistic attempt to say *why* a progression is "strong." Answering a question like that, done right, takes a sophisticated blend of cultural history, math, psychoacoustics, cogsci, and so on. It's hard. That doesn't stop us from saying stuff about the shape or affordances of the progression. You're right that it's a cool one! I'll start by pointing out that there's a dual nature to a progression like Fm CM. It can be heard as iv-I in C major or as i-V in F minor. Romantic composers loved that ambiguity--a particularly nice example is the [Adagio from Brahms's G major string quintet (Op. 111)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt9VTtsbFfE&t=9m43s). The last chapter of *Tonality and Transformation* by Steven Rings has a nice analysis of this movement. Next it's perhaps worth pointing out that the iv-I progression is also the "upside-down" version of a V-i progression. That is, if you fix a particular note and change the direction of all the intervals, you can change Fm-CM to CM-fm. That means that any voice leading properties that pertain to V-i also pertain to iv-I (mutatis mutandis). What's the point of observing that? Well, you can take familiar elaborations on V-i and see what they turn into when you invert V-i into iv-I. For example, one of the simplest elaborations of V i is V^7 i. What do you get when you invert that? V^7 becomes ii^ø 6/5, or iv^add6 ... so V^7 i inverts into the "hollywood cadence" of iv^add6 I. From there you can imagine extending out to other possibilities. For instance bII V^7 i is a pretty cool progression, so what does bII become when you invert it as above?

  1026. musictheory 2017-01-02 03:03:29 voorja
    Let's start with the harmonic series. When you play a note on an instrument or hear a bird sing a single pitch, there are frequencies above the root pitch you hear that give the note its timbre. The frequencies above the root pitch are multiples of that pitch: 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 times the original pitch and so on. These are called the overtones or partials of the note. Different instruments have different relative volumes of each overtone, which is what makes different instruments sound different. So the harmonic series looks like this: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25...etc continuing to infinity. If you took a string tuned to 100 hz and cut it in half you would now have a string that plays a note of 200 hz, or 2 times the original pitch. If you took a string and cut it into thirds and kept one third you would have a string that played at 300 hz, or 3 times the original frequency. But what if you make a string twice as long or three times as long? Then you would get a note 1/2 the pitch or 1/3 the pitch. This gives us the descending harmonic series, which is just an inversion of the harmonic series. It looks like this: 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, 1/7, 1/8, 1/9, 1/10, 1/11, 1/12, 1/13, 1/14... and so on. In a melody, the notes in the scale are related to a root note, or fundmental pitch, by various ratios like 2/1. 2/1 is the same as 2 times the fundamental and it is found in the harmonic series of the fundamental. Another common ratio in music is 3/2. 3/2 is the same as making the pitch three times higher and then two times lower. Or you can think of it as making a string three times shorter then twice as long. Take twinkle, twinkle little star for example. It goes 1, 1, 3/2, 3/2, 5/3, 5/3, 3/2, 4/3, 4/3, 5/4, 5/4, 9/8, 9/8, 1. When constructing a tuning system it is really, really important to consider the harmonic series because your overtones are going to be based on the harmonic series and you don't want them to conflict with your tuning system. The easiest way to avoid this is to make a tuning system straight from the harmonic series. Every note in the harmonic series will sound consonant (ignoring instrument timbre for now) with your fundamental. This is because when you play a note in the harmonic series all the overtones of that note are also overtones of the fundamental. For example, if you play 2/1 your root note is twice the pitch of the fundamental, and you hear overtones from the harmonic series of the pitch two times the fundamental (2x1,2x2,2x3,2x4,2x5,2x6,2x7) or 4,6,8,10,12,14...etc times the fundamental note. There are no overtones to conflict because 4,6,8,10,12,14...etc are all also overtones of the fundamental. Another way to look at it is that 2/1 has one out of every two overtones of the fundamental. 3/1 has one out of three. 4/1 has one out of four. 1/2 has every overtone the fundamental note has but for every shared partial it also has a partial the fundamental doesn't have. 1/3 has every overtone the fundamental has but it has two partials for every shared partial that the fundamental doesn't have. In other words, one out of three of its partials are shared with the fundamental. What about something like 3/2? 3/2 has one out of every three overtones of the fundamental note, but for every one shared partial it also has another partial that the fundamental note doesn't have. The reason 3/2 is called the "perfect fifth" is because it is the most consonant non whole number ratio, because its partials are the closest to the fundamental's (Fifth comes from it being the fifth note in the western scale). As you get more complicated ratios: 4/3, 5/4, 6/4, 6561/4096 the overtones are less and less closely related to the overtones of the fundamental note. So how do you go about creating a tuning system using the ascending or descending harmonic series or both? There are many ways you could go about it. You could simply choose a fundamental frequency and use the ascending harmonic series as your notes. From this method alone it is possible to create an infinite variety of scales. Let's talk about the octave, as it is an important part of many tuning systems. Octave, like perfect fifth, is a word I would like to see phased out, because both imply meanings made on assumptions that can be misleading if you don't understand the math behind the meaning. Octave implies eight notes in a scale, but a scale can have any number of notes, the octave is the eighth note in the scales common in western music thus far, but this doesn't have to be the case. Often it is assumed that an octave is the same as 2/1 or two times the fundamental note of a scale, this is the case most of the time, but not always. An octave is just a means of transposing a scale up and down the frequency register. If you have a really simple scale with the notes: 1/1, 3/2, 2/1 and you go up an octave you will still have the same intervals with the ratios of 1/1, 3/2, and 2/1 relative to the starting note of the octave. It is possible to create octaves based on multiples of any number. If you multiply the notes in your scale by three you get an octave that starts on 3/1 and still has the exact same ratios as your original scale an octave below. Having octaves based on two is convenient because 2/1 (and 1/2) is the most consonant ratio (disregarding timbre) and with some scales you will get more notes in the audible range than if you use a multiple of a higher number like 3. But with some timbres multiples of three sound better, and some scales aren't possible using octaves based on multiples of two, but are possible using other multiples. Let's create a tuning system using the notes of the ascending harmonic series and octaves based on multiples of 2. Pick a note from the harmonic series then continue up the harmonic series until you reach its double. That is where we will stop because that is where we are transposing the scale up an octave. To make things simple let's start with 1/1. Go up the harmonic series until you reach its double, ok 2/1. Our scale is 1/1, 2/1, the next octave is 2/1, 4/1. It sounds good but it is boring because we only have one interval in the scale. Let's start on 2 this time. We get 2/1, 3/1, and 4/1. Let's make 2/1 our new fundamental so we can see what ratios are in our scale. To do this we divide each number by 2. That gives us 1/1, 3/2, and 2/1. We have two of the same ratios from our first scale but now we have a new ratio, 3/2. Creating a scale using this method starting on 4 gives you 4/1, 5/1, 6/1, 7/1, 8/1, which normalizes to 1/1, 5/4, 6/4 (3/2), 7/4, 2/1. We still have the same notes as our first two scales but now we have 5/4 and 7/4. 5/4 is also known as the major third, and is an important building block of western melody and harmony. Creating a scale starting on 3/1 gives 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, 6/1, which normalizes to 1/1, 4/3, 5/3, 2/1. Notice how the only ratios in common are 1/1 and 2/1? that is because the scale has to have a 1/1 and we are using octaves based on doubling which gives us the 2/1. The other ratios are new because 3 is a prime number. 4 was a multiple of two so it shared ratios in the scale with the 2/1 scale and it has the same flavor of sound. Every prime number will give you a different flavor of scale. Multiples of that prime give you more notes but will still have the same flavor. A scale starting on 9/1 would have the same flavor as the scale starting on 3/1 but it has more notes. If you multiply 3/1 by 2/1 you get a scale that has the ratios of both 3/1 and 2/1 scales so it merges their "flavors". You can do the same thing with the descending harmonic series. if you start on 1/2 and go to its half, 1/4, you get 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, which normalizes to 1/1, 4/3, 2/1. This is the same scale that we got from 2/1 (1/1, 3/2, 2/1), but inverted. There is the same space between notes but the scale is flipped around. Now the 3/2 interval is between 4/3 and 2/1 (4/3 x 3/2 = 2/1). Descending harmonic series scales and ascending harmonic series scales have a distinct sound. Ascending harmonic series scales lean upwards, we hear 3/2 as being closer to 2/1. It makes it sound like the scale wants to go upwards resolving to the next octave above. Descending harmonic series scales are the opposite. We hear 4/3 as being closer to 1/1, and the scales lean downwards. It makes sense to think of the top note of the scale in a descending harmonic series scale as the fundamental that descends to the octave. In western music we think about the lowest note in a scale as the fundamental, and we think of the scale as going upwards, in other cultures I have read that they think the opposite. Major scales from Pythagorean temperament and 12 equal temperament can be closely approximated by ratios from the ascending harmonic series scales starting on 8/1 and 3/1, which is probably why our culture thinks of the scale as going upwards. There is a table you can use to examine the harmonic series that is extremely powerful, but I don't have time to go over it right now. You can find information about it and other information related to the harmonic series at this [whatmusicreallyis.com](http://whatmusicreallyis.com/research/harmonicomb/) which is what triggered my exploration into the harmonic series. I would like to talk more about the harmonic series and how and why our western tuning was created and address critcisms of just intonation, but I will have to do it later in a followup comment or post.

  1027. musictheory 2017-01-02 06:58:22 Mr-Yellow
    So first 2 tones in a row (first 3 notes), slide up from the first to the second, now you have a finger spare on the end so you can do the next tone and the semi-tone next to it, without needing to move position again until the next string where you start with a slide again. In reverse slide down with the pinky first and end on the first finger.

  1028. musictheory 2017-01-02 13:22:43 TheRealFalconFlurry
    How would you play a Dmaj chord on a 7-string guitar? The way I was told to do it was like this: (from low to high) 3100232, but I can't do that so I dropped the last note (F# on the high E string) and played it like this: 310023- and my fingering was like this: 42--35, respectively, but I still find it really difficult. Is there any easier way that Dmaj can be played, ideally while still using the low b string?

  1029. musictheory 2017-01-02 17:37:48 Evan7979
    I can't find the place on the score (using the Russian version) but I remember seeing it and maybe even playing it once. If it's a diamond on the C string. It's played on C string/E string with extension down to C. Lightly touched at the octave node and comes out one octave higher. The Rite of Spring is notorious for having quite mismatched harmonic notation. It's a bit all over the place.

  1030. musictheory 2017-01-02 19:28:37 Evan7979
    I'll double check it but yeah the Rite is filled with errors. Notably some unplayable double stops on upper strings later on. It could be a number of things. Bad editing, bad copying, bad engraving, illegible hand writing when transcribed, Stravinsky being under time pressures, lack of concentration. Probably a mixture. As for the harmonic, it's now expected that you have a C extension in professional orchestras, so in terms of pro repertoire, every bassist will have one. Around the time the Rite was written, half the section would often have 5-string basses and the other half 4. Some sections decide to ignore it to be honest - as with quite a few parts in the Rite that get clouded in the orchestration.

  1031. musictheory 2017-01-03 03:09:00 telperiontree
    There are two solo basses, and it is absolutely harmonics there, not double stop. Every string instrument has a solo there, they are all playing harmonics. The NY Phil archive, Bernstein set also shows harmonics in the contrabasses. Thanks for the 12th and 15th. Stravinsky does seem to expect a lot of string tuning in the middle of playing - there's a double stop near the end the cellos have to tune a string down a half step for.

  1032. musictheory 2017-01-03 04:26:26 telperiontree
    It's in the last measure. "Lower the A string to G#', quadruple stop..., d a d g#

  1033. musictheory 2017-01-03 21:50:37 scrdest
    Simply dropping from the high A to F, move the barre down a half-step then back up a minor third E->G# on the same string (effectively the same move back, you're just a half-step lower) sounds pretty good to me, has a kind of a nice, dreamlike quality. Tab (w/o the open strings): 6---6--5--5--5--6 10-6--5--8--5--6 6---6--5--5--5--6 6---6--5--5--5--6 Not exactly a progression for the centuries of future scholars to behold, but it works. E: formatting

  1034. musictheory 2017-01-04 01:39:56 gisverse
    I'm not seeking for a "piano version" (whatever that means), rather simply calling chords by their names, instead of indicating string and fret. Anyhow, I didn't mean to be polemic, I was just expressing a preference. You're right in that I am able to figure out the notes.

  1035. musictheory 2017-01-05 05:14:58 MewBish
    Do I just take my root note to the G# on the thickest string?

  1036. musictheory 2017-01-05 20:27:04 Jongtr
    Understood. The answers to your questions are really historical, not theoretical. Or rather, they are couched in theoretical terms, but nobody really sat down and designed the major scale, any more than anyone sat down and designed the English language. IOW, a study of English grammar won't tell you *why* we speak the way we do (how we got to this point). It just outlines *how* we speak the way we do. A site I quite like for the history of scales is this: http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/6224469/the-development-of-musical-tuning-systems-midicode - it's obviously from a mathematical perspective, but AFAIK the history is sound. So there certainly were theorists at certain stages who used a mathematical view to try to establish foundational rules. But even they were working from sound first: identifying a "good sound", and then realising on examining it that there was some ratio underlying it. Such as the 2:1 octave, and the 3:2 perfect 5th. Once you add the 4:3 perfect 4th, then you already have an approximate 12-tone octave split 5-2-5 (a guitar string will demonstrate this). The intervals constructed within those 5-semitone spaces are where musicians get more creative, and worry less about mathematical precision - if only because they soon realise that the 12 semitones can't all be equal if the math is to fit. It comes back to aural judgement in the end. The other historical figure (and period) to look at is Guido D'Arezzo, and hexachords (6-note scales, representing a stage in the transition between the medieval modal system and the later key system where the major scale came into its own). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexachord

  1037. musictheory 2017-01-07 16:19:12 RajinIII
    Double flats are kinda weird in piano music. The use of a double flat or double sharp in music is usually to make clear how a particular note relates harmonically to rest of the piece. People who have more control over the exact intonation of their pitch (like trombonists or string players) might choose to play the note B double flat with a slightly different intonation then they'd play an A. However, it's weird to play the key that makes an A on piano, when you're reading some sort of B even if it is double flatted. Chopin at some point actually started writing his music with the enharmonic equivalents rather than use double flats/sharps, because it was easier to read/play on piano.

  1038. musictheory 2017-01-07 20:16:45 dwolfy
    or by breaking down conventions and labelling them its easier for songwriters to implement them and add colour/flavor to their song. For instance, if i wanted to make a song with a classic 90s house vibe i could use the overdone bastardizations of the 909 drum kit and the solina string. just those simple conventions would place the listener into a 90's warehouse. or maybe i wanted to write something that had a turn of the century R&B vibe? by using the overdone meme of a JV-1080 orchestral patch i could subtly communicate to a listener that they're in for some Destiny's Child esque vocals. the millenial whoop is something songwriters will be able to pinpoint and analyze to help place listeners into the context of the millenial whoop. its important we break down these techniques and give them names because they're important tools in any songwriters tool box, no matter the genre.

  1039. musictheory 2017-01-07 23:17:13 ljse7m
    The real question is not that you have something, but what is the definitions of each of the things involved. It sounds like you have good pitch memory and a good perception of pitch matching (singing and hearing things in tune) but this is a skill and what you do with this skill may determine what it is labeled. By some definitions of having perfect pitch that I have run across my answer would be, "If you have to ask, you don't!" You would know it! It would be perfect. Here are some relevant questions that you should ask your self. If you hear a "perfectly in tune" choir, do they always sound in tune? This is a difficult thing to explain to one not educated in tuning systems. A good a capella choir does not sound in tune with the piano! The piano is tempered. All fixed pitch instruments are tempered to equal temperament but the winds can adjust to fit the context of the music to the proper nuance of intonation. For most definitions of perfect pitch this would be a real nuisance to you when you heard non tempered or various older systems of intonation. If your answer is no to this, then you may not have what some call perfect pitch. When you sing, do you always sing in tune? Or if if sing in a choir, do you have trouble with the intonation of the others? or does the intonation of a young string player or beginner on a trombone really bother you? This is a sign of what some call perfect pitch. On the other hand, if you hear a cover of a tune you hear transposed to a different key? How do you react to that? If you don't know how to test it, you can with some midi playbacks adjust the pitch, that might help you to ascertain how much difference this makes to your listening? These are some questions that would answer what I have found to be the most often definition of perfect pitch and the different responses to these and maybe a few other musical situations, would help you do classify you "talent" or skill. Some of the options is "perfect relative pitch" which is probably the most useful and least obtrusive but it generally requires some training to properly label what you hear. Relative pitch is the ability to hear and sing or play in a key and distinguish the notes of the scale and would be often be associated with Solfeggio although that would be dependent on the training, some would just call out the notes. Without going on and on and on, I will just point out that at worst you are describing good pitch memory and recall. With training you could possibly have Perfect (or near perfect) relative pitch and with training you could develop it into a very useful tool. But as to labeling it, if there are tests to take to help you lable it, why not take them. Then you could decide if you want to develop it or not. I would ask you if you can name all the pitches happening at the same time? Can you spell chords? Can you hear multiple contrapuntal voices? Can you create and hear chords in your head using the names you mention in your post? These are the things that would be the most useful to a composer or related musical profession. If you can only hear melodic content, you probably do not have perfect pitch but the pitch memory skill makes it difficult to tell the difference without getting some education related to ear training. Personally, I don't believe in the concept of "perfect pitch" as in music, there is not really any "perfect" standard of what the pitch should be! If you are singing music from the early Church music without a fixed pitch organ, there is not a perfect pitch to set the standard yet the music sound great if it is a bit sharp or flat. There have been dozens or hundreds of various tuning systems of intonation throughout the ages and cultures of the world, so there is no perfect standard of what a perfect tuning system would be and the standard pitch for A concert is generally considered to be A=440 cps but most orchestras and some fixed pitch instruments use A=442 and a "Perfect Pitch" would know the difference and be bothered with that. Also, the standard has not always been A440 I don't remember exactly the differences but I believe a hundered yearrs of so earlier it was 438 or lower. I know in that there were some instruments manfactured that came through my shop that were listed as High or Low pitch and I think that was around the turn of the 18th to 19th century and that it was lower before that and in the early days of keyboards, the keyboard player tuned this piano to the tuning and pitch that sounded the best to them. BUT in any case, you have a talent and if you are interested in music, you owe it to yourself to at least do some ear training and to at least consider to find out how accurate and how to classify your skill sets. Have fun discovering the extent of your talent. LJSe7m

  1040. musictheory 2017-01-08 00:37:54 movings
    Not sure if it's what you're talking about, but emo revival became a bit of a cliche with "twinkle guitars". Guitarists would tune their guitars to open Suspended tunings and use a lot of pull offs, open strings, tapping, and legato runs for the basis of the song. It was cool at first but it kind of became a cheap way of sounding emo. Here's an example https://youtu.be/ejtWXDm5uNI Every emo hand sounded like this for a couple years. Then there's also the pedal tones of metal core. Main song riffs would just be variations on "chugging" or using the lowest, drop tuned string as a pedal while playing around with chord tones on the higher strings. Here's an example https://youtu.be/I-QaFWURsMU

  1041. musictheory 2017-01-08 01:09:06 J_Kenji_Lopez-Alt
    If you can sing a given song in key and you have a bit of theory and ear training, then you can work out what an E is pretty quick. Practice enough and it's near instantaneous! For a long time I would find specific notes by singing them as intervals off of the note I knew to be a C from humming the second movement of Beethoven's string quartet Op. 132 in my head. By the time I was in college I could just sing the note immediately. These days o haven't been doing as much composition or playing so I've kind of regressed back to The old relative pitch method. But it's all just a spectrum.

  1042. musictheory 2017-01-09 02:59:33 Evan7979
    Study of Orchestration by Samuel Adler - I would recommend for an Orchestration text. The rest are good in different areas but to be incredibly honest, not many texts are actually that great on the subject. For instance, because none of us (presumably!) play every orchestral instrument to a professional standard, it's quite hard to argue with the information presented in any orchestration book. But, let's say your main instrument was trombone - the ranges in each book would be more or less correct (although you'd find exceptions), and some information would be slightly outdated or omitted altogether. For example, Blatter's book fails to mention that certain glissandi on trombones aren't even possible and suggests chord voicings that would get me fired. And Rimsky-Korsakov and Piston wouldn't even touch multiphonics or other advanced techniques because that wasn't around during their writing of the book. It's all very textbook and doesn't respond to the real world very well. Great for the facts - the ranges, typical scorings and orchestral etiquette but doesn't tell you the real life things like how if you ask a string section to play col legno at forte, they'll look at you and roll your eyes because it just won't sound like you want. I blame orchestration books for poor performers having to decipher what we composers think we want! Samuel Adler last updated his in 2003 I believe and whilst there is still a mismatch between how instruments actually play and sound in an orchestra, it's pretty good in my opinion. Maybe get 2 and cross-reference them with actually hearing the instruments play and talking to the performers.

  1043. musictheory 2017-01-10 02:20:17 nmitchell076
    Maybe you can check out the Society for Music Theory's peer-reviewed videocast, SMT-V. Like a music theory journal, it will cover a wide variety of topics depending on who the author of the video is. Link: https://societymusictheory.org/smt-v So far they've done: * Overviewing some cognition experiments on the effects of repetition on musical understanding. * Counterpoint in Haydn's music * The idea of "multiple agency" in music for string quartet. * Clara and Robert Schumann's Lieder. * a 2-part series on the score to Portal 2. So I'd keep your eye out for the videos they publish.

  1044. musictheory 2017-01-10 08:41:04 r053m3rry5
    No. Dancer speak: We go: *1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and a 1 and a 2 and a 3* sometimes all within the same song depending on what steps we are doing and how heavily we syncopate it. I hate to make this analogy but.... think of dancers like time travelers in a string theory universe. We might catch the drums one minute then catch an electronic wubby part and then a clap accent. So we can dance to polyrhythms easily flowing from one instrument to the next. I guess? We're instruments, too. We are just silent and speak a different language. Music speak is a different beast. I'm trying to figure out how what I do is different from how musicians instinctively think of something. I did give an example it was the youtube ballet combination over this specific song. How am I able to put *this step* (sped up) in a song that is 4/4?

  1045. musictheory 2017-01-10 16:20:01 Evan7979
    The answers you've received are excellent. Maybe I could touch on orchestration a bit to help? The guys you mention, Debussy, Ravel et al were masters of orchestration. They would combine new colours and sounds in previously uncharted territory, combing it with a wider harmonic palette. If you take a piece of Mozart, the woodwinds in particular have a particular function - they colour the dominating string sound. In the music of the late Romanticists, they used the winds as an independent entity, carrying melodies, playing counterpoint and chords. Doublings became more experimental and 'lighter'. For example, Mozart/Beethoven would often have flute doubling oboes and clarinets at the unison in large tutti passages. However, Debussy and Ravel would have approached this differently, and heard exactly the timbre they were after in their head - meaning combinations of clarinet and flute weren't always doubled at pitch, but done in their most resonant ranges, complementing each other and resulting in a distinct, airy sound as you could hear two separate instruments playing, rather than a woodwind unison of the classical era. Without getting too into it, they were using combinations that resulted in wide spaces of intervals and less build up of overtones and resonant frequencies, perceived as being lighter. Couple this with progressively virtuosic playing techniques which meant bassoons could play higher, strings had a wider technique palette (mutes, playing over the fingerboard) and other instrumental developments in percussion meant that they could achieve a wider range of colours with their sound, and the light 'impressionistic' orchestration was borne out of that and their harmonies. Does that mean Mozart and Beethoven didn't know how to orchestrate? Of course not. But they were operating in a different time, orchestrally speaking, where strings were dominant and a lot of instruments hadn't progressed enough to make full use of them. For example, the double horn with chromatic valves had been somewhat finalised by Debussy's time so he enjoyed the full colours possible when writing for brass - especially in his writing for combined brass and woodwind. He was no longer restricted by the tonic-dominant function that classical composers tended to use orchestral brass for. You'll notice however, that they tend to use minimal brass or even none at all, contributing to a lighter sound. Advancements in the Double Bass also meant that as Beethoven started to compose, he was treating the Double Bass as a separate instrument to the celli. He wasn't just doubling the octave below. That paved the way for Debussy and Ravel to have a string sound that wasn't dominated by a low bassline whenever the celli were playing too. Finally, above all, the finalisation of the pedal harp was the one thing, in my opinion, that was introduced to Debussy and Ravel et al (along with their harmony, as already explained by someone else), that contributed to that light sound. Often - nearly always - using a harp or two, they wrote for it expertly and you can see how that leads to the light and airy sound we've all come to know and love!

  1046. musictheory 2017-01-11 05:01:09 putsa
    Yeah, exactly. The whole arrangement is in the key of F# having A=441. I will have a string note fading in and out playing only F#, and I can do some micro tuning to just that and have it at exactly 741, but the remaining instruments will be based on A=441. Anyway, again, thanks for your help and interest.

  1047. musictheory 2017-01-11 10:59:32 LydianAlchemist
    Try improvising over a pedal tone, and then emphasize the color tones. If you're in Dorian, play the natural six a lot, play melodies around that note, really accentuate it. The natural 6 along with the b3 and b7 will make your music sound Dorian. If you're in Lydian, the #4, along with the major 3rd and 7, will sound Lydian. If you're in Phrygian, the b2 has a lot of color. Overall as long as you establish the tonality (major or minor 3rd) and the color tone (the note that really defines the mode) you can accomplish a modal sound. People like to say that, for example; Dorian is the same as minor but with a natural sixth. What we can take away from that is that if I never play the 6th degree, the listener can't know if it's in Dorian or Minor / Aeolian. The same goes for Phrygian, its just "minor with a b2" but if I don't play the 2 degree, you can't tell what mode it is. So the inverse of this observation is to *emphasize* those notes. Having the color tone in your chords is a good way to accomplish a modal sound. Or having it be highlighted in the progression. min6 for Dorian, maj7#11 for Lydian Or like a i to bII progression. The root movement goes up a b2 which sounds very Phrygian, almost in a cliche sort of way. These are just my own conclusions on the modes EDIT: Something I'd like to add, as a guitar player myself, you need to know the scale degrees you are hitting to get the modal sound. Noodling up and down your static scale shapes isn't going to convey the modal identity you're playing in a very definite way. Try and memorize a few fret positions that have your target notes, l play in E Lydian a lot, so I know that B string 11th fret is the #4 in Lydian. I'm personally not good enough yet to know which scale degree I'm playing at all times, but knowing a few target fret positions makes it easier to accomplish modal playing.

  1048. musictheory 2017-01-11 23:45:21 Evan7979
    I'll answer here - this thread is sufficiently buried so you'll probably only see the answer anyway! One resource I fully recommend to you is 'The Musician's Guide to Acoustics' by Campbell and Greated. It assumes decent music theory knowledge and elementary maths knowledge. And it's touched upon in some orchestration books - the Adler for instance. He just mentions in The Study of Orchestration something like 'doubling at the unison isn't that effective'. I was obsessed with why it wasn't though. And after speculating, reading a bit further and then working with recording orchestras and the people who record them, it was a gradual build up of experience, talking to people and founded predominantly with a crazy curiosity! We have of course retrospectively applied these theories and observations onto acoustics and orchestration. Debussy wasn't thinking when writing La Mer, "well, I had better double the flute and piccolo an octave apart due to phase cancellation". He just began to realise with better players and better instruments that it wouldn't be as impactful as you first expect, and gets around it! I'll most likely be doing the Q+A this weekend when the Composition competition subsides for this week. As for your other question - you've got it. There are a couple of things at play. Microphone setup and the way the engineer will automate different microphone levels depending on which one is most appropriate for the piece at the time is important. Take a pizzicato passage for example. Relatively close-mic'd pizz is going to be necessary in a concerto, and then maybe a wider room sound at the climax helps to accentuate the big melody. This isn't so prevalent with single mic recordings like videos from a concert hall. Secondly, as you know, rooms have resonant frequencies. Even big rooms. We spend a lot of time recording specific room tones to then phase invert with the recording to get rid of a build-up of frequencies in a poorly orchestrated work. The stereo width perception is often due to these resonant frequencies getting caught by widely placed condensers. Don't forget that the natural stereo width of a rock band and an orchestra are going to be very different - one is the width of a drum kit, potentially with reverb, and orchestra is much wider physically. Anything the mics pick up will be exaggerated - as demonstrated by concerti recordings! Thirdly - the instruments. Some instruments, especially older string instruments have resonant frequencies that the performer either loves, or has to battle with. For example, my double bass playing Bb1 shakes violently and plays the note a good 6db higher than A0. Then, I borrowed another and the Eb2 was almighty and the Bb1 was a whisper. It's just sympathetic frequencies with the way instruments are built, especially older instruments. Modern instruments are often built for uniformity though. Finally, this is just speculation, backed up by some opinions of engineers I work with, but the mastering stage has a lot to answer for. With larger, more commercial classical artists like Yo-Yo Ma, there is more than likely going to be more than one input along the way of who decides how big the stereo field is, how the depth of the orchestra should be perceived and how the room should sound. The more people involved, with larger recordings, the more a particular stand-out line, such as a soloist, gets pulled in all directions until certain frequencies are inconsistent. It's the same with edits if the track was done in more than one pass. The more people involved, the more inconsistencies. At the mastering stage, all the poor engineer can do to the stand-out solo line is hope it doesn't get dragged around too much when he tries to make the orchestra sound wide and final. In more homogenous sections, or pieces for full orchestra without many solos, you'll notice the problem is much less pronounced. The orchestra can be treated truly as one entity and any processing or mic positions are all relative to one another. If there are any anomalies, they are quiet or compression/automation usually evens them out. Not many people notice it apart from those with keen ears such as yourself, so they'll probably leave it!

  1049. musictheory 2017-01-12 03:48:37 DRL47
    Understanding keys and modes is a separate issue. Using the "full neck" of the guitar means using different voicings and/or inversions of chords that you already know. Single-note melodies can sound different in tone, or be more facile when played up the neck on a lower string. Changing octaves is also a possibility with both chords and melodies.

  1050. musictheory 2017-01-12 04:55:18 spitz81
    I went the DIY method to solving this. I started by moving open chord shapes up the neck and seeing what combination of notes it made, and noting which were higher, lower etc. For example, if you make the three finger power chord shape on 4th fret, starting on the A string, and strum all the strings except the bottom E, you get a lush C#m7 chord. If you slide it up so your pointer finger is on the 9th fret, it becomes F#m 11 (no 9).

  1051. musictheory 2017-01-12 16:44:06 Pelusteriano
    Check [this diagram](http://jguitar.com/images/scale/C-Ionian-sharps-letter.png) for the C major scale, notice that the note pattern repeats after the 12th fret. Now, check [this diagram](http://jguitar.com/images/arpeggio/C-Major-sharps-letter.png) for the notes that make the C major chord. As you can see, they're spread all over the fretboard. A chord isn't a fixed position in the fretboard, since the notes that make the chord are spread all over the fretboard, it means you can play a single chord in more than one position. [Check here](http://jguitar.com/chordsearch?chordsearch=C&labels=letter). The most popular method that shows how to learn different chord voicings and shapes is called the "CAGED system", [relevant videos here](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=caged+guitar). Which chords you choose to play depend strongly on the context of the song and how you want to sound. For example, if I'm playing [open G chord](http://jguitar.com/images/chordshape/G-Major-G-3%2C2%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C3-sharps-letter.png) and I have to move to the C chord, I'm very likely to choose the [open C chord](http://jguitar.com/images/chordshape/C-Major-C-x%2C3%2C2%2C0%2C1%2C0-sharps-letter.png) instead of other options, like [C in A shape](http://jguitar.com/images/chordshape/C-Major-C-x%2C3%2C5%2C5%2C5%2C3-sharps-letter.png) or [C in E shape](http://jguitar.com/images/chordshape/C-Major-C-8%2C10%2C10%2C9%2C8%2C8-sharps-letter.png). Each chord shape has a different voicing. Check the following table, the numbers are the chord tones on each string, in parentheses you'll found the optional chord tones. chord shape | E | A | D | B | G | e -----------|-|-|-|-|-|- C | (5) | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 3 A | (5) | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 5 G | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 3, (5) | 1 E | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 D | (3) | (5) | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 C and G have more 3rds, which is the quality tone, thus, they will sound "more major" or "more minor" compared to the A or E shapes, which have more roots and 5ths. A and E shapes sound "more rock" since they have more 5ths. Another thing to consider is how easy is to transpose the shape. A and E shapes are easy to transpose, C is more or less easy, D isn't quite easy and G is a pain in the ass. Finally, each shape also has it's difficulty on converting it from major to any other chord. For example, it's easy to convert an E shape chord to its minor counterpart, *e.g.* from E to Em. All these things are considered when playing. If barring, A and E shapes are preferred; if playing high triads, E, A and C/D shapes are preferred, etc.

  1052. musictheory 2017-01-12 17:57:25 PlazaOne
    Part of the reason for Hendrix and SRV down-tuning is that they both included a *lot* of bent notes in their playing. By reducing the string tension, it enabled them to consistently execute accurate three-fret bends, raising the pitch by by a tone and a half in the days before Floyd-Rose style locking "trem" systems. (For the benefit of non-guitarists reading this, the manufacturer Leo Fender more than 60 years ago mistakenly described the vibrato bar as a "tremolo" and it has been perpetuated ever since. For any noobs, actual tremolo means volume, not pitch.) Unlike Hendrix and SRV, most players at that time usually would have only bent notes up by a tone (two frets) or semitone (one fret). Three-fret bends in standard tuning are more likely to lead to string breakage and finger damage than if a player down-tunes. In the '60s and '70s bent notes would generally be performed with the *fretting* hand, so the reduced string tension would make bending marginally more comfortable - although they'd often use a heavier gauge of strings, so still had considerable resistance to fight against. From the '80s onwards many players achieve their bent notes using their *picking* hand and the new improved "trem" systems, or whammy bars as they started to be called.

  1053. musictheory 2017-01-12 22:53:42 Jongtr
    Those two examples are not remotely "medieval", although they could be appropriate (sort of) for later Renaissance scenes. They do have a kind of modal feel which is (sort of) correct-ish, but they also use chords, which certainly didn't exist in the middle ages. Let alone the use of modern instruments in equal temperament... Only the sacred music of that era was ever written down, so - as phalp says - it's all guesswork what we might have heard in an actual medieval tavern. I'd bet (judging partly from the kinds of instruments we know were available, and the well-known effects of alcohol) it was a whole lot more raucous and less politely organised than anything in those samples.... Eg - there would have been hurdy-gurdys like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4mi7IzctR8 (the fiddle is more debatable, although similar instruments did exist before the violin was invented) - probably simple whistles or recorders, small drums; maybe bagpipes or shawms like from 1:50 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9tSe0MAd6o. Here's an [artists impression] (https://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bruegel/dance.jpg) As for plucked string instruments, closest thing to a guitar would have been a citole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkqs7ivwyDE (the piece he's playing is post-medieval) - or possibly one of them new-fangled lutes, just arrived from Morrocco via Spain!

  1054. musictheory 2017-01-13 01:25:22 Jongtr
    > I still can't sit down and just write something that flows naturally unless I'm completely ignoring theory So, ignore theory! The only reason of studying theory to enhance you writing is if you feel stuck in a rut - if your ear always leads you in the same few directions. I.e., your ear is always right, and if it works, you don't need theory. Your ear will always keep you in key, if staying in key is the sound you want. (Not all music stays in one key.) But your ear can develop habits, especially if you don't spend enough time listening to a wide variety of other music. The more music you listen to, the more your ear gets educated about what sounds good - although of course you need to play the music too to really embed it in your brain. Theory is handy to help organise the information - to actually turn the sounds into information in the first place, by naming them. If you lack the experience playing enough music, then theory can offer shortcuts by suggesting routes that your ear might not stumble on. Taking your example. You know the G minor scale, and (presumably) you know all the chords you can get from that scale (Gm, Adim, Bb, Cm, Dm, Eb, F). You can just randomly try all of them in various orders until something sounds good. *You don't have to know why it sounds good, and theory won't tell you that anyway.* Theory is a kind of list of everything that most people think sounds good, but it doesn't say why any of it "works". (It can tell you *how* it works, by describing the elements and connections, but not *why*.) Theory can suggest some common ways in which chords in G minor would go together. It would tell you, for example, that you can use D major or D7 instead of Dm. (If you read enough theory, you'd know D was the conventional V chord anyway, not Dm.) It would tell you that Gm-Cm-D-Gm is a standard sequence in that key. And so is Gm-Am7b5-D7-Gm. Or Gm-Eb-D-Gm. Or Gm-F-Eb-D-Gm... You could string all the chords together in a "circle progression": Gm-Cm-F-Bb-Eb-Am7b5-D7-Gm. It's still down to you to decide if you *like* any of those or not. You may think they sound a bit predictable or obvious - and indeed they do, because they're *common*. Theory describes "common practices", which are OK when you want something generic (and often you do ;-)). You have to read a hell of a lot of theory before you get to the chapters dealing with more unusual and interesting sequences. Meanwhile, you can hear sequences like that all the time in most sorts of pop or rock music. That's why songwriters who never read any theory (eg Lennon/McCartney) can come up with often very complex and fascinating progressions. They just use their ears, without any theoretical prejudice. Eg, they wouldn't feel any need to stay in the key of G minor; they could go to G major, for example (and often did). For the soundtrack, btw, make sure you listen to plenty of film music, at least for the kind of film your friend is making

  1055. musictheory 2017-01-13 06:44:51 autistictanks
    Are you referring to the B on second fret A string and the low E and lowest G? regardless you could either be doing a Cmajor7 a Gadd6(BUT I WOULDN'T... because I don't know the rest of the notes that are played) I would say... with the notes provided, that you are playing an Eminor Chord. If it's walking then it's not really in an inversion unless the rest of the chord is played right when the B hits, making that an Eminor/B meaning it's in 2nd inversion. Yeah it's just Eminor... But i can't be too certain, do you have a link to the music or perhaps sheet music?

  1056. musictheory 2017-01-13 07:56:51 Evan7979
    Are you specifically talking about making strings sound more realistic with Kontakt or something? String sections will naturally phrase. You learn it by listening a lot to the way they swell and then back off when they play to start with. There is an area of music theory called orchestration that deals with things like this. There are many books like The Study of Orchestration by Samuel Adler. However, they don't talk about how strings actually play in the real world. If you have long tied notes, that I'm assuming you're talking about, string players will natural crescendo into it slightly, and then naturally diminuendo slightly at the end. As a section, they'll play slightly behind the beat and finish just before they're meant to as well. That means, with long held string sounds, you can fade the expression in using a mod wheel, and then back out again at the end, making sure the midi note is played just after the beat, and finishing just before. People often try and notate this with hairpin dynamic markings on long string sounds, over and over again, but that shows unfamiliarity with the orchestra, because they do it naturally. As for legato passages and melodies - looking up some info about bowing in orchestration texts will tell you where they're most likely to put pressure on melodies and therefore show you how to ride the mod wheel to get the expression you want for a realistic performance.

  1057. musictheory 2017-01-13 09:33:48 SinisterMinisterX
    Take a look at some scores. Find a piece with the string sound you want, get the score from IMSLP, and find out how the strings are notated. A lot of those volume swells over a note are actually notated by the composer; you'd want to be able to filter those out to find the "natural" sounds you're looking for. Also, what /u/Evan7979 about finding an orchestration book. They usually have details about the natural tendencies of the instruments.

  1058. musictheory 2017-01-13 09:59:17 telperiontree
    Well, the extreme shorthand is downbow = aggressive and upbow is soft/sweet. The other major thing is that sustained notes have to be shaped. They can't just drone on in a monotone, that's no fun. The most common way is a small crescendo/decrescendo and some vibrato - it's rare for a note to be held without vibrato. Some other things to look up - sul g is quite common, means 'using only the g string on a violin'. Spiccato is particular to strings - a sort of bouncing staccato. Sul pont means using only the tip of the bow, it's very light, leggerio. A lot of the difference in phrasing between piano and strings is just... cantabile. You can't do a proper cantabile on a plucked string instrument. You can try to figure out string phrasing by *singing*, though. Also try to listen to solos by all the string instruments. That'll give you an idea of what's possible. Not Bach, that's usually too well mannered. Elgar, Paganini, Bruch... pay attention to what direction the bow is going, whether the hand on the bridge is shaking(vibrato) all that. Danae Macabre is a good piece for strings, too. Col legno and a solo. Stravinsky is... extremely difficult, to play, to study, but he uses string sections very, very well.

  1059. musictheory 2017-01-13 16:23:16 Pelusteriano
    Depending on the instrument, some keys are easier to play than others. For example, the C major key only uses the white keys on a keyboard or piano, which makes the C major key easy to play with a keyboard. In a guitar with standard tuning, Ab major key only uses bar chords and not a single open string, which makes that particular key harder to play. For each instrument, some keys are naturally easier to play and some are harder. So, if you want to accommodate with other instruments that have a hard time playing, let's say, G major, but are a blast to play Bb, you might want to transpose. Another big reason to transpose comes with singers. Not everyone has the vocal range to sing certain keys. Do a little example by yourself: Take the chord progression from Let It Be by the Beatles, which is in C major and try to sing it. Comfortable? Now, take a capo and put it on the 3rd fret (or transpose everything 3 semitones up) and try to sing it this way. Comfortable? Even professional singers have some songs transposed to make them easier to sing. Let's check a practical example: Rolling in the Deep. The [original is in C minor key](https://youtu.be/rYEDA3JcQqw). But the [live version is in B minor key](https://youtu.be/PaEhQ51BvSw). Why? After a full concert, your voice gets tired, taking the song down (like in this case), makes it easier for Adele to sing that song. Keys are relative, they depend heavily on the context. You can take the chords (I, ii, iii, ...) and change keys around and they will sound relatively the same. Let's go back with Let It Be, the progression is I - V - vi - IV, play it in C (the original version) and now put a capo on the 1st fret or transpose everything one fret up and play it. They sound fundamentally the same. If you were to play them to anyone without perfect pitch out of the blue, they wouldn't tell you "hey, that's not in C!".

  1060. musictheory 2017-01-14 00:38:34 DRL47
    > Yes! thats correct!! but it's not just that You have to be going to a chord that's diatonically in your key, otherwise it's modulation... > Aka, if you're in C major, you can play a D7 to go to G, or E7 to go to Aminor, etc... but the chord on the other side has to be a diatonic chord of C major... does that make sense? You don't have to resolve to a diatonic chord. There can be a string of secondary dominants: key of C- C E7 A7 D7 G7 C. The E7 and A7 are both secondary dominants the resolve to a non-diatonic chord. There is no modulation involved. You can have a secondary dominant resolving to almost anything.

  1061. musictheory 2017-01-14 03:51:22 autistictanks
    A7 is also a secondary dominant... its not resolved. It has to be resolved. Its a string of secondary dominates. Meaning that its not resolved. If its C then, V/V/V/V/I, then its not resolved. Do you see the unresolved V's? A7 doesnt have to be in key because its ANOTHER SECONDARY DOMINANT. Meaning its not resolved. AKA E7 doesnt resolve to A7, do you know why? Because A7 has a Gnatural and E7 has g#, so guess where that goes? Also X7 chords have a tritonr between the 3rd and the 7th tone of the chord. It isnt resolved yet. E7 will NEVER resolve to A7. EVER. Which means that the A7 has to go somewhere if it goes to D7 then the c# in A7 has walked down to C natural. Creating a tritone between F# and C, which then goes to G7 which walks the F# to F and creating a tritone between B and F... do you see how it ISNT resolved meaning its another secondary dominant? A secondary dominant isnt a resolution. Better yet, have an auditory example. Play a progession in C major. then play E7 to Aminor, Then play E7 to A7. Does it sound resolved? No it doesn't so it's not resolved. Since it's not resolved, played D minor, is it resolved? yes. Play D7 instead? does it sound resolved? NO it doesn't. Keep going, ok you've got D7 and it's unresolved, where does it go? G major!! that sounds resolved to me! oh but it's a G7, well G7 isn't resolved either, so it's got to go to C!! therefore it's a string of SECONDARY DOMINANTS(MEANING THAT THEY AREN'T RESOLVED) secondary dominant =/= resolution.

  1062. musictheory 2017-01-14 03:55:19 imprimatur13
    I actually have also had a lot of difficulty with tempo. Honestly, it took a lot of really concentrated listening to music until I was able to identify the 1-2-3-4, and count it out. Counting along with a metronome (or online metronome app) at slower, then faster speeds is also really useful. About the piano, it is indeed so. When you depress a key, a hammer strikes the string, which produces the tone. When the key is released, as it goes up, a little felt pad called a "damper" presses against the string to silence it. So, the note sounds until you let go of the key. There is an exception, called the "sustain pedal". On the bottom of the piano, there is a pedal that you press with your foot; when pressed, it disables the "dampers", so that the notes will keep on going, even when you let go of the keys. By the way, the piano itself doesn't have great sustain; that is, it is simply impossible to make the notes last a very long time, especially in the upper register (the strings are smaller, so for reasons of physics they don't vibrate as long), when compared to other instruments. (My piano doesn't even HAVE dampers for the top notes, because: What's the point? :).) You see, you can strike the string, but eventually it does stop vibrating. On the other hand, e.g. a flute can sound a note potentially forever, without stopping, as long as you use good circular breathing (Kenny G once played a continuous note on the saxophone for over 45 minutes using this technique) so air keeps flowing into the instrument. Not that I have anything against pianos, but they DO have their shortcomings :).

  1063. musictheory 2017-01-14 09:36:25 Pelusteriano
    > I really love math. So, I am all over the idea of how many quarter/half/full notes in a measure and how duration is set by tempo and all the ways you can convert those fractions or change the tempo to make the same thing. Have you learn how to read sheet music? I think it would work as a great resource on the rhythm. I also really think you should check polyrhythms, they're very "mathy". Check [here](https://youtu.be/sGxFRUIO7BA) and [here](https://youtu.be/rbvox-tFyXc). > For different types of instruments, for a given note duration, how do they play fractions of notes? Each instrument has a different way of being played. One way to group instrument is by the way they're played, here are some groups: * percussions - instrument is hit to produce a sound * winds - air has to pass through the instrument to produce a sound * strings - a string has to be plucked or bowed to produce a sound So, the duration of a note depends on the intensity or duration of the action. It you want to play a whole tone (4 beat duration) with a percussion, you hit the instrument, it will produce a short-living sound (that's the very nature of percussion instruments) and you wait until the 4 beats have passed. With a wind instrument, you blow for the whole duration of the 4 beats. With a string instrument you can either bow the note for 4 beats or pluck it so hard that is sounds for 4 beats. [Here's a video](https://youtu.be/IvUU8joBb1Q) of a marvel music machine that shows the inner workings of a music instrument, it might shed some light on how a music instrument works. > Are there any instruments that really require something different? Hitting, plucking, bowing and blowing are the main actions to play an instrument, I might be forgetting some other instruments that require other actions, like the [theremin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theremin), which is played by physically disturbing the signal from two antennas. > What about the piano? i saw a video where they hold the keys down for the duration, is that how you do it? is there a difference between pushing and holding and pushing then letting go? I think that the best way to understand this is by watching how a piano works, [check this video](https://youtu.be/vFXBIFyG4tU). The next best thing would be to actually check it by yourself with a real piano, but I suppose you don't have access to one. Maybe in a community center or school you can get access to a piano.

  1064. musictheory 2017-01-16 04:20:49 telperiontree
    Loudness changing with pitch? Not... really. If you are doing harmonics, the loudness can't really go above an mp. Other than that, pitch doesn't affect volume on string instruments. Flutes have really hard time being quiet above a certain pitch, and a piccolo will drill into your skull at Ab7 and above no matter what you do... they're also nearly impossible to play loud on the lower range. Oboes are pretty well the opposite, they honk on low notes and disappear on high. Don't give a brass player a high note without making it loud. But clarinets and strings pretty much don't have that problem. Clarinets might actually have a bigger dynamic range in the highest register... if you are a really fantastic player, anyway. Don't rely on that. You might want to read this: http://imslp.org/wiki/Principles_of_Orchestration_(Rimsky-Korsakov,_Nikolay) And also go through to here:https://vsl.co.at/en/Academy/Instrumentology The image is interactive, click on 'strings' or 'brass', and it will take you to a *very* thorough explanation of each instrument.

  1065. musictheory 2017-01-17 08:44:21 joshd19
    You should definitely write a book or at least an article on this phenomenon. I would be particularly interested to read an analysis of a good string section's mutual metric and dynamic intuition. Not to mention interactions with the conductor...it's a gold mine! So many layers of interpretative decisions!

  1066. musictheory 2017-01-17 18:37:21 Jongtr
    I start by checking the student actually wants to learn music theory. Not all do, and not all need to (beyond the names for the notes and chords they're learning). Assuming they're up for it, it begins with those note and chord names and - obviously - where to find them on the instrument. With guitar, that can simply be C major scale in open position, the do re mi fa so la ti do sound. Perhaps showing the tone-semitone structure of the scale by running it up one string (5th or 2nd string), with an explanation of how the guitar strings are tuned to enable you to play the same scale in one position, across the strings. Then a few melodies using that scale, to show it's applied. Then the primary major chords that the scale produces (I IV V). Of course the problem with key of C, for a guitar beginner, is the F chord! If that's still an issue (physically), I'd move on to key of G major, showing how and why it's different from C major (why the F needs to be raised to F#). In this case, the three primary chords should be easier to handle. The most important thing, IMO, is to always work with and from actual pieces of music. Theory is essentially names for sounds, so the sounds need to be heard and appreciated first. There's no point in learning the theory for anything the student can't actually play yet (and may not want to play).

  1067. musictheory 2017-01-19 06:51:59 telperiontree
    Err, what instrument? Harp would be one string per note, as would piano, but violin or guitar would have different answers...

  1068. musictheory 2017-01-19 07:46:10 phalp
    If you can bend up two semitones, then each string covers two semitones so you'll need 6 to be able to reach any note. If you want open chords, add another string (obviously in this case you can just tune them to the diatonic scale).

  1069. musictheory 2017-01-19 08:06:38 xiipaoc
    Um, try /r/learnmath? This is a math question, not a music question. So let me see if I understand you correctly. You want to form a major chord, a minor chord, and a dominant 7th chord on each of the 12 notes using the smallest possible number of strings such that each string can produce a note that could be bent up one semitone or two? This means that you want the smallest set C of numbers (mod 12) such that for all mod-12 integers n, the elements e of {n, n + 3, n +7} (minor) and {n, n + 4, n + 7, and n + 10} (dominant 7th) each correspond to a different c in C, where e is in {c, c + 1}, {c + 2}. Is that right? You can, of course, create all 12 note with 4 strings, but there's only one way of making each note, and the dominant 7th requires two notes to be 2 semitones apart, so if your root is the lowest note of the string, the chord contains the highest note of the string as well. That's no good. On the other hand, 6 strings clearly works. So the question is whether you can do it with 5. The limiting factor is the 2-semitone thing, so you have to overlap strings carefully so that each string has at least one note in overlap. So you can do this: (C C#/Db D) (D D#/Eb E) (F F#/Gb G) (G G#/Ab A) (A#/Bb B C). You can check for yourself that every dominant 7th chord is represented. So the number of necessary strings is 5.

  1070. musictheory 2017-01-19 20:44:18 Telope
    Sure! Also, feel free to elaborate on the melody and harmony, you can turn each 2-bar phrase into a longer phrase if you'd prefer. I was actually afraid that I ripped off one the slow movements from Haydn's string quartets. Those were the only ones I checked. It's a very bland chord progression, I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone's used it before.

  1071. musictheory 2017-01-19 22:32:50 DRL47
    If you can bend up two semitones, then each string covers THREE semitones, as there is also the unbent note. So you need 4, not 6.

  1072. musictheory 2017-01-20 07:51:38 nuclearslurpee
    A few ideas: * The biggest difference between a quartet and a full string orchestra, probably more so than the addition of the double basses, is the larger mass of sound. You're going to trade the individualistic, conversational style of four players for a more uniform, ensemble character. Because of this, feel free to make relatively novel departures from the original - preserve the melodic and harmonic lines, of course, but the part-writing can introduce new ideas. For example, if the basses are covering the cello part, the celli can jump between two (or more) lines to add some activity. * Use the basses not only harmonically, but also in a sense percussively. For example, instead of doubling the cello exactly they can play the bass pizzicato to coincide with rhythmic accents in other parts. This lends itself well to the Borodin which is not as busy as other quartets but does play around a lot with the rhythmic accents. * Try splitting the upper instruments into divisi sections doubled at the octave. This can give a fuller sound in some cases and a lighter sound in others. * If you have parts doubled, you can fade in/out part of the orchestra to enhance crescendos and diminuendos. You don't necessarily need to shorten or add to the existing material, there's plenty of creative ways to orchestrate what exists, so feel free to really explore what you can do!

  1073. musictheory 2017-01-20 17:34:40 sulkaritari
    The stereotypical elevator music is bossa nova. Even elevator music that isn't necessarily bossa nova probably is somewhat related to achieve the similar effect, using string orchestras in jazz songs, etc.

  1074. musictheory 2017-01-20 17:53:56 Evan7979
    Great question. In the studio environment we aim to do everything live for film, if we have the time and budget. For TV and games it's a mixture. For commercials it's only samples. The exceptions to that are sometimes piano, harp and percussion (we'll often enhance percussion with samples or use a sample piano or harp, because they're so cumbersome to mic up and record and our samples are pretty good now. As for woods, they really do sound like a different instrument in different ranges. A clarinet in its lowest 5th compared to its highest could fool nearly anyone non-musical that they weren't the same instrument. The problem with samples is they've had a pro sit down in a studio and play every note until it's perfect in isolation, then gone away and edited and compressed each note and transition, so overall, you have a woodwind with a very similar dynamic range throughout without much timbral characteristic. If they haven't done that, they're often synthesised and that's where the regular vibrato makes it stick out like a sore thumb in a sampled track. On top of that, some libraries like Albion group woods together so you get unwanted doublings. If you play C5, you get a flute, clarinet and oboe all lovely and balanced. In the real world, they'll all be at a different part of their range and thus one would be more prominent. All of that adding up has lead to woodwinds not really being used that effectively in the main trend of modern studio stuff. They play runs, sustained notes and ostinanti and that's about it with most scores. It's oddly rare to find woodwind tutti sections or soli passages. It's because when composers sit at their DAW to write for woods, the timbral character is lost so they go back to their more realistic string and brass libraries. I am forever either correcting wood parts and orchestrating them so they make sense and/or are playable, (I get sent flute parts at the bottom of their range playing a solo centred around D3 and E3 at triple forte over huge brass swells). The samples are even, a fader can make them louder, so it's the whole reason there's an orchestrator in the first place! As for orchestrating on a DAW with samples. It's definitely possible. I've been fooled before now by woods that were actually samples. I recommend Berlin Woodwinds although there's sadly no contrabassoon or bass clarinet, so I use CineWinds for those. I tend to avoid patches in Symphobia and Albion that group more than one instrument together, unless it's for huge action, I'm doing a sketch, or I don't care if it sounds synthetic. Berlin Woodwinds also has a really nice feature of solo, a.2, a.3 etc. which is another reason sampled woods don't sound convincing - there's often only one playing! I'm constantly riding my mod wheel and automation fader for volume and expression, ensuring the volume fader reacts to the instruments range (flutes get louder as they go higher for example), and the expression is used to taper it and make it musical. I then use the velocity of each MIDI note to act as a sort of dynamic - mf is about 60 velocity for example. I think of dynamic not as loudness, but as intensity and that's pretty much what velocity is too. Hope that kind of answers your question!

  1075. musictheory 2017-01-20 20:48:55 Evan7979
    Good question. A few things could help: 1) Choose instruments with distinct transients to carry the important rhythms. So for example, playing an important rhythm on flutes and clarinets versus a whole string section doing another will just make it sound like the woods are out of time because it's not balanced. If you choose double-reed instruments, such as oboe and bassoon, paired with another instrument with a very direct attack like muted trumpet versus a string section, you'll much better hear the individual tempi and metre. Putting important rhythms in prominent ranges of instruments helps too. So high trumpets and oboes would be very cutting. 2) Range. Try and envisage each tempo in its own range - you can split it up however many times you like. Imagine the bassoons, trombones and basses playing in one tempo, violas, clarinets and horns in another and then violins trumpets and flutes doing another. You can 'glue' them together with percussion with the same logic - snare for the high stuff etc. 3) Notation. How it's notated will have a big impact on how it's played. The players need to know how important their part is at any given time. Just having dynamics in this case won't help I don't think. Although it is very important to give careful consideration to that. Maybe cue other parts or come up with a system like the Hauptstimme so you can write H above important lines and so on. I'd probably use aleatoric notation for a lot of repeated patterns. 4) The arrangement. With three pianos, you have the luxury of it being quite distinct and direct with each person in command of their own tempi. I wouldn't switch around what instruments do too much, like I wouldn't have flutes play in Tempo 1 and then later in Tempo 2. Keep maybe three distinct 'choirs' for a tempo each. Distinguish these choirs by range and timbre too. (If you wanted to get really meta, you could differentiate the ensembles by instrument type. Aerophones, Idiophones etc.) Also with the arrangement - because the orchestra is such a huge unwieldy beast, you might have to make sacrifices on having three *equal* tempi simultaneously. You might have to have the pieces in 'waves' meaning one tempo would take prominence while the other two are foundational and then they all take turns to switch. This would help if it were to be conducted! 5) As for the melody, putting it again, on an instrument or instruments in a strong register is best. Maybe put it in octaves or put some foundation below it, whether it be a harmony or otherwise (not sure what harmonic language you're using). A couple tips for melodies in thick orchestration: have it within in a singable register. Back it up doubled up the octave or below but us humans will latch onto melodies in a singable register. Likewise, you can avoid that for the opposite effect. Consider starting the melody a little earlier or leading up to it so the ear leads itself into following it. 7) Your harmony. I'm assuming that you're using jazz harmony? With extensions, treat them really carefully. They sound so muddy in an orchestra. If you have a big D7b9 chord, you forget that when you give that b9 to the horns that 4 of the loudest instruments will be blasting them out. Unless that's what you want, reserve extensions for upper strings and higher instruments, and only use them a little amount, - use very stable intervals like 5ths and octaves in lower voices. If you want to create cohesion and stability - that's the way forward! You don't need all the orchestra playing at once too, bring in sections before others to set up tempi and lead the ear into new sections. Give people something to get familiar with, then take it another direction. I find it helps to sketch it all out on a piece of paper as if I'm a listener and this will be my road map for the piece ahead: what melodies, textures, harmonies and colours do I want to hear? Then assign instruments that can do the job. 8) Score-read! Find other composers who have done this sort of thing and how they tackled the problem. Off the top of my head, Elliot Carter and Charles Ives do some cool things with rhythm and classical ensembles. And of course Harrison Birtwhistle's Silsbury Air is all about metric modulation and pulse labyrinths for orchestra. Very close to what you're looking for - check out his orchestration. Its hard without hearing the pieces but I'd love to hear your progress!

  1076. musictheory 2017-01-20 21:59:38 earsablissin
    How do you divide up your time orchestrating the 'performance' of parts in sample based orchestrating? As an orchestrator, you can write and arrange based on knowing that good performers will bring out detail and nuance to a score in the most simple of parts, and balance can be fine tuned by a conductor, while within sample based orchestrating, you're trying to affect a performance of ~~40~~ up to 90 individuals. Which seems to be something that composers of the past didn't have to worry about. Where's the cutoff point for detail? (I know this is a very 'how long is a piece of string' question). My own experience is I can get quite tied in knots between automating volume, automating articulation, individual volumes, frequency balance, believabilty, sample selection and then average volume. It ends up being this loop of indecision with so many variables, and details I would have obsessed over, after a couple months distance, weren't as important as I thought. Even take for a simple example - a crescendo in the score - there's so much within that to get it to feel right (accelerandos maybe included) among so many instruments. EDIT: Building on this question, what's the average volume you would be aiming for in a sample based orchestration? When is there too much dynamic?

  1077. musictheory 2017-01-20 23:00:14 Evan7979
    Wow that's a really good question. I know exactly what you mean. You can obsess over the tiniest things when all in all, you find it doesn't matter! Or it does, but the outcome isn't worth the 4 hours of automation or something. To be honest, I have a main workflow that I usually use, but I find myself doing just as you say, especially on tight deadlines. For example, working on a project yesterday, I didn't even have time to name the tracks, so all my automation and expression stuff I was doing on each track as I went along, writing it. Here's my main workflow: 1) Sketch out the piece. I don't care if it's playable or if there's any automation or anything at this point. I'm just getting MIDI notes down. Sorting out tempo changes and time sigs too. I'll balance it a little bit but use big patches named 'High Strings' and paint really broad brush strokes. 2) Get all the MIDI data into Sibelius or Finale, depending on the project. I then orchestrate it fully for my ensemble, often adding in extra parts that I just can't think of in a DAW. Like woodwind countermelodies and harp parts. I'll probably make some things more imaginative than me playing piano into samples too. I also then put dynamics and other instructions in the score. 3) I get all the MIDI back into my DAW and now have a MIDI line for Violin 1, Violin 2 etc. I then assign them to samples appropriate for the track. However, because of the dynamic and tempo info from Sib or Finale, it's all done for me. I'll then bus each group of instruments to its own channel so I'll have Woodwind, Brass etc. I can then automate those channels. So I'll go through the entire track automating volume and expression. I also humanise the MIDI - randomising quantisation and velocity a little. Then, I'll begin balancing it a bit more too. Finally, I'll mix and master it if it's not being sent off to a mixing engineer (they usually only mix final, recorded things but I like to have a mix anyway for reference). 4) Tweak changes in my score and finalise it. I might have made some changes in my DAW with synths or other sound effects that need notating or something similar. I'll then have the score ready for recording and a decent reference mix with it. It's a long-winded process but I now use Cubase and Sibelius with ReWire, meaning I can have them both open simultaneously and if I make a change in Sibelius it translates in the MIDI to Cubase which is so helpful. I can get a mockup and score done all at once. I spend most of my time writing and about half that automating and scoring and mixing. So if it took be 6 hours to write, I'd spend maybe 2 hours on each other thing. So I guess my advice would be, if you have a big intricate score, there is no other way really than to score it out, import it, then do layer after layer of automation and balancing. It's frustrating, and it can make your piece sound quite annoying after a while! If you have a small piece (or a large one) that was written in a DAW first, I'd recommend automating and expression all at once. As soon as you write a string part, automate it, balance it, sort the expression. There's nothing worse than writing it all and then having to come back and do all that technical stuff again. You can always write it first and check it's playable after by importing it into a score program and then orchestrating it. That takes just as much time though! The more familiar you are with instruments the more you naturally write idiomatic music too. As for the volume question. I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean the dynamic range, like the loudest and softest parts - what should they be? Or the overall average volume? Overall average volume is measured in RMS and I aim to get my masters to -6db RMS. Thats pretty loud. But the quieter bits are much quieter and the louder bits are much louder (maybe a 20db difference)

  1078. musictheory 2017-01-20 23:51:40 earsablissin
    What are your favourite works to study orchestration? Or ones that you found gave you a the greatest leap in insight? There's various works I love, but when reading the score, the orchestration is so wide ranging that transpositional instruments can occlude the harmony going on, so it takes quite a lot of energy to both transpose and understand a harmony within a giving part. (and often I won't understand either, ha). I like chamber pieces for this reason, as you can more easy see performance techniques and line writing. I'm trying to find a piece which would include a broad range of string articulations and interesting runs to study. Any hints to useful pieces?

  1079. musictheory 2017-01-21 00:04:28 Evan7979
    Grab anything by Ravel or Debussy. They were masters. If you look past the colour they achieve and just see what the did with the instruments they had, a lot of it chamber work, it's just crazy. Also Mahler. He was very good 80% of the time. There has been a few pieces. The Rite of Spring being one. It is simultaneously genius and very poorly orchestrated so it fascinates me. He has beautiful, original textures in places and then in others, writes double stops that violas can't play! Score reading is a tough skill, but keep doing what you're doing, building up to bigger scores. It's hard to transpose too but worth it in the end! As for interesting string runs and articulation, have a look at some string quartets by Borodin, and of course Mozart. He did strings very well. For more modern film stuff regarding runs, anything by John Williams or Alexandre Desplat is really good - some weird whole tone and melodic minor runs and passages going on. Borrowed from Saint-Saens who you should also check out his stuff!

  1080. musictheory 2017-01-21 00:12:03 earsablissin
    Thank you, the Ravel String Quartet I love to read. That's really interesting with the Rite of Spring. Mahler is someone I havn't given much a chance, so will have to listen to some of his pieces. Brilliant, thanks for the suggestions!

  1081. musictheory 2017-01-21 13:12:38 Pelusteriano
    I don't really think it's about the music itself, but the instrumentation and production. The following are taken from [10 steps to producing perfect '80s pop](http://www.musicradar.com/tuition/tech/10-steps-to-producing-perfect-80s-pop-604018) by MusicRadar: 1. Synthesizers, like the Yamaha DX7. Although synths were available since the 60s, they got really popular at the 80s because Yamaha made a synth with relatively good quality at a relatively inexpensive price, the Yamaha SX7, [80s sounds shown here](https://youtu.be/11bWvQaQhrM). Notable songs using synths: [Just Can't Get Enough](https://youtu.be/_6FBfAQ-NDE), [Take My Breath Away](https://youtu.be/Bx51eegLTY8), [Tainted Love](https://youtu.be/XZVpR3Pk-r8). 2. Synths: Arpeggiators. It's basically an automatic preset in some sets that plays arpeggios, [how it works shown in this video](https://youtu.be/k0bFALVi3-s). A relevant song is [Never Ending Story](https://youtu.be/Gf1WT8VEZxk). The same sound can also be obtained by actually playing the arpeggio by yourself and using lots of delay (fx). 3. Gated snares. It's a snare with a load of reverb, [this video shows how it sounds](https://youtu.be/N6L_BG0Qhg0?t=1m4s). Some notable examples are [Intruder](https://youtu.be/vAzUh_H7yV0), [The Wild Boys](https://youtu.be/M43wsiNBwmo). 4. Programmed beats (or electric drums or drums from a synth or keytar). Snare was the most important part of the rhythm, usually accentuating offbeats. An example is [Girls Just Want to Have Fun](https://youtu.be/PIb6AZdTr-A), the beat sound artificial and too precise, it always falls correctly on the same beat at the precise tempo. 5. Samples. Basically you take a little bit from a song, tweak it a little to adjust it to your song. For example [Planet Rock](https://youtu.be/hh1AypBaIEk) takes bits from [Stravinsky's Infernal Dance](https://youtu.be/6Vj8ow8iC4s) (the orchestral hits). 6. Vocal manipulation. Delay, reverb and reharmonization were often added digitally to compensate for what would be a rather thin vocal line. A lot of 80s pop songs vocals sound too big as a result of this manipulation. 7. Synth as lead. Synths got relatively inexpensive at the 80s, which took them to popularity, they got so popular that the prefered lead instrument (electric guitar) got briefly substituted by synth and keytars. [Whip It](https://youtu.be/Z56XSG5LUbU), [This Must Be The Place](https://youtu.be/o9gK2fOq4MY). A great asset for synths is that they can handle a lot of different sounds, from pan flutes, to string ensembles to drums. 8. Basslines played in octaves. Basically the bass plays a note and the next note will be the same, but an octave higher, giving this sense of a wide spectrum, [as shown here](https://youtu.be/b05UAklbyUE). The common operator in all those points is the overuse of synths and digital manipulation. In the example you provide, taking the visual aesthetics out: * tempo is decreased a little, to make the song "a little more emotional", like an 80s ballad * there's gated snares all over the place * reverb was added to the vocals * a synth piano sound was used * overall, the song sounds more "full" because the instrumentation and production is set to "add reverb and use instruments with long sustain" * musically, something important to notice is the change in rhythm, the 80s version is there to accentuate the reverb on the snare, with big hits on the toms before reaching the chorus, the original version uses 808s drums that have a different sound with a more "minimal" approach, the sound fades out quickly and it's just a snare and a kick.

  1082. musictheory 2017-01-21 23:37:59 voorja
    Yes. The descending harmonic series is the inverse of the ascending harmonic series. You can think of it like this: If you take a string and pluck it you get the fundamental note, if you make the string twice as short it will now play a note twice the frequency of the original note if you make it three times shorter it will play a note 3 times the pitch. This is the ascending harmonic series. If you do the opposite you get the descending harmonic series. If you make the string twice as long you get a note 1/2 the pitch. Three times as long is 1/3 the pitch. So the two series look like this. Ascending: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10....infinity Descending: 1/2,1/3,1/4,1/5,1/6,1/7,1/8,1/9,1/10....infinity Also, each undertone and overtone have their own harmonic series, but the harmonic series of each overtone is included in the harmonic series of the fundamental. As you go up the harmonic series you get new ratios. The ratio between 2 and 3 gives you 3/2. 4 and 4 give you 4/3. 5 and 4 give you 5/4 etc. Or you can think about ratios as arising from the interaction between overtones and undertones. 3/2 is what would happen if you made a string three times shorter then twice as long. You can use this concept to make a table like [this](http://whatmusicreallyis.com/research/harmonicomb/wmri_hc_matrix_33_rainbow_colored_tilt.svg). The bottom left axis is the descending series. The bottom right axis is the ascending harmonic series. Where the lines intersect you get a new ratio that is a combination of the undertone and overtone. The axes are logarithmic which makes it so how you see it is how it sounds. 3/2 is closer to 2/1 than 1/1. Everything on a vertical line is the same pitch, moving from left to right goes from low notes to high notes.

  1083. musictheory 2017-01-22 00:43:10 Jongtr
    Including the G, you only have 5 notes (no A or F), and they could belong to either C major or G major (depending on whether you choose F or F#). The G note "works" because it harmonizes well with all the notes in your melody - and it's also another note in the most likely scales, of course. The B note also harmonizes well with all except the C. (Does it really sound good to play C and B notes together? If you think it does, that's fine. It's a dissonance, but that's not a bad thing.) The fact you start and end on C suggests that's your key, but you can check by seeing whether F or F# sounds better - and whether the G you're adding sounds like a better concluding note. (The "key" is whichever note sounds right to *end* the song on.) You don't have to use only those notes, but the chords you choose should contain the main notes in your melody. That is, the longest notes, or the ones on the main beats, or the most accented ones. I.e., once you have your melody fixed, hunt for chords that contain those main notes. The chord doesn't need to contain the passing notes. E.g., for the C-B-C beginning, you could use a C chord for all of them - at least if the Cs are the stronger/longer notes. The set of chords you draw from should (in the first instance) be ones built from the same notes (scale) as your melody. If you're going for C major scale, that means C, F and G major chords to begin with; then the minors Am, Dm and Em if the majors don't quite hit the spot. The three major chords contain all the scale notes between them, so will harmonize any melody note. 1000s of great songs have been written with just those 3 chords, and you should always keep things as simple as possible, to let your melody shine. But the minors are there (different selections from the same scale notes) if you want a more reflective or varied mood. Also, you can always add other scale notes to your chords if the plain triads are not quite right. Use your ear and experiment - just don't overdo it! The melody is what matters. As an example of alternative chords for those first notes (C-B-C-E): A plain C major will work fine. So will Am, for a slightly moodier effect (both contain the notes C and E). You could add B to the C chord to make a wistful Cmaj7 (just leave the 2nd string open on a normal C shape), or add a 7th (G) to the Am. The D-B notes suggest a G chord: it contains both of them, but so does Em7 (and G7). But G or G7 will lead naturally back to the final C. As for "turning it into a song"... that's really a matter of adding lyrics (something to "sing"), and extending and developing it. That doesn't have to be difficult. You can repeat that first set of notes, sing the same phrase again. You could even sing it a third or fourth time, perhaps with a slight change (one or two notes different). Lyrics are usually the hard part (I find). The music just has to sound good; lyrics have to make sense (and fit the shape and rhythm of the tune)! :-(

  1084. musictheory 2017-01-22 08:24:41 vornska
    Its chord progression always reminds me of [second movement from Brahms's First String Sextet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpxp27nv6lI&t=11m23s), especially in the version that Brotherhood (what a good show!) actually uses. You'd probably like [a lot of Brahms](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSf2veLfC-w&t=1m50s).

  1085. musictheory 2017-01-22 10:02:19 furnavi
    Yeah that gets me as a string player, because by that logic, strings should be transposed as well.

  1086. musictheory 2017-01-22 23:47:28 SquanchMcSquanchFace
    There are some great answers here, but I'd like to add how I think about it, as simply as possible. Different instruments have different registers/timbres/roles, just like voice. Say you want a sax in the same range as a soprano (instruments developed to mimic the voice after all), any change in a wind instrument will affect the timbre and range, so they make 4 sizes to fit the different voice types. Remember how old wind players only had a handful of notes they could naturally hit without valves/stops. Now jump to a standard string instrument. Think of those 4 saxes as each of the 4 strings. The "Bb" instrument/string can play say two octaves of Bb with only the 'natural or harmonic' notes. "Oh wait, this piece is in C but I have a Bb instrument!", thankfully you have transposition (which acts a lot like a capo bar for guitar) and now you can play (almost) two octaves of C without having different fingerings/systems. Obviously wind instruments got valves and string instruments can play notes besides the harmonics, but that history behind it developed a system of writing and instruments that would be next to impossible to change now, even if people wanted to change the original works. On a side note, a big reason for knowing/having so many clefs is exactly for transposing purposes.

  1087. musictheory 2017-01-23 03:41:08 zapharatu
    Haven't seen anyone mention this yet (or maybe I missed it), but if anyone out there is also a guitar player, it may help to consider the way guitar music is written. For one, it is written an octave higher then it sounds so that we don't have to read bass clef, and whenever guitarists use capos or detune, we continue to write the music as if it's still in standard with no capo, and not how it actually sounds. We do this so guitarists can just think of the same chord shapes (like open C chord shape) and fingering patterns. I've seen classical pieces that do this for open tunings as well ( check out the score for the piece "Koyunbaba" by Carlo Domeniconi). This is all very similar logic to transposing for wind instruments. Capoing and retuning changes the length of the guitar strings like how different keyed wind instruments have different tube lengths. In both cases, transposing allows the player to just have to think of one set of fingerings/chord shapes, and the music to be written the same. It's easier for the player, but can seem confusing when playing with musicians who never have to transpose (like a guitarist using a capo in a band with a piano player or string player- they'll have to talk/think in two keys at once).

  1088. musictheory 2017-01-23 05:30:46 xiipaoc
    Let's get a couple of things straight about accidentals. If you see a B with a flat next to it, it's *always* a Bb. It doesn't matter if it was already Bb or if it was Bbb or B natural or B# or Bx or something weirder; a B on the staff with a b next to it is *always* Bb. Now, sometimes you might wonder why a particular note is marked a certain way. That's fine. Wonder away. But if it's a B on the staff and it's got a b next to it, it's Bb, period. Key signature doesn't matter. Previous measure doesn't matter. Now, the way key signatures work is that they give notes accidentals by default. So, if you see a naked B on the staff and there's a Bb in the key signature, you know that it's a Bb without the b sign next to it. The key signature resets *every measure*. So if you write a natural next to the B on the staff, all the B's *until the end of the measure* will be natural by default. If you write a # next to the B on the staff, all the B's *until the end of the measure* will be sharp by default. If you see a natural next to a B on the staff, it's *always* B natural no matter what happened before; if you see a # next to a B on the staff, it's *always* B# no matter what happened before. (On the piano, B# is the same physical key as C.) Unfortunately, it can be a bit tricky to remember what has happened so far in the measure, so oftentimes the editor will give you a reminder accidental in the next bar. So if one bar has a B natural and the next one has a Bb, well, the key signature already shows a Bb, but you're too busy to think about it so the editor will put the b next to the B on the staff. It's not necessary (and sometimes it will even be in parentheses). You don't need it there, technically. But even professional musicians tend to rely on that kind of thing. Actually, when I was in school I wrote a string quartet piece for a theory class and they hired a professional string quartet to play the pieces. My piece was in G major (F# in the key signature), but one section modulated to G minor. I had an F# next to an Eb; the Eb was marked (obviously) but the F# wasn't because it was already in the key signature. Well, the professional violinist forgot and played F natural! Whoops! I should probably have thrown in a reminder accidental there, shouldn't I? Other stuff about accidentals: if you see a low A with a b and a high A without one, is the high A also Ab? The rules say that both need to be marked, but not everyone follows that rule, so sometimes you have to guess what the composer actually meant. This is bad. You shouldn't have to guess. So if you have two of the same note name in different octaves within one measure and the first one has an accidental, *make sure the second one does too*, even if it's not necessary. Like, if the low one is Ab and the high one is A natural, write in the natural. Also, you don't need an accidental on a tie. So if you have an F# tied to an F# in the next measure, you don't need to mark the second one -- *but* any *subsequent* F's in that measure will still need accidentals like normal. This only applies to notes that are continuations of a tie. Finally, there is a weird accidental you may come across from time to time in older music, the natural-sharp (or natural-flat). This accidental cancels a double sharp (or double flat) and replaces it with a single sharp (or flat). So if you have an Fx one measure and then you have an F# in the same measure (or the next one as a cautionary), in older music that F# will actually have a natural-sharp instead of a simple #. Nowadays people tend not to do that because it's silly, but if you come across it, that's what it means. You can just treat it as an ordinary # (or b). That's it for accidentals. There's no magic. There's no need to overthink things. B on the staff with a b next to it is Bb, even if it was already in the key signature. Accidentals stay until the end of the measure (except when it's tied across the bar line), but musicians are too focused on the music to pay attention to this. It's that simple.

  1089. musictheory 2017-01-23 09:37:26 seosamh77
    you basically need to get to know the guitar fretboard and how it relates to the piano, there's a direct correlation. You need to be able to figure out what every note on the fret board is (eventually). As a beginner, start figuring out what every note is up to the 5th fret firstly, on every string..

  1090. musictheory 2017-01-23 12:54:38 clarkcox3
    There's also the matter that keys with sharps are easier on string instruments; "adding" fingers (by putting them on the strings) raises the pitch. On wind instruments, keys with flats are easier, as"adding" fingers (by covering holes or pressing valves) lowers the pitch.

  1091. musictheory 2017-01-23 19:45:54 donnergott
    So as everyone else just said, the theory is the same and you only need to apply it using the particular instrument's capabilities. The only thing i can add tho, is you will have some limitations. For starters, you can only have 6 notes at a time, as opposed to 10 (or a bit more) with a piano. But more importantly, when you want 'weirder' chords (the kind of chords that use 4th or 6th notes), you may sometimes run into trouble, because the string which you would need for.that is already tasked with doing your 3rd or 5th. In this sense, guitar is somewhat limited, or you may find yourself needing some weird hand positions and/or needing a capo

  1092. musictheory 2017-01-23 20:17:12 Jongtr
    There's one difference between piano and guitar regarding notation that it might be useful to know. Guitar music is transposed down by an octave. That means piano middle C appears an octave higher on the staff: 3rd space up. It's played on 2nd string 1st fret (and 3rd string 5th fret, etc). You can think of the guitar staff as being lowered so it (roughly) straddles middle C, overlapping both piano treble and bass staves. This is because guitar is a mid-range instrument, and middle C is roughly in the middle of the guitar's range, as it is with piano.

  1093. musictheory 2017-01-24 02:46:04 flash17k
    This would indicate a Bb chord, with a C bass. On piano you might play the Bb chord with your right hand, while playing a C note/octave with your left hand (instead of the usual Bb for bass). On guitar, you could play the chord this way: X33331, so the C bass note is present on the 5th string 3rd fret, while the rest of the Bb chord is present on the remaining (1st-4th) strings. If you're playing a bass or bass guitar, you'll likely just play the C bass note, and leave the Bb chord for the other instruments to play over that. Some less experienced guitarists might simply ignore the /C altogether and just play the normal Bb chord, and the bassist and/or other instrument players may include it.

  1094. musictheory 2017-01-24 09:21:15 jacktheripar
    you could do it barring the third fret of the bottom 2 strings with your middle finger, ring on the 4th string, pinky on the 3rd, index on the 1st fret of the 2nd string. edit: ehh i played the chord a string lower just move the position up a string.

  1095. musictheory 2017-01-24 10:07:23 xiipaoc
    X3333X is probably the best-sounding voicing for this chord; you get C F Bb D. The F in the top string just unbalances the chord, so I'd leave it out even if I had five fingers in my left hand, which... ...huh, I do have five fingers in my left hand. Right hand too. Five fingers each hand. Thought that was normal? (Yes, I get the joke.)

  1096. musictheory 2017-01-24 17:51:57 Jongtr
    Same thing. In C major, E is V/vi - at least it is if it goes to Am or A(7). In a string of dominants, such as E7-A7-D7-G7-C (what jazz musicians call back-cycling) each one is V of the next. Pretty common, in vintage jazz anyway (the bridge of Gershwin's I Got Rhythm runs E7-A7-D7-G7, 2 bars each). Each one implies a key change (to the following chord), but the expected tonic become V of the next and so on, until you get back to the actual tonic (C). , "Rhythm changes" became a standard formula for a lot of bebop tunes - although usually in Bb, not C.

  1097. musictheory 2017-01-25 06:50:26 LukeSniper
    Equal temperament divides the octave into 12 equal steps. This results in pretty much everything but the octave being "out of tune". It's a necessary evil for western music and what we like to do with it. The goal is to be equally "out of tune" in all keys. But temperament and intonation is a funny thing, and it's hard to nail it down to a "perfect" science. Pianos aren't actually tuned to equal temperament. Each octave is tuned slightly wider than a perfect octave. Why? It sounds better. Why? Well, that's complicated. It's something about string compliance and how it affects really high harmonics. Basically, folks do it by ear and make it sound good.

  1098. musictheory 2017-01-26 01:18:40 phalp
    You'd really have to go to his music and see how it's used in his musical language. There's no standard for this kind of thing, that's why it's fun. The only septimal seventh that comes to mind at the moment is in his fourth string quartet, when the melody of Amazing Grace is played with harmonics "6 8 10 8 10 9 8 7 6" or something like that, substituting a 7/6 for an expected 9/8. I can't say anything more general. EDIT: Well, I probably can predict it's going to vary by piece. If you take the Variations from his seventh quartet, which is structured around a fundamental line that microtonally ascends by an octave, and compare to the last movement of the 10th, which is kind of an alternate-historical tuning recapitulation, you wouldn't expect the same use, much less in his most serial work. And that's all different from the melodic variation I mentioned first.

  1099. musictheory 2017-01-26 06:39:58 BattleAnus
    Not a scientific fact, but I think a lot of the drama and emotion from music comes from dynamic range. Strings can have a lot of dynamic range. There's a really good analog to this idea in drawing, which is line weight variation. This is the quality of line that changes width throughout the drawing, often seen when using a brush. Here's an example of a drawing that has a lot more drama and vitality due to the line weight variation: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/b2/dd/da/b2ddda3403fae90fdd9cd775c8215e47.jpg Compare that to this drawing done with pen: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/94/9c/a4/949ca463ee044b2fa3750c4e27f37cd3.jpg It's still a good drawing, it just has a totally different feel, and I think it relates to the "dynamic range" of the line. You can see how here a brush is analogous to a string instrument and a pen would be analogous to a quantized synth. Both have their uses, they just evoke different feelings.

  1100. musictheory 2017-01-26 08:16:56 feanturi
    That sounds really interesting. I wonder if it's about the intonation of a string instrument? I learned from a YouTube video to tune my guitar's open G string about 20 cents flat, which makes that particular string more in tune at any other fret along the neck.

  1101. musictheory 2017-01-26 23:41:21 Veldox
    I'll step in with some advice... First things first start looking up the gear, tunings, guitars, etc. that those bands use and try to figure out why they are using them and how it affects their sound and that in the end can help you choose what kind of amp or guitar or pickups you want to choose in the end. A huge thing in making their stuff sound so heavy is both in guitars (Korn uses a 7 string for example which add's a lower B string on top) and tuning, a band like In flames tunes to C standard(2 full steps down) and then on the newer stuff drops the C down to a A# which in turn points us to another thing important to sounding heavy thick strings. You typically don't go under 12's if you're gonna play heavy (I use 13/14s) another example in tuning would be system of a down using Drop C (1 full step down to D standard then drop the D down to a C) As I Lay Dying also plays in this tuning as well as Black Dahlia Murder and a lot of other bands. Just start messing around with different stuff like the tunings and learning some of your favorite bands songs and eventually you'll start figuring out which tuning you're most comfortable in to write your own riffs in. Practice playing tight and neat every day. On top of all that a big reason metal bands sound so huge and heavy is they layer the tracking on guitars when recording but that topic in it's own is a whole 'nother story.

  1102. musictheory 2017-01-27 21:58:27 jelly_burger
    Well I'd never heard of that style but yes, it seems to be a match! And yes you must be very precise to only strike a single string, but they are much farther apart than on guitar. I still haven't figured out how to properly "roll" on the middle strings without hitting the outer string.

  1103. musictheory 2017-01-28 07:55:09 m3g0wnz
    >Its called the harmonic series for a reason and that is because it defines the harmony. It's called the "harmonic series" after the term "harmonic" which describes two things that join together concordantly; of course, those things are the wavelengths or string lengths. Based on what you talk about next, you seem to be implying it has to do with triads (i.e., "harmonies"), which is incorrect, historically and etymologically speaking. >Of course, the harmony will then define the scales. Of course, this is more of a chicken/egg comparison except that composers only had to be aware of the first 5 elements of the overtone series to be able to create the major chords of I IV V and with these chords, you have a major scale. The diatonic scale predates the identification of I, IV, and V as "primary triads" by two thousand years. Using I, IV, and V to generate the major scale was never conceived before Rameau's *Generation Harmonique* in 1737. So, not really a chicken and egg thing. The diatonic scale came first, by a lot.

  1104. musictheory 2017-01-29 01:51:00 ljse7m
    Thank goodness for an in context reply! Its a breath of fresh air. True, at least in one context about the overtones of the instrument. The overtone series, or harmonic series, but in the context of your statement, I would use the "overtone" series as that more properly fits the context in my point of view. The overtone series is most clearly perceived, to me, as a vibrating string and the combined vibrations of all of what we call harmonics as the string vibrates producing the sound. This is clearly seen if you look at the vibrations in the dark with a variable cps strobe light and you can actually "tune in" the strobe to isolate the difference vibrations happening on the string. This to me is the best way to visualize the Overtone series and this is what causes the air to vibrate in the ratios that we call the harmonic series. To me the harmonic series is this phenomena applied to musical, primarily in understanding how harmony is defined by applying the Overtone series to musical concepts. I believe that what you are saying is true, but it is related to the Overtone series and which partials (or elements) are enhanced or repressed by the mechanical properties of an instrument such as shape, material used in construction, resonating chambers, curves, shape of the vibrating chamber etc. And of course this is important. I am only emphasizing here that the vibrations produced are the same but the quality of the sound or timbre is affected. i.e. the ratios are the same etc, but the sound of the trumpet is different from the flute or clarinet etc. but if a trumpet plays a C and the flute plays a G above, it is still a "perfect fifth" etc. ( I know you probably understand this) but this reshaping of the overtones series ONLY with the volume of the various components of the sound vibrations and not with the actual vibrations of the air in terms of frequency. And yes, I understand this and I am glad you pointed it out and especially glad that your reply is in the proper context! And since you seem to be interested, I would also like to point out that not only is the overtone series an influence in what you are noticing, and not only in my original stetement as a source for creating harmony and scales, when looking at the series in a horizontal manner as if it were an audible chord structure extended into infinity but this is also only part of the picture just as your statement is also an important part of how the harmonic/overtone series influences music. Before functional music was commonplace, if you take the intervals between each of the elements of the "series" you can find a direct correlation between the spaces between the elements as being the major force of the conventions of consonance and dissonance that guided the counterpoint of the Church music before the evolution to the Baroque concept of functional harmony. On fundamental C: 1. C Prime 2 C^ Octave 3. G Perfect 5th 4. C^^ 4th 5. E Major 3rd 6. G^ minor 3rd 7. A/Bb That Devil the ambiguous 8. C^^^ These "enclosed", meaning not intervals from the fundamental but inherent in the sound of each tone sounding by a voice or instrument, are define quite accurately what was heard as consonant or dissonant. Consonant = Octave, perfect fifth, (fourth in some instances, dissonant in others) Soft consonants = 3rds and 6ths. (inversions) Dissonance = all other intervals. Now if you play two tones together, you may notice that if you combine the "series" of the fundamentals of two tones being played together, (you just have to use the first strongest five elements) and you will see the correlation. When two voices are combined, each has its own overtone series, If you sing a C and another voice sings a G above it, it fits into the overtone series of C and is consonant. If you sing an E above the C, you can see it is still in the C overtone series but it is further up and is a "soft" consonance. You sing a C and an Bb and you have a problem. Yes, its included, but the separation of the most "perfect" prime/octave is much greater and thus we have a problem. So with just the few overtones, which can be rather easily played on any vibrating string by playing its harmonic, (which is of the HARMONIC series) you have the original rules of consonance and dissonance defined by the overtone series. Did the people of the day look at it that way? I don't know, maybe some spaced out Monk saw it that way, but I don't know that the science of music of that time saw it in that way at all. I do assume that they heard it as that is what they sung and heard as music. Thank you for your reply. I hope you enjoy thinking about the pre Baroque concept I presented as well as the Baroque concept that I presented earlier. There are many other correlations of how music evolved as compared to the Overtone/Harmonic series. In time, I hope to have interesting discussions on all of these topics with others that can understand the context and to comment, as you did, on related similarities and differences and anything that relates to the influence of the "series" and WHY music sounds as it does, or to put it in more popular terms in Reddit, "Why does music work?" LJSe7m

  1105. musictheory 2017-01-29 02:41:16 m3g0wnz
    >What's your point? Are you saying that there is only one way to derive a scale and to account for what people heard through all the years? Are you saying the the harmonic does not reflect harmony? No, I'm not talking about absolutes at all. I'm pointing out *historical* facts: 1. the development of tonality is pretty well documented, and 2. ratios and intervals come before the diatonic scale which come before the conception of I, IV, and V by approximately two thousand years. This is relevant to the context because you are bringing up the historical development of tonality. >You are missing the context of my post. What you are now claiming is that you were speaking more generally—i.e., ahistorically, and in a more purely theoretical and absolute sense—which is fine. However, that was not at all clear, because you were talking about history at the same time. Separately, there is also a practical history to be studied that I want to include in the discussion for anyone who might be interested (not just you). It's relevant and interesting. I will answer the questions you have about this history. If you have more questions, feel free to ask me, and I'll help you. ---- >We have no way that I am aware of that they even had conceived of what we understand to be the Harmonic Series. We do know that when Pythagoras discovered the perfect fifth and created his cycle (that turned out to be imperfect) did discover at least the first three elements of the harmonic series although I don't think he ever realized that, maybe you have other evidence? I don't and would appreciate an update if you know that he did. We do have a way of knowing this: reading books. There are many treatises by the ancient Greeks still preserved to this day. The harmonic series was certainly known to the ancient Greeks. All it is is a series of multiple ratios: 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:5, 1:6, etc. Mathematically the harmonic series is a very simple concept, as /u/voorja suggests. It didn't need to be "discovered" as such. It's like asking if the ancient Greeks had discovered the number 23,894. What remained undiscovered until 1737 was that the harmonic series is contained within a single vibrating string, but the ancient Greeks would have realized that there is a relationship between 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:5, 1:6, etc. >The question is not when they heard their arrangements of notes as a scale, or their combinations of tones as chords but WHY did they hear it that way? The answer to this question is well documented in the writings of Philolaus, Archytas, et al. The ancient Greeks defined intervals through their ratios. Certain ratios were privileged: multiple, superparticular, and superpartient. Ratios that were multiple or superparticular and are formed with numbers of the *"tectractys* of the decad" (1+2+3+4=10) were considered consonant. They stopped at 4 because of their philosophy that the *tetractyus* was a divine cosmic relationship (see Sextus Empiricus, *Against the Mathematicians*, vii.94–5). These kinds of interval ratios defined music theory and consonance/dissonance all the way up until 1737, as I mentioned. --- >Now that we have the proper context of my reply defined more clearly, (I thought it was obvious!) maybe you could reply to my post with this more clearly context in mind. Okay. I think you need to situate your comments better and make the context clearer for the rest of us. So this... >Before functional music was commonplace, if you take the intervals between each of the elements of the "series" you can find a direct correlation between the spaces between the elements as being the major force of the conventions of consonance and dissonance that guided the counterpoint of the Church music before the evolution to the Baroque concept of functional harmony. ...is a falsehood. To avoid making false claims, you must hedge your statement, by saying that you are *not* talking about the actual music theory that was contemporary with counterpoint of the Church music in the Medieval and Renaissance periods—because that music theory had to do with the superparticular and multiple ratios of string lengths that I mention above, and *not* the harmonic series. The harmonic series as the foundation of consonance/dissonance is a concept that was unheard of before 1737; as such, it was *not* the "major force" of the music theory of the 10th–17th centuries. To be clear, there *was* music theory in the 10th century (and after) that discussed "conventions of consonance and dissonance that guided the counterpoint," and it was based on ratios, not on the harmonic series. To be a responsible educator, you need to clarify your "context" to make it clear that you are speaking ahistorically, and specifically, that you are claiming to have knowledge of some kind of absolute truth that subconsciously influenced the minds of composers that lived a thousand years before you (a claim that strikes me as arrogant, but maybe your students buy it). You should also inform your students that there are no historical writings to support this idea of yours, and that, in fact, there *are* many historical treatises that show composers conceiving of consonance/dissonance in entirely different terms. When you do not do this, you are misinforming others. Similarly this: >So with just the few overtones, which can be rather easily played on any vibrating string by playing its harmonic, (which is of the HARMONIC series) you have the original rules of consonance and dissonance defined by the overtone series. is misleading, because this is not at all the "original rules of consonance and dissonance." This is a rule from 1737. **tl;dr:** What is confusing to the reader is that you are referencing specific historical eras and historical rules, but you simultaneously claim that you are not talking about music history (i.e., when I point out the facts of those eras and rules). This is why I misunderstood your context. You need to be more up front about the fact that you are not speaking about facts of history.

  1106. musictheory 2017-01-29 05:43:49 voorja
    The mechanical properties don't just enhance or suppress overtones, giving the instrument its timbre. They also stretch or condense the whole series, so the ratios aren't exactly the same. You can read about this at this [link](http://whatmusicreallyis.com/research/tuning/) or this [article](http://ems.music.uiuc.edu/courses/tipei/M408E/Notes/spectral.pdf). Or you can download a program called overtone analyzer to verify this for yourself. If you want an instrument to be in tune with itself you need to figure out how much the overtones are being stretched or compressed relative to the harmonic series. Here is something that I think you will like. Check out this [diagram](http://whatmusicreallyis.com/research/harmonicomb/wmri_hc_matrix_33_rainbow_colored_tilt.svg). You can think of ratios as a combination of overtones and undertones. If you make a string shorter by whole number ratios you get the ascending harmonic series. If you make a string longer by whole number ratios you get the descending harmonic series. What happens if you make the string three times shorter and then twice as long? You get the ratio 3/2. The bottom right axis is the ascending harmonic series. The bottom left axis is the descending harmonic series. Where they intersect you get a new ratio that is a combination of the two. Every ratio on a vertical line is the same ratio. The axes are logarithmic so how you see the ratios is how they sound (3/2 is closer to 2/1 than 1/1). This diagram is extremely useful for scale building. You can color it too by applying the ratios to a wavelength of light, giving it an additional useful component.

  1107. musictheory 2017-01-30 07:23:33 m3g0wnz
    > I am confused as to what problems you have with my point. well you contradict a lot of facts of history in ways that I pointed out clearly. >But in Re the evolution based on the correlation of the expanded use of the harmonic series higher partials, don't you think that the actual music that was written is the real true way to understand music? If your point is that the ratios trump (no offense intended) the actual music, then I understand and disagree! But if you are saying that the ratios are a mathematical way of measuring what the composers hear naturally, well, I don't see anything to disagree with. My only question is, "OK, I measured what they are using as the scales, what next?" None of these is my point. My point is that the harmonic series as contained within a vibrating string, i.e., a simultaneity inherent in most natural pitched sounds, was unknown to composers before 1737. So you can't say that this concept of the vibrating string is the source of the original rules about counterpoint—something you have done a number of times in this thread—because it factually is not. If you want to say that you believe it subconsciously influenced these composers and theorists, that's a different thesis, one that no one can really argue about since it's inherently purely theoretical. >My question, however is then is how does that help us to create music? Yes, this is a different question altogether. Again I am only presenting the facts of history, and I guess usually learning about history does not directly help you create music. History is interesting to a lot of people though. Getting off subject a little bit now, but maybe this is interesting to you—the Ancient Greeks themselves had similar arguments to the one you're posing. Only the Pythagoreans can be characterized as caring only about the mathematical ratios and not the sound. To them, music really was a science representing the cosmos, not an art. Aristoxenus and his followers, by contrast, wrote their music theory treatises about sound as sound, and thus were not so concerned about interval ratios. Aristoxenus dismisses Pythagoreans entirely, because they don’t follow the “same domain rule”: they are talking about arithmetic but acting like they’re talking about music. Aristoxenus takes a very empirical approach, asking, "what's going on here?" and then writing it down.

  1108. musictheory 2017-01-31 06:48:57 GreatBigBagOfNope
    One thing you might want to look into is the music of the Gamelan, music that developed on some isolated Indonesian islands far away from any other cultural influences. They do break the major-minor system, in fact Gamelan bells are tuned microtonally so they're even outside the fundamental quanta of Western, many African, Indian and East Asian musical traditions. If you're into this kind of so-far-outside-the-box-you-can't-see-it thinking I would recommend that. However consider some alternatives. A great deal of traditional African tribal vocal music leans very heavily on the same chords as the West for ease of communal singing, and ultimately tends to fall into very similar modalities to the Western church modes. Similarly, traditional Indian music tends to rest on the same 12-note divisions as the West, but their choice of scales is considerably more complex while their choice of accompaniment (drones for the majority of the time) is often less so. Everyone knows that the pentatonic scale sounds "Chinese", but ultimately the filler notes tend to lean on similar modes again. A great many cultures have (at least somewhat) independently arrived at similar scales, chords, tonalities and modalities, if that doesn't point to something fundamental then I don't know what can. There's also the physiological aspect. Most untrained singers don't know how to position their throat and diaphragm optimally for high notes, so when they strain their bodies lose the capability of hitting the note that fits best with the chord. Inexperienced but trained singers are aware of this, and if they sing in small groups without being able to hear themselves clearly they will try to sing too sharp as a compensation method, even if they aren't flat. Furthermore, hitting intervals constructed by the overtone series (I.e, the global musical tradition), more specifically the first few, feels and sounds better to all humans' ears. If it didn't the same patterns would not have been independently developed all over the world. Now, before you counter with Just vs Equal temperament, remember that the actual tuning differences are a) minimal, and b) frequently ignored and actively discouraged by professional musicians. Barbershop singers learn to sing every chord tuned justly, string players instinctively adjust their tuning constantly to improve resonance, brass players spend weeks getting to understand how to play with each other in order to efficiently find just tunings, because everyone prefers it. It's hard because the confidence intervals for just tuning are also much smaller than the interval for people to think it's good enough. So in many ways, the tuning system we have is.... pretty natural all in all. People fail to sing in tune because singing is hard and requires not only training, practice and experience but also being in an environment conducive to it: being able to hear yourself; being able to hear your surroundings; being at a comfortable temperature; warmed up but not tired; comfortable with the people around you and the music that you're singing or at least comfortable improvising. I don't think there's an issue with the quanta of notes we have, or the way they're organised. It's just that singing is hard, and people that sound good have done it for a long time and put effort into it one way or another

  1109. musictheory 2017-01-31 08:53:23 voorja
    You are looking for the harmonic series. As others have pointed out, musical notes are frequencies related by ratios. In a melody there is a fundamental pitch, 1/1, and all other notes are related to the fundamental pitch by a ratio. What is considered an octave in western music is 2/1. Halfway in between is 3/2 (but our hearing is logarithmic so 3/2 sounds closer to 2/1 than 1/1). The closest thing to a natural tuning system is the harmonic series. It isn't a tuning system per se, but all notes have overtones that are based on the harmonic series, so it is an important thing to understand when building scales. Remember that notes are ratios. All ratios are really a relationship between the ascending and descending harmonic series. Imagine a string on an instrument. We will call the note this string produces the fundamental, or 1/1. If you take another string that is twice as short with the same amount of tension you will get the note 2/1 or twice the pitch of the fundamental. A string one-third the length produces a note three times the pitch or 3/1. Shortening the string like this by whole number increments gives us the ascending harmonic series which looks like this: 1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, 6/1, 7/1, 8/1...continued to infinity/1. If you make a string twice as long you get a note 1/2 the original pitch. A string 3 times as long gives 1/3 the original pitch. So you get the descending harmonic series: 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, 1/7, 1/8, 1/9, 1/10... 1/infinity. What happens if you combine the two series? For example, what happens if you make a string twice as long and then three times shorter, you get a pitch that is 3/2 times the frequency of the fundamental note. If you make a string four times shorter and then 5 times longer you get the ratio 4/5. The number on top is the overtone, the number on bottom is the undertone. Every note has overtones. 4/5 can be considered the 4th overtone of the note 1/5 the fundamental. or it can be considered the 5th undertone of the descending harmonic series of 4/1. This leads into the concept of a very powerful [diagram](http://whatmusicreallyis.com/research/harmonicomb/wmri_hc_matrix_33_rainbow_colored_tilt.svg) for understanding sound and building scales. The bottom left axis is the descending harmonic series. The bottom right axis is the ascending harmonic series. As I demonstrated you can combine the two to get new ratios. Where the lines coming from an overtone and undertone meet they produce a ratio. Going from left to right goes from low note to high notes. Every note on a vertical line is the same note. Because the axes are logarithmic, the ratios are shown how we hear them (you can judge which ratios are larger than others and 3/2 is shown closer to 2/1 than 1/1). Lines ascending to the right are the ascending harmonic series of the starting note. Lines ascending to the left are the descending harmonic series of the starting note. There are several ways to approach music using the harmonic series. Building scales is one of them, but that is outside the scope of this comment. If you are interested in learning more comment here, or go to the website [whatmusicreallyis.com](http://whatmusicreallyis.com/research/harmonicomb/)

  1110. musictheory 2017-01-31 10:55:26 Akoustyk
    I think singing flat is just easier, so the more common mistake, rather putting more effort into it than you actually need. To me, skilled or unskilled never made any difference as to my ability to hear if I was singing on or off key. I use to harmonize with the vacuum cleaner when I was just a little boy, probably around 4 years old. I could always hear with good accuracy whether anything was on or off pitch. I've now developed an even *better* ear, but that wasn't from singing, it was from music production. Being able to bend a guitar string to the right note, or ear out music, or sing on key, that was always natural and easy for me. It's more obvious to some people than others, whether tones are on pitch or not.

  1111. musictheory 2017-01-31 11:46:48 voorja
    Once you understand the harmonic series there is no question about the origin of the world's music. The harmonic series gives us timbre, rhythm, and pitch. Consonance is determined by small whole number ratios with low prime numbers. You can read a brief description of how the shared overtones between notes affects consonance [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/5q3v4t/composer_ben_johnston_uses_a_small_7_as_an/dd272qp/). String instruments in an orchestra bow two strings at once and tune until the interference frequency stops beating, this is when pitches of the strings reach the ratio 3/2. When we hear consonance it is because there is a simple ratio between notes. These ratios come from the harmonic series as I explained in one of my other comments in this thread. [Here](https://phys.org/news/2014-11-songbird-harmonic-series-similar-humans.html) is a study that shows that a species of songbird sings ratios derived from the harmonic series. If you aren't convinced yet, tune a keyboard to ratios created from the ascending and descending harmonic series, then load youtube videos with animal sounds and play along with them. The harmonic series isn't a single tuning system. Most scales from cultures around the world can fit into the structure the harmonic series provides. Countless scales can be created using it, including pythagorean tuning, although pythagorean tuning was created without a full understanding of the harmonic series. If you understand the harmonic series you will understand what Pythagorean tuning set out to do and why it is flawed.

  1112. musictheory 2017-01-31 17:39:26 Jongtr
    The "caveman brain" is adapted to natural sounds, which are always combinations of frequencies. The purest natural sound is probably a whistle, as made by birds (and humans!), which is close to a sine wave, but will still have overtones, and other non-pitched components. A pure sine wave is about the most unnatural sound you can make. Even square and triangle waves, being "dirtier", are not quite as unnatural. The other observation one could make about human hearing, the natural world, and music, is about the impact (or not) of the harmonic series. A single note on an acoustic musical instrument (ie produced by a stretched string, reed, column of air, resonant object, etc, not by a synth) contains many partial frequencies - mostly multiples of the fundamental. Play an A of 440 on a piano (A above middle C), and it will contain partials of 880, 1320, 1760, etc. The relative balance of those overtones is how we tell a piano from (say) a guitar playing the same note. That's "timbre". When we play a chord, that's when it gets interesting. Chords are not natural. Nothing in nature produces sets of different pitches at the same time - at least not in any organised fashion. So our caveman brains are not adapted to make sense of chords. (In fact, it's only one part of European culture, over one very short period of human history - a few centuries - that thought chords were a cool thing....) We hear them as a single sound, and try (subconsciously) to make sense of them in that way. Hence the perception of "consonance" in a major triad, because the other notes line up as echoes of the harmonic series of the root. A close-voiced root position major triad has notes in the ratio 4:5:6, relative to a fundamental "1" frequency, two octaves below the actual root. (A 2nd inversion triad is arguably even more consonant, being in the ratio 3:4:5. But having an octave of the acoustic root on the bottom no doubt feels more "natural".) The minor triad is more mysterious, in a ratio of 10:12:15. The acoustic root is a note that is not in the chord, but the chord still points to a shared fundamental (for an Am chord, it's a very low F). Of course, in modern equal temperament these ratios are not exact, but the ear clearly has a kind of tolerance, allowing frequencies to fall within a threshold. The notion of being "in tune" is flexible - we accept what is "near enough" - although ears can of course be trained to reduce the range of what is acceptable. The less the separate notes combine in that pseudo-natural way (to point to a common fundamental), the more we perceive the chord as containing different, unrelated sounds, so the more "dissonant" it will sound. That's not necessarily unpleasant. Our brains have evolved to make sense of many different timbres and sounds occurring together, so disentangling a complex chord can be (subconsciously) fascinating.

  1113. musictheory 2017-02-01 01:02:52 chocolateflowers
    I'm not a vocalist, but I'm a violinist, and when we play in ensemble, we tend to go sharp. I think the problem here is the compensation we all do to our own music in order to fit. didn't /u/tcspears mention singers going flat when they sing softer? maybe your choir is trying to compensate by listening to others harder - going softer - and dropping flat as a result. you mentioned your choir goes flat when unaccompanied - there's no reference note, so the pitch is open to fluctuations. for string players, playing sharp isn't just an ensemble problem. by playing sharp you stand out - that's why soloists are playing on a sharper and sharper starting middle A - and sounds brighter, which causes beginner players to favor a sharpened note. not sure why it happens in my ensemble, but willing to bet it's another compensation error. you might be looking for 'tempered tuning', a baroque tuning that I'm not wholly familiar with, or 'melodic' and 'harmonic' tuning, also baroque: melodic tuning - tweaks the intervals between notes real time so that the melody sounds better. most notable on string instruments and baroque instruments. notably, the minor thirds are spaced closer together; major thirds are spaced wider apart. harmonic tuning - the opposite of melodic tuning. minor thirds are wider, major thirds are closer, and the sixth intervals follow that convention. this is due to the resonance of the violin (and other string instruments, but I don't play them so I can't be sure...), and probably some complicated sine equations I don't get. then we have the natural thirds and the perfect fourths and fifths and the triad, or devils' interval. I'll update you on this, hopefully, but rn I don't remember.

  1114. musictheory 2017-02-02 03:01:45 Jongtr
    There are various kinds of intonation and temperaments. Pythagorean is based on ratios of 2 and 3, which produces rather sharp major 3rds (sharp of both ET and the "purer" 5:4 ratio). Tuning based on 5-limit ratios may sound better in that respect, but produces two sizes of whole step. "Meantone" temperament was a method of solving that. Then there is the so-called "barbershop 7th" (also known as the "blue 7th") which is a 7:4 ratio, 32 cents flat of ET, and not related to any pythagorean or 5-limit pitch. IOW, you have to choose which system, which set of ratios you want. Also, "in tune" (in any system other than ET) means relative to one specified keynote. Using any other note as keynote requires retuning. (That was the whole reason ET was established in the first place.) When choirs or string quartets adjust their tuning they do it on the fly, by ear, chord by chord or interval by interval, not according to one fixed scale. I suggest you research "just intonation", as well the systems mentioned.

  1115. musictheory 2017-02-02 15:56:50 Jongtr
    Those scales are suggesting a common jazz chord progression (which your ear is recognising, having heard it many times): the bridge of I Got Rhythm, one of the commonest jazz sequences (of the swing/bebop era), which runs D7-G7-C7-F7 (2 bars each). You may be thinking of each scale as based on C, but the change of one note each time is also implying that string of dom7s (which resolve to Bb in the end). Many other jazz tunes involve similar moves from key to key (around the circle of 5ths), usually in that order (one note flattening each time).

  1116. musictheory 2017-02-02 17:53:01 gotthattrans
    > He's playing all the chords in major, and if you listen very very carefully, you'll notice that they are all in root position and just shifted up and down the fretboard. Actually the F and Ab chords are never major. When there's an extra note beyond 1-5-1 on those it's a 4th. Judging from live videos the whole part just uses a ring finger barre that sometimes covers 3 strings. 133(3)xx x133(3)x 466(6)xx x466(6)x The 16th before beat 2 in measure 2 is probably the easiest spot to hear this added 4th during the Ab5 chord. He lifts enough to mute that string on beat 2 though it seems.

  1117. musictheory 2017-02-03 00:48:54 Ocelotocelotl
    On a slightly different note to a lot of the posters here: A lot of what Kurt Cobain did makes a lot more sense if you look at it as powerchords on a guitar neck. * Smells Like Teen Spirit - F Bb G# C#is "E 1 A 1 E 4 A 4" moving the chord up one string. A lot of Nirvana's music seems to owe to simple physical movements, not simple theory (although, tangentially, this *is* simple theory. * Lithium is much the same - F# to B is a straight move up one string. The G to C (via a Bb) is a string up, with a passing note added in. I ~~could be~~ am talking out of my arse, but I've always suspected this was how Nirvana got started. In a way, early Arctic Monkeys music is just the same - recently self-taught musicians aren't following theory as much as looking at the dots on the neck as a guide and then writing around the physical appearance of their instrument.

  1118. musictheory 2017-02-03 22:31:46 DRL47
    There are two important aspects to a bridge. First, it should do something different: if the main part is simple harmonically, use some different chords; if the main part is complex, make the bridge simple; start on the IV chord; use a string of secondary dominants. The second thing is to end the bridge on the dominant, that will lead you back home. Sometimes working backwards from the ending dominant helps to fill in.

  1119. musictheory 2017-02-04 10:07:07 phalp
    > Is there a mathematical formula for determining the width between frets, maybe as a % of the scale length of the string? I think the traditional ratio is that each fret gets placed at 17/18 of the remaining distance away from the previous fret, starting at the nut. For an "ideal string" you'd use (1/2)^(1/12)=0.9438743 as the ratio.

  1120. musictheory 2017-02-04 20:01:16 Dash_X73
    So crazy you linked Kerry Marshall, I had just found his videos a minute prior.. was also checking out this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi93GRjmB5I as I want to start with Bass I think, I just need to translate those styles to the bass guitar. Since I play both bass and guitar, I wanted to start with learning theory and music that applies to bass guitar, since it has less strings, and might be easier for me to learn with, and then move that knowledge over to the guitar. For Beau, can you recommend any kind of bass style or scales that I could use to play along with some of his videos? as far as The Suede song in the second video The 1 on E string sounds off by ear, It felt more like 5 on E and 10 on E or 5 on the A string.. were the root notes, and then learn what scales sound like by ear so I can hear a scale and know what one is being used.. need to learn the note order so I know the actual notes, I used to know but I stopped studying.. but I didn't listen to the guitar just bass Thank you for the great feedback very detailed, look forward to diving into this.

  1121. musictheory 2017-02-04 23:30:43 Jongtr
    Yes, and they limit your playing in several ways. The adjusted intervals on each string only make sense in one key (perhaps in a few other close keys), and intervals across strings are compromised too. The manufacturers admit to the former issue (they make different necks for different groups of keys), but not - AFAIK - the latter. Essentially, any player who notices the intonation issues with a regular neck should be capable (IMO) of intonating correctly using fretting technique - in a similar way to how bowed string players do it. Obviously frets inhibit that to some degree, but it's still possible to improve the intonation. A "true temperament" neck would make it harder for any of the keys it's not designed for.

  1122. musictheory 2017-02-05 04:55:02 Bruckner07
    Not strictly true - even without perfect pitch, the different keys produce different timbral qualities on certain instruments purely by virtue of sound production. E major on strings, for instance, is a particularly bright key, and whether by association of not, C minor generally known as one of the darker minor keys among string players purely because you loose the open E and A strings.

  1123. musictheory 2017-02-05 07:54:36 augminished7
    Looks like (starting from the top string) A-E-A-C#-E#. It would be an augmented chord but your playing a natural E too sooo maybe the E# can be considered a #12?

  1124. musictheory 2017-02-05 15:18:04 AndrewT81
    The limiting factor is going to be the tension. If you tune the string too much higher than it's meant to be, then you'll have issues with strings breaking, and possibly the wood in the instrument warping. However, you can get different pitches at the same tension by changing the scale length. That's essentially what happens when you put your fingers on the strings when you play violin or cello normally. You can also tune down without any ill effects on the strings, although at lower tensions you'll have a weaker tone and the strings will be prone to change pitch depending on how hard they're being played.

  1125. musictheory 2017-02-05 20:33:22 Jongtr
    The logic behind "Fmaj7#5" is: -1- F = root -2- C# = #5 -2- A = 3 -2- E = maj7 -0- A = 3 It's a bizarre inversion, of course. Nobody seeing "Fmaj7#5" (even "Fmaj7#5/A") would put the notes in that order; the E would always go above the F, because of the nasty dissonance between the E and F in this shape. The E on 4th string doesn't really need to be there, IMO - without it, or with F on 3rd fret, it would be a plain A+ (Aaug) - but if you really want that dissonance between the E and top F, the best name is A(b6). (My guess is whoever invented this sequence liked the line cliche on the top string and just kept the main A shape, ignoring the clashing E on 4th string. Without that dissonance it's a pretty common sequence, right through to the D and Dm and back to A.)

  1126. musictheory 2017-02-06 04:52:43 DRL47
    Pretty well done, but a few mistakes. Eb instruments sound a minor third above (not below) or a major sixth below (not above). Baritone sax transposes an octave and a sixth (not just a sixth). Glockenspiels also transpose two octaves. TENOR banjos transpose an octave, 5-string banjos do not. Recorders don't transpose, although alto, tenor and bass recorders sometimes do. All British brass band instruments transpose.

  1127. musictheory 2017-02-06 05:30:15 plaidgnome13
    I'd add that if you're tuning down, if you're going to do so more than a third or so, you shouldn't do it for one string only because of the tension imbalance.

  1128. musictheory 2017-02-06 22:35:12 mortiece
    Violinist here. For me it means to put a little extra vibrato on a note to pull it out of the texture. It's not as loud as a regular accent, and is pretty common in string music.

  1129. musictheory 2017-02-08 02:28:09 Fuzzatron
    All I see is an eight string guitar with fanned frets. That's pretty standard in modern metal. Would make his stuff really hard to pay on a six string, though. The lowest steering is like the G string (highest) on a bass.

  1130. musictheory 2017-02-08 20:16:01 Diezauberflump
    This is mostly true if you're only playing root position E-Shape/A-Shape chords, but it becomes significantly more difficult when you try to use more sophisticated voicings. The tuning break between the second and third string and the more limited scale of the guitar can also make transposing on it challenging. So, yeah, it doesn't do anyone favors by simply reducing the process to "you just have to move the chord shape" (and by that logic, piano would also be "easy" since triad shapes are very simple as well).

  1131. musictheory 2017-02-10 01:03:28 MelsWhitePubes
    I've been reviewing songs I wrote 25 years ago when I first started playing guitar, now that I know more about music theory, and a LOT of my early stuff was in E Phrygian without my knowing it - the only scale I knew then was C, but I always started from the E string. :D It led to me making up some pretty interesting stuff without understanding why.

  1132. musictheory 2017-02-10 01:37:25 MelsWhitePubes
    Not readily, I'm at work. I can give a little more detail. That first arpeggio is on the lowest 4 strings, hanging for a quarter note (if you write this as 90BPM) on the low E string when it comes back to it - E-DAGDAE-DAEE-AE-DA (6-453456-4566-45). The F#s are all on the D string (an octave and a whole step above the root) except the last one, which is played directly above the root on the E string. The first G is the open G string, the later two are on the E string. The 5th note riff is played straight eighths. The chorus part has long chords - whole note, half note, half notes, whole note. In guitar tab, the first part would be G----0----------- D--4--4---4----4- A---2--2---2----0 E0-------3---32--- Hope this helps. EDIT - corrected the tab

  1133. musictheory 2017-02-10 01:59:07 MelsWhitePubes
    OK, let's see if this works… https://clyp.it/vcp5vkh0 This isn't exactly right, the riff doesn't repeat itself exactly like on the recording but it's just the rhythm that varies, e.g. the second time around I would hang on the low F# at the end for a whole beat then only play the high F#, that kind of thing. I don't have the chorus part sequenced but it's just those 6 and 5 string chords strummed either once or twice a bar as described above.

  1134. musictheory 2017-02-10 02:32:37 LongDickOfTheLaw69
    It could be several different issues. It could be the amount of bend in the neck, it could be the nut at the top of the neck, or it could just be the height of that particular string. All of these things can be adjusted to potentially correct the issue, but how you would adjust it will differ for each guitar. I will say that it sounds like the issue is that the string is just too low, and your guitar probably has a way to lift the height of the string by adjusting something on the bridge.

  1135. musictheory 2017-02-11 01:34:46 Jongtr
    I'd say you've guessed the answer already. In terms of string physics and acoustics, it's possible to go a little further each way, but the idea of A at the bottom and a C on top (encompassing a whole circle of 5ths) is obviously neat.

  1136. musictheory 2017-02-11 13:01:58 broodfood
    That's not entirely true about non fretted instruments: while muscle memory is a large part of it, adjusting intonation to match their group is a necessary skill and for a good string player, its second nature. Anyway, to clarify: tuning is a learned skill, and separate from perfect pitch. I have students with perfect or nearly perfect pitch, who generally have worse intonation than other students.

  1137. musictheory 2017-02-11 17:43:35 tjmadlang
    The reason this happens is because pitch matching and note identification are separate concepts in our minds. When singing, we control our pitch basically by hearing a pitch (either physically or in our minds through audiation) and mimicking that pitch with our voice. However, we don't have conscious control of the muscles in the vocal mechanism, so if we hear an A440, we can mimic it with our voice, but we can't consciously decide to make our vocal cords vibrate 440 times a second without a an aural reference to copy. Physical instruments work the opposite way: we can consciously decide which note to play with the instrument (for example we know that if we play a particular key on the keyboard it will cause a hammer to hit a metal string and cause it to vibrate 440 times a second, sounding an A), but we can't hear a pitch without reference and reproduce it on the instrument since we don't know what note it is and therefore can't manipulate the instrument in the corresponding manner. This is also why singers need a reference pitch when reading sheet music but instrumentalists do not; instrumentalists can see the notes on the page and do the correct actions to sound those notes on their instrument, but singers need to know what one of the notes sounds like before they can use relative pitch and aural skills to sing the rest of the music. People with perfect pitch have perfect recollection of what each note sounds like, which is why they can accurately identify or reproduce pitches at will. TL;DR Pitch matching and note identification are different concepts, singing relies primarily on pitch matching whereas playing an instrument relies primarily on note identification, people with perfect pitch can perfectly remember what each note sounds like.

  1138. musictheory 2017-02-11 20:26:13 LuigiOuiOui
    This is the answer, here. It's actually fairly common for instrumentalists to be able to match pitch aurally; I'm a string player (who doesn't have perfect pitch) and 8/10 times I'll be able to go right to a pitch just from hearing it. It's hard to explain how, but it's kind of to do with resonance; I know intimately how each different pitch resonates on my instrument, so when I hear a pitch I can work out where it must go. Sort of like... colour matching. In fact, I think you do exactly the same with the voice; it's just that as /u/pm_me_your_bass points out, we all use our voices every day so have a huge jump start on being practised at it. One final point - have you ever heard someone who never sings try to match a pitch with their voice? It's no different to someone flailing around for a pitch on a unfamiliar instrument!

  1139. musictheory 2017-02-11 22:36:55 crystalsilence
    If you're a guitarist you've probably played this voicing before C7#9 C E Bb D# Starting with 2nd finger on 3rd fret of A string

  1140. musictheory 2017-02-12 01:12:05 RyanT87
    >In the context of scientific experimentation, specifically, instruments help researchers come to terms with “epistemic things”—objects under scrutiny that carry specific (but as yet unknown) sources of knowledge within them. I would need to read what he has to say about this, but I feel like this statement would be one that needs scrutiny. The monochord, for example, was not so much a conveyor of information but rather, as he mentions, a "tool" on which we applied ratios. Yes, perhaps we could discover the overtone series from a string, one might say, but the fact that this was not the case until Rameau et al. in the 18th c. challenges the notion of the monochord having knowledge within it (whatever specifically that means?).

  1141. musictheory 2017-02-12 02:50:24 RyanT87
    In my understanding, the historical use of the monochord is pretty consistent. It had a singular purpose with a sort of two-fold application: it was used to measure intervals according to ratios, and this was applied in speculative music theory and as a sort of reference for when choirboys and singers would get their intervals incorrect. What I meant above, which maybe wasn't very clear, was that to me the monochord as an object doesn't seem to have much to tell us. Rather, it was a simple tool that we used. (I anticipated someone might say, "Well, we could discover that the string has overtones!" as a way of arguing that the monochord is an "object...that carr[ies]...sources of knowledge within them," and responded with my comment about Rameau.) Maybe none of this makes sense. These are just questions that popped into my head that I would maintain while reading the article.

  1142. musictheory 2017-02-12 04:31:45 nmitchell076
    Do you think it's possible that overtones were observed, but not thought of as theoretically significant in and of themselves? That perhaps the "dogma" of rooting music in interval ratios precluded authors from exploring the importance of things like string harmonics? Like, they had a perfectly acceptable (in their eyes) justification for perfect / imperfect / dissonant intervals and hence had no need for the additional explanatory power that overtones might provide? Rameau often has a "scientific" attitude, outlining experiments that he encourages his readers to try at home. So perhaps that facilitates him seeking multiple avenues for explanation / justification of a phenomenon where previously just one was sufficient, which would be one way in which overtones can be brought into the discussion. Idk, just a shotgun hypothesis. I really am not knowledgeable enough about this area to be confident in any sort of claims about why thoughts developed in the ways they did.

  1143. musictheory 2017-02-12 04:52:54 RyanT87
    See, the thing is that the overtones coincide so closely with the ratios of consonances that I feel like anyone who might have noticed them would have written about them. The same places where you would touch the string to produce an overtone would be the same place you put the movable bridge to produce the tone. The only possibilities I could imagine are that no one ever noticed overtones (which seems hard to imagine) or that they considered these to be in some sense the same thing as what they had already observed with ratios, that they were somehow redundant. After all, the mathematical basis was the important thing. Rameau's invocation of the *corps sonore* is in line with Enlightenment values of seeking empirical knowledge; it wasn't enough that these consonances were mathematically justified, but rather he needed something in nature that justified consonances. This overtone series provided just that, and you too at home can experience and learn this knowledge! (for just three easy payments of... jk).

  1144. musictheory 2017-02-13 23:15:24 Rahnamatta
    I think you are mixing key with voice range. If you can sing with no effort between the low C of the guitar and the E of the 1st string, you can sing songs that are between Cmajor/minor and Emajor/minor (if I understood you). The keys are the same for any instrument (your voice is an instrument). Off course, the Trumpet, Sax, etc... are in another keys, but that's not your problem. Did you learn keys or scales?

  1145. musictheory 2017-02-14 02:36:48 Jongtr
    Try singing the major scale as you play it. Start from the tonic (keynote) of the scale and sing up to the next keynote. Eg if the key is G major, play from G up to the next G (G A B C D E F# G) and sing "do re mi fa so la ti do" as you play. You will probably find that either it goes too high at the top end, or starts too low at the bottom end, depending on which G you start on, and the natural range of your voice. If you're an average adult male, then the low G (string 6 fret 3) should be near or at the bottom limit of your voice, but you should be able to easily get to the G above (open 3rd). A male tenor (or average female, or pre-pubescent boy) will find it easier to get from the open G up to the G on 3rd fret 1st string. Some people can manage two whole octaves, but most untrained singers have a smaller range. As mentioned, there's no such thing as a key that goes well with your voice, because the keynote of a song may be anywhere in its range, and it's the range that matters. The range of the song has to fit within your own range. E.g., if you can sing Happy Birthday starting on C (fret 3, 5th string), which goes up to the C above (fret 1 2nd string), that's the key of F. (The tune will end on the F on 3rd fret 4th string). But if you were to sing Twinkle Twinkle starting on the same C note, that's key of C. I.e., the keynote of Happy Birthday is in the middle of its range (4 notes up from the bottom), while the keynote of Twinkle Twinkle is at the bottom. You should work out what your range is by finding (on guitar) the lowest and highest notes you can sing. Then any song you want to sing has to fit within that range. With many songs you will have to transpose them (move their keys and chords up or down) to get their range to fit yours. If - in Rahnamatta's example - you can sing from low C up to high E, that's a range of a 10th (10 notes); a little limited, but quite average for an untrained singer. That would mean you could sing Twinkle Twinkle (which has a range of 6 notes) in any key from C up to G (because its top note in G would be E); i.e., the keys of C, Db, D, Eb, E, F, F#, G. Happy Birthday has a bigger range, one octave, so there are fewer keys you could sing that in: F (range from C-C), F#, G, Ab, A (range from E-E). The bigger the range of the song, the fewer keys you can sing that song in. The smaller the range, the more keys are open to you.

  1146. musictheory 2017-02-14 04:12:18 EmperorWizard
    Yeah, all those notes are just your open strings tuned down a half step. So by another name those notes are: Eb Bb Gb Db Ab Eb. It makes your guitar sound a bit heavier and some songs are easier for singers to sing if the guitar is tuned down like that. Jimi Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughn both played this way. Drop D tuning is where you tune your low E string to a D. It sounds pretty heavy and you can make power chords by mashing your finger across one fret, handy for fast metal chords or riffs. Also, about the chords, I felt like I didn't explain very well earlier. Each of the chords that you usually play, simple ones like G or A minor, are usually made up of just three notes. So, when you are playing an E minor, for example, pressing on the second frets of your A and D strings and strumming all the rest open, the actual notes you are playing are E,B,E,G,B, and E for each string respectively. So E minor is really just E, G, and B stacked over six strings. That's why the tab says E minor over top of the part where you play your three high strings on the twelfth fret, it's because those three notes are G, B, and E. The same goes for the other chords too

  1147. musictheory 2017-02-14 06:47:43 DRL47
    > I think you are mixing key with voice range. If you can sing with no effort between the low C of the guitar and the E of the 1st string, you can sing songs that are between Cmajor/minor and Emajor/minor Not necessarily. Some songs that have a range of an octave go from tonic to tonic. Others with an octave range go from dominant to dominant. It depends on the song.

  1148. musictheory 2017-02-14 09:01:19 snarvei
    Watch [THIS](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BHiJIwMfpc) multiple times and take notes on paper, until it sinks in, also apply it to guitar, and get REALLY familiar with the sound, playing it back and forth alot, then move on to "Essential Chord Theory" right there in the related videos by the same guy. It's what worked for me! Don't give up and don't get bored. Patience is really key here, I know it may sound cliché, but for real, it is. When you feel you put in some good time on that, you can take breaks with memorizing the natural notes on your low E (also maybe the A string if you feel you can tackle it) string, it's pretty chill when you get rolling. Have fun!!!

  1149. musictheory 2017-02-14 10:15:01 jengeddie
    My range is about fifth string c on guitar to e of first string. With this idea, I still not fully understand how to choose a key that is best suitable for me. My teacher taught me that I can sing any key which don't cross two octave. Lowing or go higher is both okay. But I still confuse it massively.

  1150. musictheory 2017-02-15 03:29:16 Evan7979
    Instrumentation? I'd agree with that to an extent but likewise, I know plenty of good producers that don't know the string names on a guitar for example, yet write for them all the time. Orchestration as a term is usually reserved for the process of writing for orchestra.

  1151. musictheory 2017-02-15 05:22:04 kamomil
    A DX7 has limited timbre; FM synthesis is capable of doing a few sounds well (bells, electric pianos) but it doesn't do analoggy string sounds well at all. Electronic instruments are great, but they aren't magic.

  1152. musictheory 2017-02-16 09:25:49 PlazaOne
    Elmore James was a famous slide guitarist who used Open E tuning, with his best known song probably *Dust My Broom*. I think George Thorogood uses Open E quite a lot. I think early Fleetwood Mac were fans too, in the Green/Kirwan/Spencer line-up. So you could compare that sound to the Open G which Keith Richards uses on classic Rolling Stones tracks like *Brown Sugar.* Keith learnt his tuning from Ry Cooder, whose early acoustic albums had plenty of instrumental covers of tunes by bluesmen like Sonny Terry, Brownie McGee, Rev. Gary Davis, etc, although they'd possibly change tunings for every other song they performed... There are quite a few solo acoustic players who use altered tunings. There are a couple of very pleasant albums by a chap called El McMeen which were released about 25 years ago. One of them was called *Irish Guitar Encores* and that had tracks with various tunings. The popular Will Ackerman used various tunings on his instrumental tunes such as *The Bricklayer's Beautiful Daughter* that he released on his own Windham Hill record label, which he later sold. And the king of acoustic altered tunings Michael Hedges should be on everyone's radar - check out the *Aerial Boundaries* album if the name is unfamiliar. Martin Carthy is another big name in respect of acoustic players who use a variety of tunings. Jorma Kaukonen's *Embryonic Journey* which he recorded with both Jefferson airplane and Hot Tuna is in either Drop-D or maybe Double Drop-D, as I think is Neil Young's *The Needle and the Damage Done*. From that same era, Terry Reid's *Seed of Memory* album is also worth a listen - I saw him playing a gig about ten years ago and one track he downtuned his bottom string to a real floppy C. And of course I must mention that Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco wrote his Guitar Concerto No.1 in D Major, Op.99 for performance with a downtuned bottom string as well. He did check first with Andres Segovia, who was the piece's dedicatee, that this would be acceptable. It's standard repertoire, so there are lots of recordings of it by different players, including Nicola Hall, Michael Troester, Eliot Fisk, John Williams, Narciso Yepes, Alirio Diaz, Segovia, etc

  1153. musictheory 2017-02-17 01:47:33 Jongtr
    You can use tab up to a point, at least to learn note names and chord structure. I suggest working solely in open position (frets 0-4) because then you only have one position for any one note (like most other instruments do). Here's the C major scale note names: -----------------------------0-1-3- -----------------------0-1-3------- -------------------0-2------------- -------------0-2-3----------------- -------0-2-3----------------------- -0-1-3----------------------------- E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G | | | * | | The five lines are the treble clef staff (turned 90 degrees, bottom line to the left), and * is where middle C is written for guitar (octave above where it's written for piano and other "concert" instruments). If you check how the open position shapes for C major key chords (C, Dm, Em, F, G, Am, Bdim or G7) fit those notes, you'll get an idea of how chord structure works, and how chords and keys go together. Any other keys will alter one or more of those notes, raising them to a sharp (#) version, or lowering to flat (b); and that consequently affects the chords for that key. The neat thing about the guitar fretboard for understanding scales is that you can lay them out up one string to see the step structure in proportion (which piano doesn't do, because it spaces all the white notes equally). eg, the C major on one string works as follows: ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -3-----5-----7--8-----10----12----14-15- ---------------------------------------- C - D - E F - G - A - B C showing you the WWHWWWH step pattern. As you'll see, if you start from any other note (any other fret, any other string), you need to raise or lower one of those notes to maintain the same step pattern (and you have to keep one of each note letter, and don't mix sharps and flats). However, that's about as far as guitar tab will take you in learning music theory (I suspect it could be stretched further, but would get complicated). Standard notation (aka "staff notation", but not "regular tablature") is what you need to be able to understand all aspects of theory more easily. It's simply the standard language in which music (and music theory) is written, because it's a way of expressing musical *sound* graphically, independent of what instrument you might play it on (or sing it). Guitar tab just shows you where to put your fingers. (When it gives you timing information, then it either borrows symbols from staff notation, or uses some fancy code for note duration. Likewise hammer-ons and pull-offs: if it doesn't use "h" and "p", then it uses "slurs" borrowed from staff notation.) Staff notation is really not hard to learn, and I suggest you try! You won't regret it - it will open up so many other resources, as well as making you feel like a proper literate musician :-). There are guitar theory books and resources which help, such as [this.] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Leonard-Guitar-Method-Theory-Online/dp/063406651X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487267195&sr=1-1&keywords=Hal+Leonard+Guitar+Method+Music+Theory) Likewise, the terminology of music theory is not hard provided you start right from the beginning. You probably already know some of it. Such as "C major", or "G7"- they are theory terms. You just have to connect the terms to what you already know how to play.

  1154. musictheory 2017-02-17 01:50:15 xNavs
    It really just depends on what exactly I want to learn from the piece. There are a ton of ways to analyze music, but to keep it simple, I usually end up analyzing one (or more) of these 4 things: * Form * Melody and harmony (or counterpoint, if applicable) * Chords and voicings * Orchestration These are the things I analyze most often, but the list can change depending on what genre or sub-genre you're interested in. It's not a process that is set in stone. Sometimes, I'd find a really cool 5-second snippet of a string quartet piece and decide to look into that specific part to learn why and how it sounds so cool. I think it's important to maintain that mindset. Don't analyze just for the sake of analysis. Analyze things you are interested in and that you hope to emulate and incorporate into your own writing.

  1155. musictheory 2017-02-17 03:48:04 xlord-cyberpagan
    a few things come to mind when i read this, none of them are resources on music theory with tab. i hope they are still useful - you should learn how to read score, but it's not a pressing thing to do immediately when you're first learning guitar imo. it's not a beginner level feat. - adam neely has an interesting video comparing score to tab - position playing limits your possibilities. this is helpful when sight reading on guitar. piano has one possibility for each note (and is very easy to sight read on imo), not true for guitar. - go through ADVANCING GUITARIST by mick goodrick a few times. it's good for beginners by giving you an idea of what you don't know more than anything. i'd say whenever MG says improv, you should also do scales with melodic patterns on whatever he's saying to improv on. single string melodic patterns are great practice for your hand shift and sliding techniques. they're fun to play on movable mini positions - try all perfect 4ths tuning (strings 1 and 2 are sharped). this is useful for learning intervals imo. you can always tune back down to standard - learning theory on piano has a synergistic effect on learning theory on guitar IMO. this might just be because i took piano lessons as a kid, but i also think its existence of white and black keys is a very big deal - ingraining intervals in your head is essential. sing them and test yourself on the guitar

  1156. musictheory 2017-02-17 17:46:14 Jongtr
    You could start with the arpeggios of each chord, to be sure you know them. That means knowing the notes all over the neck. So all three arpeggios can be found in every position on the neck - just like the whole scale can be found everywhere, and each chord has 5 shapes (for majors) and 3 shapes (for minors). That's the so-called "CAGED" system. The major shapes all overlap (within 12 frets), but the minors have a couple of gaps. which is where the arpeggios fill the spaces. The way jazz musicians begin studying a tune for improvisation is (after learning the melody!) they will first play the arpeggios of every chord in the tune. And that means running the arpeggio the full range of their instrument. Guitarists (and pianists) have an advantage over horn players in that we can play the notes of a chord simultaneously, and learn finger patterns for them. When you play a G chord shape, you are playing the notes of one arpeggio form simultaneously. So you could just hold the chord shape, and then pick each string in turn (any order). That's an arpeggio. But of course the 3 notes in the chord are found all over the fretboard - and (because it's a major chord) in most places they form familiar chord shapes, which helps you remember them. E.g, here's all (or most) of the shapes for a G major chord, up to 12th fret: 3-2-0-0-0-3; 3-5-5-4-3-3-; (7)-0-0-7-8-7; (10)-10-9-7-8-7; (10)-10-12-12-12-10. In the CAGED system, those 5 shapes are known as the "G", "E", "D", "C", and "A" forms, because of how they resemble those chord shapes in open position. For any chord, they run up the neck in that C-A-G-E-D order, they just start with a different shape for the 12 different major chords. In the above positions they all produce a G chord, because they all contain the notes G-B-D. (The notes in brackets are not important for the shape, but are part of the arpeggio.) As you can see, you could link those 5 shapes together in one 12-fret mega-pattern, which is the full G major arpeggio (after 12th fret it repeats, from another "G" form, 15-14-12-12-12-15). The arpeggios of all the other chords in the key consist of notes around and between those G shapes. The arps for C and D chords use the same 5 shapes, in the same order, but starting with C and D shapes respectively. The arps for Em, Am, and Bm employ the 3 open position minor shapes (Am-Em-Dm), but there are gaps where Cm and Gm forms would be, which are filled with partial shapes and arpeggios. There's the equivalent shapes for an Am chord: 0-0-2-2-1-0; [5-3-2-2-x-x]; 5-7-7-5-5-5; (8)-7-7-9-10-8; [x-12-10-9-10-x]. The two in square brackets are partial "Gm" and "Cm" forms (in CAGED language)- not easily playable - but you can see the other three shapes look like Am, Em and Dm shapes. But they all contain the notes A-C-E (no others) so form an Am arpeggio pattern together. (And again, they repeat above fret 12, starting from the next Am shape, 12-12-14-14-13-12.) Similar shapes and arpeggio patterns can be formed for all the other chords. (And for other keys, the same shapes are just shifted up or down the neck to the right positions.) It might seem a lot to learn, but once you've been through this exercise for a few chord sequences (or keys), then you never have any problem knowing where to find notes to improvise with, on any tune. Its simply about thoroughly learning the fretboard, every note on every fret. Until you know that, you're always in the dark, fumbling around, trying to apply some kind of theory or shortcut to get you through, never really understanding why or how the music works. When you come to improvise on a tune, then, you begin from the notes in the chord. And the other scale notes (from the other chord shapes and arps in the same position) are used as passing notes, or can be accented for special effects. Know all the chord shapes, and everything you need is there under your fingers already.

  1157. musictheory 2017-02-18 01:38:28 blueleo
    I realize this is going to sound really stupid, but I took 14 years of piano lessons as a kid, have been playing piano for 58 years now, play a whole bunch of other instruments (mostly self taught, but pretty good on most of them), but I really started understanding theory a whole lot when I was in my 40s and started learning to play diatonic harmonica. You can only play this instrument fully by understanding modes, which sort of forces you to learn how chords are set up, how scales work, etc. Like I said, I know it sounds stupid, but it really worked for me. BTW, harmonica is one of three instruments I took lessons on. Piano obviously, harmonica, and 5 string banjo. I also play guitar, bass, ukulele, mandolin, balalaika, flute, clarinet, several types of percussion instruments, lap steel, accordion, violin, cello, recorder, pennywhistle, and a few strange instruments from different asian countries.

  1158. musictheory 2017-02-19 18:31:00 robustoutlier
    If you can understand the concept of 'division' you are good to go. Pick a string on a guitar. A wave travels through the string. Let that be the first note A. Divide the string in two, and you have the second note. The wave now travels half the time compared to an undivided string. This is the octave. It is also an A, but higher, because the time is shorter: the speed of the wave is faster. Take an old guitar from the 17th century. Call it a lute. Imagine its five strings. Draw the guitar on a sheet of paper, but leave everything else out but the strings. You can only divide a string in so many parts that the same notes repeats, because of the octaves. That is why we have: ABCDEFGA. Look for G on the lute. It should be below A, which we picked at the octave, so we move our finger outwards to lengthen the string. Put a dot where the G is on the music sheet. Find the octave above and below. Put another two dots there. Finally, tie them together with a slur and you have the G clef. A tone is a sounding note. When multiple strings vibrate at the same time, they sound better together if there is a certain ratio between their frequencies. A frequency is how often the string vibrates up and down. If one of the tones is just slightly off compared to the first tone, it will sound out of tune, but if we pull it further apart we start hearing resonant modes that go well with the first tone. Some are more pleasing to the ear. Consonants. Others are less pleasing. Dissonants. If you line up a series of consonants, and a few dissonants that can be used as *passing notes*, you have a scale. Between the lines of the treble clef - the G clef - you have FACE, from bottom to top. This pattern repeats in the bass clef - the F clef - but as ACEG. The line between F and A has to be G. Two common meters that will get you far are 4/4 and 3/4. Almost all pop, rock, and techno is 4/4. This is sometimes indicated as **C**. The large C is actually a circle that has been cut in half. Because of Christianity's fixation on three things being good, 3/4 used to be drawn as a perfect circle, like the clock, but divided in three segments. A full circle would represent a bar. The origin of this system is most likely the hurdy gurdy, an instrument with a rotational lever, which is basically a wheel that you constantly have to turn - somewhat similar to 19th century 'positives' or street organs. The C indicates two beats. One at 12 o'clock and one at 6 o'clock. Put two beats in-between - at 3 and 9 o'clock - and you have 4/4. Why some intervals are perfect, pure, or otherwise, is not that important at this stage. If you can recognize a second from a fifth and an unison from an octave, that's a good start.

  1159. musictheory 2017-02-19 20:45:41 Jongtr
    A partial vibration. Any musical note (played by a traditional instrument) contains not only its "fundamental" pitch - the note we hear and identify - by many partial vibrations. Most of these are multiples of the main frequency. For example, the 5th string on guitar has a fundamental frequency of 110 Hz (cycles per second), defining the note as "A". But the string is also vibrating in fractions of its length, which each produce higher pitches: 1/2 length produces 220, 1/3 length produces 330, 1/4 produces 440, etc. These are "partials", "overtones" or "harmonics". There is a whole "harmonic series" of increasingly high (and faint) partial frequencies. This is what LearningCubase and voorja are talking about. Some overtones of the fundamental produce higher octaves of the main note. So, 110, 220, 440, 880, 1760, etc (doubling the frequency) are all "A". But other overtones all produce different notes. 330 is E (and so is 660); 550 is C# (roughly). So, we can produce an A major chord using frequencies of 440-550-660 (A-C#-E). But the A string on its own already contains those frequencies! So - the theory goes - that why a major triad sounds "right". It sounds consonant, because the notes all "belong" - something in our brain recognises them as all sharing the same potential "acoustic root" - even if we don't hear that 110 pitch, just the 440-550-660 chord, we intuit that it's there. The 3 different notes "make sense", because they could all be part of the same note. (Minor chords have a more complex ratio between their notes, which is probably why they sound more "moody" or "dark".) Remember that chords don't exist in nature. Our hearing system has evolved to recognise separate sounds, to distinguish individual sounds from one another, and to spot patterns (in order to make sense of the world). The harmonic series is a natural pattern, so anything that fits it sounds - subconsciously - "natural". The less any collection of simultaneous notes share any overtones - the less they imply some shared acoustic root - the less connected they will sound, and we'll perceive them as more "dissonant" (literally "sounding apart"). That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's simplistic to say consonance ("sounding together") is "good", and dissonance is "bad", but music doesn't work like that. We like consonance sometimes, dissonance other times. The point is, we recognise the difference - and western harmony is based on their interaction, the dialogue between them. (Other musical cultures often favour dissonance for its own sake, as interesting *timbre*.) Still, the important thing to bear in mind is that all music deviates in some way from any mathematical "perfection". We can build scales from notes which have neat mathematical relationships - but they will only sound in tune relative to the keynote we calculate from. If we want to make one of the other notes a keynote, we need to retune, because the ratios won't fit. So (in the west) we have created the system of "equal temperament", meaning all 12 notes in an octave are an equal distance apart - but that means the ratio between each one is extremely complex, the "irrational" 12th root of 2. In this system, the above A major chord is actually 440-554-659. and yet it still sounds "OK" (unless your ears are extremely sensitive to overtones). I.e., our aural perception has a "tolerance", either side of "perfect". Tuning doesn't have to be to exact ratios, only "near enough".

  1160. musictheory 2017-02-20 07:54:39 spoonopoulos
    You can find neutral thirds (and more generally, neutral intervals) in quite a variety of music! Ives, Carrillo, and Wyschnegradsky are canonical examples within western art music (three pieces for two pianos, the string quartets, and the two-piano preludes respectively). You can also hear the neutral third in quite a lot of blues guitar playing and some singing, often approached by bending from the m3. And of course there's middle-eastern music, but you'll generally hear it melodically as part of a context (for example, in maqam rast between the first and third tones).

  1161. musictheory 2017-02-22 10:12:37 frajen
    i am no string expert but here goes at 4:51 roughly Em7 or Dmaj7/E (there's some G#/C in the low-mid 4-500 Hz) roughly Bm7 or Dmaj7/B (there's some low end rumbling ~70 Hz), clears up around 4:57 Bm7 (trills over C#/B, then F#/G) Cmaj7/Bb (it's dissonant but the voicing - specifically the distance - between the Bb and the B is far enough that it's not necessarily jarring) Am9 (Cmaj7/A) (trills over C#/B) Am9 11 (trills over F#/G) 4:24 bass outlines C-E-G into B over the B pedal, roughly I hear the strings playing: B-D-F# | A-C#-E | G-C#-E | Eb bent into E->G-B-D so let's call it: Bm (hearing A-C#-D-F#) | Bm (hearing F#-G-D-A-E-G-A ish ) | Bbdim7/B | Am7 11/B (hearing G-A-B-D-E with some bends around Eb and maybe C#) During the diminished chord, the marimba thing goes into Edim7 (Bb-E-G-Bb), the trill is over C#/B which makes it weird b/c the B is clashing with the Bb. then Fmaj7 9 #11 | Em7 or Dmaj7/E | Bm

  1162. musictheory 2017-02-22 16:18:36 frajen
    > Do you mean C#/G? No, in Ableton's spectrum analyzer it clearly shows peak frequencies at G# and C (400-500Hz) > Can you explain this? the top note of the string just seems to bend into the E. Like if you considered it an E alone it sounds slightly out of tune. The underlying notes still seem to be a cluster of the "expected" E-G-A-B-D. > I got basically Em9 in the noteflight arrangement, though it's missing the marimba that would probably help quite a bit. I believe the marimba is playing around G-F#-D-C#-B over that one

  1163. musictheory 2017-02-25 08:58:39 johnnya4344
    Not necessarily. I feel like something is lost when you take the human away from the instrument. Sure, computer generated piano/guitar runs or drum beats are correct 100% of the time, but when you string together notes they just sound off to me. I prefer listening to the humans behind the instruments.

  1164. musictheory 2017-02-25 14:30:55 cyancynic
    > they haven't needed to yet. This and the frustrating thing about standard notation to a guitarist is that there are seldom performance hints for guitar in most of it. A given note can typically be played in any of 3-4 locations on the guitar. Same note, different fret/string combination. So how do I know which one? There's also things like bends vs slides vs hammer-on/pull-offs (which I suppose should be noted as slurs) but this missing information is frustrating to guitarists. Lots of sheet music for piano contains fingering hints - but precious little of it has any kind of guidance for *how* to play something on a guitar. Best compromise I've seen is something like the approach in Beatles Complete where the tab is immediately under the staff and so you get both notes and fingerings all on one chart.

  1165. musictheory 2017-02-25 14:38:02 imjustawill
    > A given note can typically be played in any of 3-4 locations on the guitar. Same note, different fret/string combination. So how do I know which one? It's one of those things you just don't worry about as you're learning. Pick a location, then work it out from there. Some places will feel more natural, some have different tonal colors. If you have to, stray from the sheet and make your own judgements and call it an arrangement.

  1166. musictheory 2017-02-25 18:37:17 u38cg2
    Yes, but there is a much more unified performance tradition - and in cases of ambiguity, there are normally directions in violin music for string and/or fingering as required.

  1167. musictheory 2017-02-25 21:11:17 sir_earl
    Actually, the latter is just as easily tablature as it is notation, but the former is more like standard notation than it is tablature. For example, in Master of Puppets, the first little riff after the first few chords can be played as 0 0 12 0 0 11 0 0 chord chord chord or it can be played with the 12 and 11 replaced with the 7 and 6 on the A string, whereas standard notation would have these as the same notes regardless--giving you the general shape of the music. When you're first learning, tablature is as much a foreign language as standard notation. Why you might like tablature at first is because it gives you *instant* access to the music. Anyone with an elementary education knows what numbers are and how to count. You've essentially already mastered the art of spelling or something like that for the language. I say this as someone who is very slow at reading standard notation but can basically sight read a tab.

  1168. musictheory 2017-02-26 01:37:03 polyrythmie
    There's a pretty big problem with his claim, which is that he does not prove but rather assumes that tablature cannot be processed as well as "standard" notation. This is like asking which of two writing systems is better for speed or understanding (which he does, comparing English against IPA). The reality of reading is that it is actually quite difficult to prove whether or not one writing system is better than another. If we took his assertion to its conclusion we might get into a large debate about whether Chinese (which can encode a lot of information into one character) is better or worse than English (whose characters are fixed but encode information in words), but we will find that native readers really don't have problems in either language in real world scenarios. Aside from this huge problem with his argument, there is the problem of the way he treats the amount of information in standard vs. Tablature. The problem with standard notation for a stringed instrument is that there will often need to be annotations of string number on which to play, or positions in which to play on the fretboard, in order to reduce ambiguity. There are cases where tablature actually produces less ambiguity for less information than standard notation. But as above, there isn't any proof that an experienced player in tablature versus an experienced player in standard notation will perform better or worse than one another. Finally, there come the practical problems of a) frequency shape is less obvious with tablature, and b) communication barriers between players using different notations. As for a), I would argue that in either standard or tablature, the music is not as obvious as it seems. It seems likely to me that an experienced reader of tablature will be able to look at two fret numbers on two different strings and tell which note will be higher, what interval the notes are from each other, etc. By knowing the string tuning just as an experienced reader of standard notation will have access to the same information from the clef. And for b, well, different contexts for different notations. Today it is not difficult to automate the printing of tablature and standard notation from the same musical information (lilypond can do this, for example).

  1169. musictheory 2017-02-26 02:44:18 davethecomposer
    You make an interesting point and one that I hadn't considered even as a classical guitarist. And yeah, scales are bullshit on guitar. I can't play piano for shit and yet I can bang out all the scales in all keys in both hands without a thought. But I cannot for the life of me remember all those damnable Segovia scales. But!, at least when it comes to classical guitar, we do not think in shapes all that much. We don't move from one habitualized chord shape to another, we move from pitch to pitch especially when we're playing more than one pitch at a time. In the end I found standard notation much easier and faster. It's more important for me to understand the pitch I'm playing (in order to understand what's going on musically) than to know which string the editor thinks I should play that pitch on. I always prefer figuring out my own fingerings anyway. Still, you make an interesting point and one that's worth considering.

  1170. musictheory 2017-02-26 04:07:08 BanjoCAB
    I play the 5-string banjo, and I'm currently enrolled in college music courses where reading is a must; no tab allowed. And while this is very frustrating for many reasons, I think being able to read/interpret standard notation is incredibly valuable. Its is incredibly hard learning to be fluent in it, but once you get more used to it, and what to look for and how to handle specific scenarios I think its much better than tab. Its a better longterm skill to have, especially if you want to be a musician outside the standard making a band and playing gigs setting.

  1171. musictheory 2017-02-26 04:28:56 ptyccz
    > There's also things like bends vs slides vs hammer-on/pull-offs In a proper score, you would use notation for all of these extended techniques. For example, a bend can be notated as a grace note (aciaccatura) in the simplest cases, or with a short glissando line otherwise. Similarly for hammer-ons and pull-off; use a slur when that will do, or just draw a glissando line for the most complex cases. > A given note can typically be played in any of 3-4 locations on the guitar. Same note, different fret/string combination. So how do I know which one? Write a circled number next to the note, and this will remind you of the right string to use. You can use a line extending from the circled-number notation to indicate a group of notes that should all be played on the same strings.

  1172. musictheory 2017-02-26 05:00:16 ptyccz
    > there will often need to be annotations of string number on which to play Big deal. Write in some circled numbers to remind you of the "right" string to play on.

  1173. musictheory 2017-02-26 08:15:18 polyrythmie
    I'm a bit perplexed as to what you're distinguishing in terms of a tone and a note, can you specify? Do you mean that you need to tell the pitch from the fret number and string ? Because this is the same as reading the pitch from the line, accidental/key signature and clef. There's a difference between something being more difficult and simply different, and this is what the video did not prove

  1174. musictheory 2017-02-26 10:40:56 watteva
    The string section in Blue Jay Way is in 10/8.

  1175. musictheory 2017-02-26 19:18:20 Jongtr
    The term "ghost note" is commonly applied (at least in rock transcriptions) to a note that definitely is there, but is much quieter than the others, and was probably unintentional by the player. A common example is an open string accidentally sounded by a guitar player (but not out of tune or key enough to require re-taking). It might also apply to an intentional note that was poorly articulated, rendering it almost inaudible.

  1176. musictheory 2017-02-26 19:26:55 Jongtr
    There are also (at least in theory) undertones, or "difference tones", caused when two or more high pitches are in a simple ratio, making them sound as if they are overtones of a lower fundamental. The ear (supposedly) fill in that lower fundamental, whose frequency is the difference between the frequencies of the existing pitches. These would always be low bass notes, of course. An example would be an A major triad, played in "just intonation", with frequencies of 220 Hz (A), 275 (C#) and 330 (E). The difference is 55, which is an A 2 octaves below 220 (octaves are always half or double any specified frequency). As I understand it, this would require very special circumstances - free of other interference (perhaps even lab conditions) - to be evident. I've never heard them myself anyway. Overtones, meanwhile, are always high pitches, at least an octave above the perceived note, and usually much quieter than that note. They are the reverse of undertones. So an A of 55 Hz (produced on piano or bass), contains within itself overtones of 110 (A), 165 (E), 220 (A), 275 (C#), 330 (E), etc., caused by fractional vibrations of the string - 1/2 the string produces twice the frequency, etc. The notes that are not A are always slightly out of tune with equal temperament, and increasingly faint the higher they get. The mix of overtones (the relative volume of each one in the series) is what produces the timbre of an instrument (e.g. a sax has many more than a flute.) In that sense, they are accidental (a natural property of musical sounds), not "purposeful". Having said that, all the notes playable by a bugle are overtones, produced by overblowing the fundamental pitch of the tube. String instruments are also capable of producing harmonics by special techniques - preventing the fundamental pitch from sounding, allowing the overtones to emerge.

  1177. musictheory 2017-02-27 20:54:52 spoonopoulos
    My own dislike of most of Glass's music that I've heard (with some exceptions - the 2nd string quartet, Glassworks, etc.) has more to do with what I believe to be a staunchly *conservative* compositional practice than anything else. In a sense minimalism was a grand celebration of anti-academic, anti-intellectual conservatism and while I believe some wonderful music (some of which isn't at all any of those things) came of it, there is some of it that bears little of interest to me that is not better understood (as a reaction) by its context. I should note perhaps that I have no problem with *formula* itself. The fugue is a formulaic technique, for instance. I don't think that takes away from it at all.

  1178. musictheory 2017-02-27 21:15:06 mrclay
    Learned how to form major scales, got a cheap but easy-on-the-fingers nylon string guitar, figured out how to play most Beatles songs, comparing my transcriptions against published songbooks. I don't listen to them much anymore, but their catalog covers a ton of concepts and the instruments are pretty clear in the recordings.

  1179. musictheory 2017-02-28 09:11:04 BanjoCAB
    I mean except for the pieces that are meant for guitar. I think the problem you're describing comes from playing music written with another instrument in mind. I think this is probably difficult for any performer reading sheet music that is not for their instrument. You could give music written specifically for guitar to a horn player and they might not be able to play it (depending on the range, if there are double stops, triple stops, etc.). Probably most often we as string players are reading lead sheets out of something like the realbook which has no specific instrument in mind (usually), its just a melody with chords.

  1180. musictheory 2017-03-01 00:14:55 ljse7m
    IIt sounds like more of a "suite" but it may be hard to find a specific definition as there are lots of variation from Suite to Suite. It started around the 14th century(?) with "dance suites" but its basically a set of generally rather short pieces with something in common but that "something in common" can be rather losely defined. You could call it "Suite for mixed string instruments in X movements" or something more creative. LJSe7m

  1181. musictheory 2017-03-01 02:10:31 Bigfrostynugs
    I'm about to finish my undergrad composition degree. I would say the absolute most important thing is that your interests and musical goals align well with the faculty. While any teacher of any background can offer good advice and direction, it's incredibly helpful if you're on the same wavelength. Think about what you want to do and who on staff you will realistically be taking important classes and private studio lessons with. If you're really interested in film scoring, the baroque counterpoint professor might not be the greatest fit. If you want to write strict fugal string quartets, the electronic music professor might not be the best option. You need to have specific goals you want to accomplish. What do you want as a composer? Symphonic commisions? Film scoring? Want to get your doctorate and teach? These are questions that need to be answered beforehand, and if I can be honest -- strongly consider whether or not there's anything else you can see yourself doing. Making a career in music (especially composition) is incredibly difficult. You will almost certainly work long hours for next to no pay, and when you're done you aren't going to feel like working on that one side project you used to have fun with or noodling at a piano.

  1182. musictheory 2017-03-02 23:30:42 kingkong30992
    The difference will matter for certain instruments in certain contexts. For the piano, Gb and F# are the same note. This is (partially) because you can't tune a piano on the fly. However, depending on the context, a string player might play an F# slightly higher than a Gb. Because F# might be driving the pitch towards G and a violin can change their intonation immediately, they will likely play the F# as if it resolving upwards to G, whereas the Gb might be tending downwards towards F natural. This isn't comprehensive and I think mostly applies to classical music and is just one example. Context will change everything. There's some history and science as well behind it that is really interesting as well if you're curious. The history having to do with how the piano is tuned (equal temperament vs. just temperament) and the science/math having to do with the overtone series if you wanted to research those. Sorry for any typos. On mobile.

  1183. musictheory 2017-03-03 00:59:27 molgera85
    First of all I didn't see any typos! Second of all, wow, science...just, science. I knew science played a pretty big role in how music is formed with differing frequencies based on the gauge of the string and the fret but wow, I didn't think it got that complex!

  1184. musictheory 2017-03-04 01:01:46 molgera85
    Yeah, first of all, no she isn't into metal at all which is fine. I am pretty much trying to learn as many instruments in the string family (I will likely learn drums which is obviously not a string instrument but hey) and I will try to apply the techniques, style and so on to the guitar which is my favorite instrument.

  1185. musictheory 2017-03-04 08:16:59 Jongtr
    You don't need theory (except to name your chords correctly, which won't help you in making a progression). I presume you know all the notes in C aeolian, so you can just use your ears to choose following chords. That's if you like what you've got already. If you do - carry on working the same way. If you don't - then theory can help in suggesting some common ways to string chords together. But even then you need to use your ears to decide. I suggest working with melodic lines to start with. That could be the bass line. You have C-F-D, so just try out other C aeolian notes and decide which form a line you like. A tip is to look for patterns, and use repetition. E.g., C-F-D goes up 4 notes and down 3; so you could continue that pattern - leading you up 4 to G and down 3 to Eb; and then on to Ab-F. (Just an idea.) When you have a line you like, add other notes on top. You're currently holding an Ab and C on all chords, which could continue, provided neither of them make a nasty dissonance with the bass (your ears will tell you that); if one of them does, move it one note up or down. Do the same process with any middle notes in the chord.

  1186. musictheory 2017-03-05 06:26:23 molgera85
    Wait what? The piano is a percussion instrument? I thought it was a string instrument because of the strings in the piano's body. Is it maybe considered a percussion instrument because of how you have to press down on the keys in a distantly similar way to the drumstick coming in contact with the snare? Only thing I can think of.

  1187. musictheory 2017-03-05 14:20:23 Pelusteriano
    The [answer by /u/nrjk](https://np.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/5xiwr0/help_with_intervals/deiklg0/) is really good but I'm not sure if it might click with you. I'll try to give an answer more focused to guitar. * Note: it makes a lot more sense if you learn to read music notation or, at least, if you learn the corresponding note letter to each fret on standard tuning. [Relevant video here](https://youtu.be/D9sOqWUiRJ8). --- An interval is the music theory name for "the distance, in semitones, between two notes". A 1 semitone distance equals the distance between a fret and the next one so, for example, the distance between the 2nd and 4th fret on any string equals 2 semitones. A semitone is also called "a half tone", 2 semitones are also called "a whole tone". Intervals can be used in two ways: (a) as [generic intervals](http://www.musictheory.net/lessons/30), *e.g.* "that note is a third above", or (b) as [specific intervals](http://www.musictheory.net/lessons/31), *e.g.* "G is a perfect 5th above C". As you can notice from looking at your guitar, there are lots of interval distances, you can come up with the relationship between any two notes. Each interval has a particular name, they are the following: distance (semitones) | name | symbol --------------------|----|------ 0 | perfect unison, unison | P1 1 | minor second | b2 2 | major second | 2 3 | minor third | b3 4 | major third | 3 5 | perfect fourth | P4, 4 6 | augmented fourth, diminished fifth, tritone | #4, b5, T 7 | perfect fifth | P5, 5 8 | minor sixth | b6 9 | major sixth | 6 10 | minor seventh | b7 11 | major seventh | 7 12 | perfect octave | P8, 8 They keep going, as shown [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_\(music\)#Compound_intervals) but usually something far beyond the 13th interval isn't used. Remember, you can change "semitones" for "frets" to figure it out. One of the most useful things intervals can do for you is giving names to sounds. For example, play the notes C and E together (B string, 1st fret; e string open; those same notes can be found elsewhere but that isn't important right now). Listen to that sound. That's the sound of a major 3rd. Ok, now play the D and F# notes together (B string, 3rd fret; e string, 2nd fret). Listen to that sound. That's a major 3rd again. How come two different pairs of notes can have the very same *relative* sound? That's because we kept the distance between the notes, a 4 semitones distance, a major 3rd apart. [Here's a great video showing the sound of the main intervals](https://youtu.be/U-vD7Swr3DQ). So, how can intervals help you with scales? Let's try the pentatonic minor scale, guitarists' favourite scale. First of all, the *penta*tonic scale is made up of five different notes, if you only learn them as "shapes" it might seem very arbitrary why you're using these notes and not other ones, that usually leads to confusion and frustrated guitar wanking. Relative to the root, the intervals that make the pentatonic minor scale are: R (root), b3, 4, 5, b7; in other words, the root, the minor 3rd, the perfect 4th, the perfect 5th, and the minor 7th. Having the *b3* is what makes it "minor". Now we can calculate the semitone distance, therefore, the fret distance. Keep in mind the tuning relationship between strings, for example, the note A can be found on the E string, 5th fret and on the A string, open. Instead of thinking "the *x* scale has these shapes", you can begin looking the fretboard as intervals, you stop being a space monkey that has to be told what to do and you become a self-sufficient player that can actually think what to do. Just like scales are made with intervals, chords are made with intervals. Any chord has a particular interval formula, for example, any major chord is: R, 3, 5 (root, major 3rd, perfect 5th); any minor seventh chord is: R, b3, 5, b7 (root, minor 3rd, perfect 5th, minor 7th). So, yes, you can use intervals to make triads (and even more) on the fly. If you have more questions, let me know, I'll be glad to help.

  1188. musictheory 2017-03-05 14:31:29 Pelusteriano
    This question is actually covered on the FAQ, here's the short answer: > Different keys feel different under the fingers of performers, which changes how easy or difficult some passages are to play. A key may also be chosen because it fits the range of the instrument or voice a composer is writing for. Keys may also sound different depending on the physical properties of the instruments involved (e.g., a piece in C lets you have a low open string on the cello be a tonic note). Another good reason is simply for the sake of variety. Some keys also have intertextual associations, i.e., a certain kind of music might be associated with a certain key. Similarly, composers might have individual and personal affective associations for certain keys. However, there is no objective emotional quality associated with any one key. [Long answer can be found here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/wiki/faq/core/keys)

  1189. musictheory 2017-03-05 19:59:53 Jongtr
    Notes, definitely. This helps you make sense of the chord shapes. E.g., as I'm sure you know, there are five open position shapes for major chords: C G D A E. They all look very different, but they are all the same *type* of chord (major), which means they all have the same theoretical structure: root, major 3rd, perfect 5th. It's the tuning of the guitar (and the fact we have 6 strings) that means the R-3-5 are distributed (and doubled) in different ways according to where the required notes lie on the fretboard. You can construct chords note by note up one string. Of course you can't play the notes simultaneously this way, but it helps you see the interval sizes. E.g., if you play frets 3, 7 and 10 on the 5th string, that's the notes C-E-G, which form a C major triad. Frets 3-10 is a "perfect 5th", and 3-7 is a "major 3rd". (3-6 would be a "minor" - smaller - 3rd, C-Eb, making a Cm triad; the 3-10 5th is the same.) On guitar, we can transfer that 7th fret E note to 2nd fret 4th string, and the 10th fret G note to open 3rd string. That gives us a "root position C major triad", x-3-2-0-x-x, so we can play all 3 notes together. The whole chord shape, x-3-2-0-1-0, adds another C and E on top, just so we can strum the whole thing without having to mute strings (other than the 6th). The Cm triad, meanwhile (frets 3-6-10 on 5th string), would translate to x-3-1-0-x-x - still easily playable. We can add another C on 2nd string without too much trouble (x-3-1-0-1-x), but we can't use the 1st (E) string. That's why a Cm chord is not usually played in this position, but as a barre chord higher on the neck. (I also recommend the musictheory.net lessons, btw. Start at lesson 1 to get familiar with notation and the basic tools of theory.)

  1190. musictheory 2017-03-05 22:24:48 ljse7m
    By definition it is and it is in the percussion family of symphonic instruments. The reason that it is a percussion instrument is that the sound is produced by STRIKING the keys strings with a hammer. On the other hand, the ~~Clavichord~~ Harpsichord is NOT because in the machinery of that instrument, the strings are PLUCKED and not struck. It is a little know fact among musicians unless you have had classes in instrument classification. Don't feel alone, a lot of people do not know what family the piano belongs to in the classification. Its not the pressing of the keys, its how the sound is produced. The pressing activates the levers to have the hammer HIT the string. The piano's name actually comes from the ability of the instrument to play both softly and loudly, i.e. Piano and Forte. Later shortened to just Piano. Unlike the ~~Clavichord~~ Harpsichord which activates a piece of stiff leather to strum the strings, which only allows one volume the action of the PianoForte allows a soft or hard strike from the hammer so it has a wide range if dynamics just as some drummers that can actually use dynamics in their playing. (sometimes this talent is forgotten to be an attribute of drum playing but is important in a lot of genres. EDIT: I would like to apologize for using the wrong instrument here. It is of course the HARPSICHORD that I meant to say instead of CLAVICHORD I am striking out my original word and replacing it with the proper one. Now, maybe the little "joke" may be clear to you! lol LJSe7m

  1191. musictheory 2017-03-05 22:33:59 Jongtr
    > "I like how this feels, I am satisfied with how this has turned out." Does that mean you feel the tune is complete? That is, the chord sequence is complete - but it just needs a melody (and lyrics)? Or are you just satisfied with progress so far? I mean, does it sound like it needs another section (eg, a chorus or bridge), as well as a melody or lyrics? > But it has all been written is chord numeral notation. My question is that I really don't know how to take these progressions and rhythms I've created and organize them into notation and something I can actually call music. It already is "music" - even if the progression is not complete. You don't really need to "organize them (chords and rhythms) into notation" unless you're going to ask other musicians to play it - or unless that's the only way you'll be able to remember it yourself. Chords, in any case, don't need to be fully notated, chord symbols will do (assuming you know the names of the chords) - unless you have very specific voicings that you consider an essential element of the composition. A "song" is complete - in notation terms too - with just a lead line for the melody, and chord symbols. I'm guessing what you lack is a melody. Without a melody you have no "song"- and without lyrics it's really just a tune, seeing as there is nothing for someone to "sing". A "song" consists of melody and lyrics: that's where the copyright resides, because they contain the essential identity of the piece. Chordal accompaniment is always open to variation (and reharmonization) and is not copyright. Chords alone are not a song, IOW. (Which is what I guess you're feeling about what you have so far.) With most songs, the melody is the only thing that needs notating. (The other thing that might is a bass line, if it's noticeably melodic, or any melodic riffs or phrases in the accompaniment.) If you feel that you can't, at the moment, "actually call [it] music", perhaps the structure is too vague or loose? Does it have distinct verse and chorus, or bridge? Is it perhaps just one string of chords which sound nice?

  1192. musictheory 2017-03-06 02:04:08 Pelusteriano
    > if I change up the tuning, wouldn't I have to learn the notes on the fretboard all over again? Not really. Let's suppose you change from E standard to drop D, all the strings are the same but one, since you already know that the difference between D and E is a major 2nd, you can fix your mental map without "having to learn everything all over again". > Also, of C to D is a major 2nd, then is D to C not a major 2nd? The notes are ordered as a cycle, as shown by [this diagram](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Pitch_class_space.svg/240px-Pitch_class_space.svg.png). You can say that the distance from C to D is a major 2nd and the distance from D to C is a major second **but** most of the times, you want to establish the interval relative to the root (either the tonal center or the respective chord). > And should I learn what all the intervals of all the notes are? Learning the main 12 intervals is usually enough. If you notice, the note at an open string, let's say A string open, and the note at the same string but 12th fret is the same. The frets align with the chromatic scale (diagram shown above). By learning the note letters from 0 to 12th fret, you've basically learnt the notes from 12th to 21st-24th fret. By learning the 12 main intervals, you've basically learnt the compound intervals as well; you just have to identify the notes.

  1193. musictheory 2017-03-06 10:35:15 mralex226
    I agree but actually the most natural way to vizualize intervals is on a fretted string. No biases there.

  1194. musictheory 2017-03-06 10:38:48 ljse7m
    I see you realize at least some of your limitations and you are at least getting focused on actually saying something. Not really anything but your opinion, but at least something. Your complaint that stick notation is usually used with the Kodaly method, is rather odd. But from what you are writnig, I have to assume that you are not certified at any level of Koday as your statements are not in line with the Kodaly philosophy. Please correct me if I am assuming too much, but your lack of understanding of how the Koday Methos used the syllables is really off base. Maybe it is like your comment of Orff! And your Kodaly syllabels are different as I understand the official Kodaly systems to be. They are close but I seem to remember seeing these syllables in a book I had that was written by someone writing their own system which was related but not the Kodaly system. This could account for your misunderstanding of what you are talking about. The Kodaly syllables are used simply as a means of articulating the rhythms in a very elementary way like the sounds one uses when singing the Tabla. The teacher dictates the rhythms with the syllables and the students repeat the rhythms using the syllables. This is used as a preparation for the syllables. The Kodaly method is built on the students ability to hear the sounds and know the sounds by ear before they are presented with the labels to define what they have learned. The rhythmic syllables are preparation for the stick notation. The noteheads are not removed, they never exist at that beginning stage. after the students have learned to hear the groupings of simple time, quarter and two eights and the rest, (all come after the students have been thoroughly taught and practiced the BEAT and the students in some exercises will have learned to tap the beat while they sing and repeat the syllables Kodaly teachers do not use rhythm syllables from another system as the syllables sounds are themselves preparation die written notation. All of this is also interrelated to the songs that have some of the rhythms used in this part of the process and these specific names are preparation for making the jump from autdio to visual representation of the rhythms over the beat. What you are describing in re Kodaly will only be seen in the classroom of someone that did not learn the Kodaly method properly. If I decide that you are sincerely interested and not just making noise, I will go into more detail as to how it all fits together after you have been properly prepared to understand how it works. I would like to point out something about your suzuki syllables. as this points out exactly what I am noticing about your comments in general. The Suzuki Philosophy was created sometime before but relatively close to 1960 or at least it was new to America when I first heard about it around 63 or 64 while working on my Theory/Music Ed. undergree. It was not added to our education because of its limitations. The Suzuki Philosophy was/is not a music literacy philosophy. IT was more of an Addendum to the literacy used in the Japanese school systems to teach performance and the Suzuki method did not include literacy elements but was dedicated to performance by an immersion philosophy that believed that ALL children could learn to play if taught by a professional performer by ear and immersion into the music. In short, there was not literacy training so there was not any rhythmic syllables! That is a literacy education concept and the literacy aspect was taken care of by someone else other then through the Suzuki method. I have noticed through the years that I have been teaching that people don't really want that and and this is my personal observation and not documented, but teachers discovered that parents wanted literacy training and so some Suzuki programs filled in the gap.. The only place I personally observed the common words you ussed was in a curriculum in Canada (I don't know the province but it was NOT Manatoba as I am a bit familiar with that one and I had not heard of it at all in that school. BUt I did see it used by a Canadian teacher, a percussionist, in school assemblies as a game to create rhythms with "non literate" mixed with music students, or at a campfire game meeting where the kids were of mixed literady. Your list appears to be either a synopsis of various systems created to suite the originators own personal attempt to create their own system of teaching. THe exceptions of course are Orff, the instrumental, the Dalcroze, the body, dance or motor approach with an emphasis on improvisation and Koday, who works from a vocal perspective. Nof meant in a derogatory way but only as an observation, your assessment or description of Suzuki and Kodaly seem to be related to your comment about Orff. Now, in your defense, all of these "systems" have their place. The big three Kodaly Orff and Dalcroze are all from the same period of education that is very process oriented and based on a holistic literacy approach. The rest are as far as I have noticed over the years are 'gimmicks" and games that can prepare the student but inherently have little use on their own unless they are used with a more complete and total system that includes literacy training. The big three however are in a lot of ways like Maria Montissori and her general elementary philosophy and these art much more advanced and complete than those other forms of notation, well, not notation but "aids" to writing rhythms that are fine for what they are, but they are not a philosophy but rather a tool that can be used. Personally, I learned to rhythmic read traditional notation during a half hour study hall twice a week in six weeks from a very good teacher, a flute player with a great love of music and the ability to understand what the student's level was and take them from one place to another. He gave me the Podemski Snare Drum Method and I completed it in that six week period and he used the 1e and ta 2 e and ta system as well as 1 e and ta li ta (1 la li 2 la li ) but I had already learned to play the snare drum priore to that so technique was not a factor. AND I had learned earlier another (not stick) symbolic way of notating the Rudimental style of snare drumming which is where I learned my techniques of playing the snare drum so I did know how to read but not in the traditional manner. Stick notation can be used with any method. And that is where you are missing the point. Stick notation is a tool to an end. It is a tool that if used properly is as fine as it can be Used improperly, stick notation is of course not worth any thing as improper use of anything will not produce the desired results. I am not offended. I know what I am doing and why I do it and I know a lot more about it than stick notation. Stick notation also used the next step which is to put the solfege syllables where the note heads would be and that interrelates the solfege with the rhythmic training and the stems are of varying lengths so show the melodic direction and the melodies have been already learned by the students so that they are then preparing for adding the lines and spaces by which time they are actually reading traditional notation. I am not offended, as I said, but I am insulted and embarrassed for you with the statements you made. They were simply not related to anything that applied to what I told another reader. You were out of place, why should it bother me. Anyone that matters knew that and now at least, you have seen that its better to get on topic and if you don't understand what I was saying that you should bring out what you THINK I was saying so that we can at least have a discussion although you still persist in telling someone that has obviously had more experience and study in education that I am unqualified. That is laughable coming from someone that has made so many errors in your "argument". And especially from someone that thinks that his opinion is better than fact and true educational philosophy! Let me just ask What are your certifications? Do you have any cerrification other than a B.Me? Are you certified at any level of Kodaly? or Orff? or Dalcroze? Apparently not by the original Suzuki, although I don't know if that is even around any more. Are you Trained in International Baccalaureate Music specility? In A.P. ? Have you studied Howard Gardner with two of his researches that helped to create and popularize his philosophy? Have you done teaching of Critical Thinking? Have you Taught Music in American, Canadian, Chinese and Arabic schools? Have you given workshops on teaching to other teachers? Have you taught in other cultures? Lived in other cultures? How many music curriculum have you written, rewritten and corrected for schools up for accreditation? And successfully attained these accreditations? Just what has your life experiences been that qualifies your "opinion" to be more appropriate and complete than someone that has done all of that. I assume you are certified at least in one state, but so far, I have not seen any evidence of that, so what exactly are your qualifications? You have not demonstrated anything by your post. Your system is what? " they use another system etirely or blend several together like you do? THAT is your philosophy and expertise? You read something here, you read something there, you string them together? Are you that young? That inexperienced? Don't you have a basic method that has been proven worldwide that is at the core of what you do? or do you just think your "opinion" is better than Kodaly or Orff (in your words, something to do wiith Bells!) As Peggy Lee sang, "is that all there is?" You want to see what Blending is, study Kodaly with a real teacher and you will see what blending really is. And your last comment is rather silly at best! Are you ashamed to put your name on your comments? I can understand that. LJSe7m

  1195. musictheory 2017-03-07 00:10:51 brokenoreo
    [The Youth by MGMT](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EURZuzHyWb0) I think it's cool that they chose to go down a half step when the majority of key changes that you think of in pop music go up. That and the string part that comes in is amazing.

  1196. musictheory 2017-03-07 16:01:39 TheChurchofHelix
    And many instruments will have other differences that change the general color of certain notes beyond temperament. Intervals are not the only thing that determines tone color - timbre is a huge part of that. Most instruments produce widely different timbres in different registers or even on different parts of the instrument due to how they produce sound, especially brasses. Even a guitar sounds different on an open string versus a fretted string, though frets minimize that difference - and on top of that notes towards the center of the neck will always sound darker than notes toward the nut, assuming the plucking hand stays in a consistent place.

  1197. musictheory 2017-03-07 22:54:04 DRL47
    > Is there a specific name for a progression of chords that jumps up by perfect fifths? Example: A-E-B-F#-C Do you mean C#? F# up to C is a diminished 5th. If it is a C#, then it is a string of secondary subdominants. "Hey Joe" uses them: C-G-D-A-E.

  1198. musictheory 2017-03-08 01:18:41 Leftieswillrule
    It's a lot less straightforward on the guitar. I actually took some time to try to construct some guitar chords on paper during class a couple hours ago and it's a right bitch when there's lots of different things you can do with your fingers to form them. Some fingerings are easy on one part of the fretboard and difficult at other places, and which string you use for your root note amps up the complexity a lot because guitar chords tend to use redundant chord voicings with added fifths and octaves. It's an irritating exercise but I can see it being super useful when you've gotten some familiarity with them.

  1199. musictheory 2017-03-08 01:22:04 seamachine
    I agree with it not being as straight forward in guitar since some notes repeat in other strings, but the "formulas" are the same. 3rd is the same position on the same string and the next. This actually made me wish I started playing guitar tuned to 4ths, it'd make all the positions easier (when it comes to the two upper strings)! But anyway, I *DO* have go-to fingering/positions depending on what string I'm on.

  1200. musictheory 2017-03-08 12:11:24 Phrygiaddicted
    > I couldn't hear a beat frequency for a P4 with just pure sine waves so that sounds pretty hard to do well, it's alot easier with more complex sounds. a P4 should beat at the octave below the fourth; ie [F]CF. in practise, if you do this with a saw; you can clearly hear the fourth beating at a M2 from the 3rd harmonic of the bass. CF[CFG], it kindof "rubs". I used to have trouble distinguishing fourths from fifths in interval tests until i honed in on that "rubbing". this rubbing is common to all subharmonic intervals (like say a minor sixth), in that they are harmonic inversions; C belongs to F, not the other way around, and so having C in the bass as a bit unstable because they both phase at F's rate, but C is the bass and sets the long period for the interval itself. >but do people actually listen for beat frequencies between non-unison notes as I was describing above with the perfect 5th? for most people: probably not consciously. as with the fourth example above, i think the most telling effect is related to the missing fundamental: ie: CF played together align in such a way that they repeat phase cycles at the rate of the F two octaves beneath them ie: (1):3:4, depending on the register, this can be "tone-like" or "rhythm like" for example, the just major third pushes the fundamental down three octaves, but the pythagorean major third pushes it down SUBSTANTIALLY more; and can stop being a tone-like phenomnenon and start to be rhythmic... and that can be kindof distracting if it's not in-line with the other elements of the song; Ie: key/tempo: imagine a 120BPM tune with someone hitting a drum at 121BPM... it would start out in sync but slowly drift to a point where it was awfully out of time, then slowly back to in-time. this can be likened to car indicators at traffic lights if you've ever watched those while bored. >But for 240 and 361, the beat frequency is 2. where did you get that from? >would this have any noticeable effect that you could hear in real time in any way, or would you have to look at a digital copy of the waveform to notice that they all line up? yes, but it's subtle. If the note is hit at the start of it's phase cycle, it would for example have a much more pronounced attack. if you imagine a saw with a filter that decays; if this is done at the start of a phase cycle, it will produce a sharp transient that will push the speaker all the way out; but if done at say 90 degrees, it will barely do anything, and the wave attack will only come after the filter has decayed somewhat, dampening the punch. Essentially; a BPM that is an octave division of the fundamental at 4/4 will cause every beat subdivision to have a louder transient when intervals are played. CEG played at 120BPM will have peaks in the waveperiod much higher above the normal level at the subdivisions of the bar: reinforcing the rhythm with pulses. of course, this only really matters for synthesised sounds, as say, plucking a string has the effect of resetting the oscillator's phase. many synths have the option to reset the oscillator phase on a note event. also; the harmonics of a real instrument aren't *exactly* multiples of the fundamental due to various real-world physical effects like tension. it also means that each 1/16th note say, would have the same phase; and therefore, the same "sound". if they are not aligned, each 1/16th note would have a difference in attack characteristics. now, it may be boring to have every note homogenised in this manner, BUT once you know it is an effect, you can play with it. You don't have to tune it to the fundamental; that was just an example. much like ET introduces phasing to it's intervals that can be considered a pleasing/exciting effect, that JI lacks (and sometimes considered "boring"), you are then free to add the phasing back in in a manner YOU CHOOSE, rather than have it be some out-of-tune, out-of-time random artefact of the scale tuning. also; it will produce the tonal effect that over a sustained period of exposure, the waves themselves are reinforcing the tempo and rhythm of the tune (especially if it is straight 4/4 (itself an octave(read:halfing/doubling)-based division of the bar)) In 3/4 you may want to use a 3rd harmonic base for the tempo rather than a fundamental base; as the bar is essentially rhythmically split as a twelfth not as two octaves. maybe it's academic, but it partially tied into my offhand comment about holding a note for some time, then wanting to move it (say, C -> Ab), the amount of time i feel i want to hold the C before moving it to Ab is different from how long i would want to hold an F and move it to Db; but maybe that's my subconscious bias. But the thing is, alot of this is subliminal. i find this kindof stuff very useful for meditative/trance music.

  1201. musictheory 2017-03-08 21:55:43 ChazR
    That's how you tune a violin. Set the A string to an external source, then tune the beat frequencies out from the other strings. I go A-E, A-D, D-G. We get trained to do this. It gives you a pythagorean temperament. You only have to goof about if you're playing with a piano, when we usually just ignore it (except for long notes played in unison.)

  1202. musictheory 2017-03-08 23:59:18 bstix
    Like others have said, this is how you tune a guitar. It gets more clear if you use the overtones, by carefully touching the string at the 5th and 7th frets of the low E and A string for instance.

  1203. musictheory 2017-03-10 04:08:05 mrclay
    Before the last quarter of a Rocketship album, there's an extended blast of a Gmaj7 chord. A few minutes later the drums and guitars fall out leaving only [synths holding the chord](https://youtu.be/bEFn29AVJlI?t=1413). Then the noisy F# synth falls away leaving only a slowly filter swept bass note and some synthesized (I think) wind. It's a beautiful respite before a huge synth lead busts open the next song. Only bummer about this album is the flat string playing.

  1204. musictheory 2017-03-11 17:29:11 bstix
    The piano is vital to when learning and reading music theory from staff. The written staff transfers almost directly to the piano keys. The guitar is more difficult in this regard. The layout of the notes on guitar strings is almost like having 6 parallel piano keyboards stacked up, but with the limitation that you can only play one note on each keyboard and they are offset by the interval between each string. This makes is difficult to find the notes. However, understanding intervals is a lot easier on guitar, because they are easily recognisable patterns that you can use everywhere on the fretboard. Figuring out intervals on a piano is more difficult because the keyboard is not chromatic so you'll have to count semitones to figure out the intervals. Tl;dr: you should learn both - start with piano.

  1205. musictheory 2017-03-11 18:46:06 Jongtr
    As a guitar player myself, I agree piano is by far the best instrument for learning theory. Guitar has just one advantage over piano: the "democratic" design of the fretboard, which shows all semitones as equal. Piano keyboard is clearly biased towards C major, and makes it look like the notes ABCDEFG are all equally spaced, and the black notes are some kind of second thought, or inferior mutations. Historically that's kind of valid - and it aligns with standard notation - but makes it harder to appreciate scale formulas. On guitar you can *see* the TTSTTTS major scale pattern laid out up one string as a 2-2-1-2-2-2-1 fret pattern. It also helps you - via string fractions and harmonics - to understand scale formulas as being based on *string* division (1/2, 2/3, 3/4, etc) and not octave division. Having said that, guitar is way too limited (by the number of strings and the tuning) in its ability to construct chords. Piano has several advantages, mainly that (a) it contains every note known to western music (no instrument goes higher or lower, except the occasional church organ), and (b) it requires no technique whatsoever to produce notes and chords (provided you own a full complement of fingers). I.e., you don't have to be able to *play* the piano (use proper technique) in order to be able to use it as a workbench for studying harmony. You only need to know which note is which, and how to read from notation. As I said, I'm a guitar player, and have never found my knowledge of piano (which I taught myself at the same time I was teaching myself guitar) has ever got in the way of my guitar playing. Quite the contrary in fact. Knowing more than one instrument makes you feel like a *musician*, and makes you more aware of the special qualities (as well as limitations) of your chosen main instrument. Every instrument is simply a tool, and a somewhat imperfect one at that. The more tools you have, the better a job you can do. I should also say that all the pro jazz musicians I've ever known, whatever their main performance instrument (sax, clarinet, trumpet, bass, guitar, drums, etc), have all been piano literate too - and some of them skilled enough to perform on it. That's how useful it is for understanding theory.

  1206. musictheory 2017-03-12 09:30:12 derosabomb
    Chords in the intro are Cmaj7, Gb9, Fmaj7, followed by a single Ab on the 9th fret 2nd string Cmaj7: 8,x,9,9,8,x Gb9: x,9,8,9,9,x Fmaj7: x,8,10,9,10,x sorry my formatting totally sucks.. hope this helps anyone else hearing anything different?

  1207. musictheory 2017-03-13 13:21:29 pouffywall
    It depends entirely on the instrument you're playing (or your voice). There might just be some natural timbre-sweet spot on your musical medium that you're exploiting. It also might be a flaw in the capabilities of whatever your medium is that could be altering the notes you hear (i.e. fretting notes on a guitar increases the tension of the string and can sharpen the notes played in a way not accounted for by the position of the fret). I mean, it could also be some perception thing idk. So really it could be a totally legitimate thing you hear, but it'd be that way because of however you're representing the notes. What it definitely isn't is something inherent in the key itself. Mathematically all interval relationships are exactly the same key to key.

  1208. musictheory 2017-03-13 18:46:31 Jongtr
    Memorizing the shapes is fine. As a guitarist you can't escape them so you may as well exploit them. Mapping the fretboard is what you need to do. Chords (not scales) are the best way to do that, partly because they are easier shapes to visualize and memorize, but also because the interval relationships are strong. (And when it comes to improvising, and understanding how songs work, chord knowledge is invaluable - more useful than scales.) I suggest: 1. Learn which is root 3rd and 5th in every chord shape you know. 2. Learn all possible shapes (including partial ones) for every chord you know. (Every chord is playable in any neck position.) The CAGED system is handy here. 3. Make sure you don't get too stuck on those CAGED names! E.g., when you see a "C" shape in 7th position (x-10-9-7-8-7), you know it's *really* a G chord (notes G-B-D). The shape is handy for eyes and fingers, but awareness of (a) the notes, and (b) their relationship to whatever key you're in (and to nearby chords) is what matters. 4. When you learn any scale pattern, plot all the chord shapes and arpeggios within it. Every major scale pattern contains shapes for all seven chords in the key (including their 7th and extended versions). 5. Forget about modes! (Just in case you were thinking they're important...) In addition to the above (alongside, or ideally before), learn the ACBDEFG formula (semitones - 1 fret - between BC and EF, tones - 2 frets - elsewhere), and plot it out up each string in turn. Again, this about fretboard mapping, for notes in this case rather than chord shapes. Obviously each "map" supports the other. The more angles you attack it from, the quicker all the pieces of the jigsaw will fall into place.

  1209. musictheory 2017-03-13 18:49:26 Redhavok
    In case you are on a guitar, This could be being made into a bigger issue than it may be, but I would say it is to do with your gear and technique more than anything. Check your string age, intonation, and tuning before you suspect anything too technical. Check for fret buzz too. Make sure you aren't fretting too hard, you may be sharpening the pitch by bending, or pushing the string towards the fretboard(common mistake with scalloped frets) There will also be a difference in tone when you play on different parts of the neck, so it will sound different in every key. Even playing in the same key in a different octave will sound different. It also may simply be that you are too used it being in the original key. Try playing a song you know 2 steps up, sounds quite different, gets pretty hard to sing too. TL;DR Everything affects the sound of a guitar, might be one, might be all, might just be a biased ear.

  1210. musictheory 2017-03-14 05:04:45 HackPhilosopher
    Guitarists, if you want to easily play this 'all 6s' chord, play an open C Major chord shape and move the root note to the 6 string G. Leaving e-0 (e) b-1 (c) g-0 (g) d-2 (e) a-0 (a) e-3 (g)

  1211. musictheory 2017-03-14 18:16:31 PlazaOne
    Congratulations. You seem to have discovered the concept of *slash chords* which elude many players for a long time. Your chord of an A minor with a G note in the bass would simply be written as Am/G. For some reason many people only think that slash chords can only work with major triads, but it's also very effective with plenty of minor triads - obviously depending on the context and what you are trying to achieve. If you fancy a little exercise, I'd suggest playing an Am as a partial barre at the fifth fret on just the top three strings. With another finger, play descending notes on the fourth string at the 7th, 5th and 3rd frets, then the fifth string at the fifth fret. You'll need to start off with your first finger doing the barring, then swap to your third finger. This will give you Am, Am7/G, FMaj7, D7sus2. And remember to consider inversions, so Am7 can also be thought of as C6 etc.

  1212. musictheory 2017-03-15 00:34:49 Dubsland12
    No one moment but here are a few things I recall being ah ha moments. I play keyboards and guitar. Realizing there was only the middle C line between the upper and lower staff on sheet music. That stupid little hint somehow escaped me for a couple of years. I had been doing calculations of a sort for awhile. This allowed it to be seen as one thing. That extended chords are just regular chords in the right hand layered over chords in the left. Again something that makes complex chord spelling much quicker and easier to absorb. Finding the pulse of poly rhythms such as New Orleans second line, or 7/4 or 5/4They all have an organic feel that once you catch allows you to not focus on counting it but just feel it. Less is more. Piano and lead guitar can be lots of notes without enough emotion. Listen to horn players and bowed string players. I often approach Hammond organ and Leslie as a wind instrument too. Also if it's rock/folk etc And it seems to hard your probably doing it wrong. The masters in those genres generally had a smooth easy way of playing that while sounding complex is usually pretty simple once you crack it. Piano can be a percussion instrument. You can literally use your fist or a karate chop in rhythm regardless of notes and be effective on piano. As a matter of fact it can be downright inspiring at times. Open string drones on guitar are a big part of the appeal to the instrument. They key to learning the guitar fretboard in standard tuning is the g-b string transition. The hardest thing to do in a band setting is often not to play and leave lots of space. This is mainly for chordal instruments, horn players get it. The tension release effects of the circle of fifths. Wind it backwards a few notches and feel it pull towards home. Hop around as you will, home still feels like home.

  1213. musictheory 2017-03-15 06:27:01 JohnWilkesPhonebooth
    It's all the same instrument so we know what you're talking about but... String bass- wind band lit Contrabass/ double bass- orchestra Upright bass- folk / jazz If you put "the wrong" instrument on the page, we won't hate you.

  1214. musictheory 2017-03-15 10:53:35 glow100
    I could go on along time on this! I'm referring to 1) the minor triad 2) the "major 6th chord" (first inversion minor triad), and 3) the major 7th chord. 1) The minor triad has a long history of interesting mystical and pseudoscientific theories about it. (Ratios as geometric in the Greek sense, or arithmetic string lengths. Then with the harmonic series, it was subharmonic. And this was all before 1900! I had a theory at one point too.) Now I just accept it has an amazing darkness, probably just from it's minor 3rd which our brain is conditioned to, but still find it sort of mysterious sounding. 2) The "major 6th chord" (pure triad form, not the added 6th one used in jazz which still has the 5th in it.) especially in a very open spacing like C2-A2-E3-A3. This chord has the lowest "phonic root", even lower than the triad. (That's the common "upper root" each note has in the various upside down harmonic series they are part of.) I'm pretty sure that's because the major 6th interval (3:5) is even lower in the harmonic series than the major 3rd (5:4). I find it interesting that the chord sounds partly major, and partly minor. The first inversion major triad doesn't lose any of it's majorness, but the first inversion minor triad does. I find that curious. (That probably arises from the fact that the minor triad doesn't match up with the harmonic series as strongly, so the individual intervals come out more than with major chord inversions which are more fused.) But also that it's a beautiful chord in its pure triad form, major 6th is so prominent. And, 3) The major 7th chord...I always get a pleasant response from listeners when I play a very major 7th-y piece (Stravinsky "Andante", the first piece on the clip): https://youtu.be/Z91FdT6QEj4 For awhile I was convinced that it's "serene" sound derived from the fact that, for C-E-B, 5:4 x 3:2 = 15:8. (Not, M3+P5=M7. Frequency being logarithmic, inner intervals don't add up to the outer one, but multiply to get the outer interval: M3 x P5 = M7). The Pythagorean bug got knocked out of me, so I just see it's "mysterious vibration" now as deriving from having so many harmonically strong intervals: C-E-G-B has two major 3rds, and two perfect 5ths, enveloped by the very "buzzy" major 7th interval. For me, the number mysticism of music is still there, but I'm open to other theories too, and not as involved in debates about it.

  1215. musictheory 2017-03-15 11:09:27 richardxmusic
    I think what you're looking for is "tremolo", which literally means to tremble and this effect is used a lot of horror movies. However, there's a lot of different unique sounds that can be achieved on string instruments, some of which can be heard [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvUVjfcgzRY). In the specific example you linked, I feel like the violins are also playing "sul ponticello" while doing tremolos, which means playing with the bow near the bridge. This brings out the higher harmonics and produces a more nasally tone. This can be heard if you go under "More bow colors" in the violin section in this [website](http://www.music.indiana.edu/department/composition/isfee/) - lots of other cool stuff with other instruments that you can listen to and check out as well. Another compositional technique is to use multiple string instruments to create a "tone cluster". This is when notes that are adjacent to each other are all played at once, creating a very dissonant sound. Penderecki uses this in his "[Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima](https://youtu.be/HilGthRhwP8?t=35s)", along with many other unorthodox techniques that he asks of the string players.

  1216. musictheory 2017-03-15 21:02:30 boschkaa
    Bass primary here. Technically String Bass is for wind band literature, contrabass and doublebass are orchestral terms, and upright bass is more jazz or pop or folk or bluegrass or anything else, but we really don't care that much. I personally prefer Kontrabass because it looks cool.

  1217. musictheory 2017-03-15 23:48:26 Bromskloss
    > String bass- wind band lit Contrabass/ double bass- orchestra Upright bass- folk / jazz Clarification: > String bass- wind band lit Contrabass/ double bass- orchestra Upright bass- folk / jazz

  1218. musictheory 2017-03-16 04:01:49 Cymbalism15
    > Learn as much theory as you can along the way, but don't be a slave to it too much. You'll have a ridiculously long way to go from a sheet technique standpoint starting out and for a very long time. Yeah... I really hate myself for not starting this when I started drumming at 14 and had all the time in the world... I'm trying to rationalize learning these instruments/theory as a way to better understand the music I love, because I'll probably never make great music starting this late and I don't want to get frustrated and quit. > As a person who has taken up tons of instruments, I've learned that it's much better to be slow and correct and work my fundamentals out of the gate rather than trying to patch up bad habits later because I wanted to get straight to the action. Do new instruments get easier the more you know? How does your approach change on the later instruments? Also, how do you determine which fundamentals are important to master before moving on? > I'm also going to recommend you drop any dream of picking up a brass instrument. Fine by me! I'd like to learn to write for them but I'm totally fine not being able to play them and you make a great argument against it. I love sax, but *playing* wind and string instruments is my last priority, I just want to understand how they are played. > You'll definitely need to pick up some serious strategies for effective and efficient practice. I find that people are terrible at that (including accomplished musicians sometimes). Yeah... I hate practicing basics (which is partly why I never learned to read music and am currently in this situation) but I know there is no way around it. Any tips here?

  1219. musictheory 2017-03-16 12:57:23 glow100
    It's often composed / scored in 'choirs' (strings, winds, brass), so you can usually get the gist of the piece from the string section alone if you're skimming it or sight reading it (and thankfully with no transposing parts! though need to know alto and tenor clef.) For confirmation of harmony, check out what the bassoon or low brass is doing (but no bass clarinet! transposing...). And similar short cuts. It's a must that you learn tenor and alto clef, and know the transposing instruments. You can ignore the transposing parts if you're skimming it / sight reading it, and come back to those on the second reading....or you learn to read this on sight too! Anything is possible if you practice it. A great Orchestration book is Thinking For Orchestra which points out that orchestration often does what we take for granted on the piano: doubling of melodies, and sustained notes. A very simple early orchestration I studied a lot is Mozart symphony 29

  1220. musictheory 2017-03-16 16:40:54 Yeargdribble
    I'm a pretty big fan of the [Alfred books](https://www.amazon.com/Adult-All-One-Course-Lesson-Theory-Technic/dp/0882848186) for piano. Hal Leonard has a good[ staring guitar method](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0634047019/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER) as well as several books on various styles. Most of the style books are intermediate to advanced though. Piano is a thing where Youtube can be helpful once you're already pretty established by looking for tutorials on stylistic stuff (Hal Leonard also has style books for keys that I love, but are not even remotely for beginners). Stay away from Synthesia style "tutorials." This Guitar Hero approach seems much easier to those who don't read well, but virtually none of the skills transfer to anything and they really don't help you learn what you're doing. With guitar, if you're not starting with electric, you might want to make sure you're using fairly light strings on an acoustic. There are some schools of thought that if you learn to man up on acoustic, electric will be easy, and it's true, but honestly, you'll probably just get frustrate if you're using a high action or heavy string acoustic when you run into barre chords. Learning shapes on a lighter or electric guitar and then figuring out the small adjustments needed to fret them on an acoustic/heavier guitar later will keep you from being needlessly hampered in the learning process. Barre chords can be a big roadblock for a lot of beginner guitarists and it doesn't help that many books start with things like F and Bm which are close to the nut. In one sense it makes sense since they are near all of the other open chords you're learn as a beginner, but on the flip side, F is probably the most difficult basic barre chord period. These are moveable shapes. If you can't get it to fret on the first fret (F) then practice somewhere easier like the 5th fret (A) and slowly work your way down toward the nut.

  1221. musictheory 2017-03-16 21:54:31 Jongtr
    That's what's known as "planing", or harmonic "parallelism". Nothing to do with keys at all, as those chords don't share a scale*, and there is no obvious key chord (none of them really sound like a tonal centre, IMO). \*That is, pairs of those chords do share scales - Am7 & Gm7 = F major Cm7 & Gm7 = Bb major or Eb major Cm7 and Bbm7 = Ab major \- but that's more than two keys, and there is no "modulation" in any case. (But there are chromatic mediant relationships between Am7 and Cm7, and between Gm7 and Bbm7. IOW various logical connections between all the chords, but not the kind of connections normally displayed in conventional key progressions.) It would be possible to voice those chords differently to give (or rather reveal) some voice-leading between them, which might help them sound connected: Am7: 5-x-5-5-5-x Cm7: 3-x-5-3-4-x Gm7: 3-x-3-3-3-x Bbm7: 1-x-3-1-2-x Am7: 0-x-2-0-1-x See how that introduces chromatic descent on the 2nd string, and shared tones and stepwise moves on the others. You don't have to prefer this, but if you prefer your "planing" moves (moving the same voicing up and down) that suggests you're working instinctively outside of the normal key system. Another option (mixing descending with rising moves) would be: Am7: x-x-5-5-5-5 Cm7: x-x-5-5-4-6 Gm7: x-x-5-7-6-6 Bbm7: x-x-6-6-6-6 Am7: x-x-5-5-5-5 Another possibility is that what you've found is reminding you of some other kinds of chord changes you've heard which are not quite the same as this.

  1222. musictheory 2017-03-18 15:57:37 connectmydots
    sorry ya i mean E/B chord. i dont know theory but i know the notes on the fretboard. see this is the part that confuses me... you say its an E major chord. so the 7th fret fretted on A string is an E note. so if i move up one fret to the 8th, does that mean its an F chord with C in the bass, because on the low E string 8th fret that's a C note? the circle of fifths has helped me write basic songs with open chords but went I start placing my fingers where ever and it sounds good im lost. if im doing this E/B chord first, does that mean im in the key of E? is it the first chord of the song that determines the key? oh yeah and this is the other part that throws me completely off. I know 2nd fret G flat barre chord. now if I take away my middle finger on third fret and then barre D G B strings on 4th fret, how do I know what chord this is? i havent moved my index finger at all.

  1223. musictheory 2017-03-18 16:45:01 JoeyWesterlund
    Are you hitting the A string on the 4th fret as well? If so it's going to be a Gbsus chord. You're removing the 3rd from the chord with the 4th so it's a suspended chord meaning it's not major or minor. Typically the lowest note of the chord dictates which chord it is until you get into inversions. If you're just doing barre chords though then it's probably safe to assume the lowest note is the root of your chord.

  1224. musictheory 2017-03-18 16:52:25 JoeyWesterlund
    So the same shape you did with the E/B. That would be a B/F# chord. With that shape the root will always be whatever note you're playing on the A string.

  1225. musictheory 2017-03-18 22:52:03 Jongtr
    > if i move up one fret to the 8th, does that mean its an F chord with C in the bass, because on the low E string 8th fret that's a C note? Yes. > is it the first chord of the song that determines the key? Not necessarily. Usually in rock and pop it is, but it doesn't have to be. The key is the chord that *sounds* like the key, which is usually governed by a series of chords, making one of them sound like the "home" chord, that you feel it wants to return to and settle on. Naturally, the chord you start on will kind of prime your ear to accept that as *most likely* key chord, but it's still up to you what you do next. > I know 2nd fret G flat barre chord. now if I take away my middle finger on third fret and then barre D G B strings on 4th fret, how do I know what chord this is? Assuming your index is on 5th string 2nd fret (2-2-4-4-4-2), you now have the same chord shape as your E/B on frets 7-9. That means the root is the 5th string note. Do you know what note fret 2 on 5th string is? (You should... ;-))

  1226. musictheory 2017-03-18 22:56:20 Jongtr
    > this is like a B chord shape right? Right. B/F#, if you still barre the 6th. NB: the 6th string note is called F# and not Gb in this case, because of the rule about one-of-each-note in a scale, and also the chord structure of root-3rd-5th. The 5th note (letter) up from B is F, so the required "perfect 5th" is B-F#. B-Gb is a "diminished 6th" - you don't have to know that! It's just handy sometimes to know when to use the right "enharmonic" (sharp-or-flat) name.)

  1227. musictheory 2017-03-19 04:01:51 connectmydots
    Yeah it's the same shape as the one in my first question. So it's a B barre chord because the B note is 2nd fret 5th string. It's just the top string that throws me off. So the low E / 6th is always the "bass" note. So I should know my root is always one note lower?

  1228. musictheory 2017-03-19 04:05:15 connectmydots
    right so it's a B barre chord. The root is ALWAYS on the A string if I am barring the 6th string? No exception to that rule?

  1229. musictheory 2017-03-19 07:33:52 Jongtr
    The root of that shape is 5th string, whether you include the 6th string note or not. The difference is, if the 6th string bass note is included, that makes it's what's known as an inversion": the root is not the lowest note. That's when we use the slash chord notation. So "B" means the shape x-2-4-4-4-x (or 7-9-9-8-x-x, which is the exact same notes). That's called "root position", because the B root is the lowest note. (The notes are B-F#-B-D# from bass upwards.) The shape 2-2-4-4-4-x means F# is the bass note (F#-B-F#-B-D#), so we call it "B/F#" ("B over F#"). The technical term - which you don't need to know! - is "2nd inversion", which means the 5th of the chord is in the bass.

  1230. musictheory 2017-03-19 07:38:43 Jongtr
    That note can be called F# or Gb, and the shape 2-4-4-3-2-2 can be called F# or Gb (short for F# major and Gb major). The shape 2-2-4-4-4-(2) can be called B/F# or Cb/Gb. If we call the chord B, then the 6th string note is F#. If we call the chord Cb, then the 6th string note is Gb. That's where the 3rd-5th stuff comes in. Chords are built from a root (1st) and the 3rd and 5th notes up the scale from there. Start from B, and the 3rd is some kind of D, and the 5th is some kind of F. In the case of B major, it has to be D# and F#. Start from C, and the 3rd is some kind of E, and the 5th is some kind of G. C major is simply C-E-G, while Cb would be Cb-Eb-Gb - sounds exactly the same as B major, but the consistent spelling is important.

  1231. musictheory 2017-03-19 15:03:37 Stokrates
    It's not about the "starting note", but about which note is the tonic. A scale is defined by the relationship of it's tonic with it's other notes. Modes of a scale are the different scales that you can build using the same set of notes, nothing more. They are *distinct scales*. If your tune is in Fmin, playing a string of notes starting on C does not make it in C, it's still in F, just like starting on Ab does not make it Ab major, because the context is that we are in F. If you modulate to C, and keep the same notes, then you can talk about C phrygian. Understanding that each of the modes can be built from a major scale is important, but in practice I think you should just see them as separate scales.

  1232. musictheory 2017-03-20 15:54:31 reedly
    Trying to help out with bar chords and their "root" notes. An easy way to think of these is to split them into 6th string bar chords and 5th string bar chords. They look similar, but have very important differences. **6th string bar chords**....the root will always be on the 6th string. They look like this... GMajor: 3-5-5-4-3-3 ---- (As you know...the 3rd fret on the 6th string is G, which is our root note.) Gminor: 3-5-5-3-3-3 --- (Root is still G, but when you remove your middle finger on the 3rd string...the chord becomes minor instead of major) No matter where you move this chord shape to, starting on the 6th string...The root will be the lowest note you play, and the chord will be based on whatever that root note is...major or minor. **5th string bar chords**, which is like the one you've asked about on the 7th fret. For true 5th string bar chords, in their simplest or most true sense...the root note will be on the 5th string, following a similar formation to 6th string bar chords...here's how they look: CMajor: x-3-5-5-5-3 ( The 6th string is NOT played in the most basic form of 5th string bar chords...therefore, this is a C major, based on the 3rd fret on the 6th string. Cminor: x-3-5-5-4-3 ( This is your Cminor, where the 2nd string made the only change in the chord, leaving your root at C.) For the chord you asked about -- you had your first finger extending down to the 6th string...but you were playing the "5th string bar chord"..."E", and adding another "unnecessary" note on the 6th string. (As others have mentioned -- yes that note could be added for extra affect, because it's a duplicate of another note that is in the chord...but it changes your chord to an inversion because you're changing the base note.) I've attached a chord sheet I made up specifically for bar chords and their roots...check it out, and please let me know if you have any questions. The x's and o's on typical chord sheets are very important for learning root notes...and your question is exactly where that info comes in handy!! Great question. Bar Chords Chart: http://imgur.com/a/UAhQ1

  1233. musictheory 2017-03-21 13:03:38 InterZu
    My practice regiment is pretty lackluster. I've had the instrument since this past summer, started playing in September. Would skip practicing for weeks at a time, recently got pretty serious with trying to educate myself. Currently practice playing everyday. It's not very structured. I play notes that sound good together, and in some free time, I watch videos on learning music theory. What will make a big difference in your practice is learning what the modes are supposed to sound like. Also, it's way easier to learn what a mode sounds like if you practice on one string first. It's easy to learn how to finger a scale, and it's easy to learn the interval between each note in that scale (i.e. Ionian W-W-h-W-W-W-h), but that teaches you to memorize a pattern, not memorize a sound. The whole goal is to train your ear to hear that pattern, and playing on one string lets you focus strictly on the sounds you are hearing and the size of intervals that you have to play. Try going up and down one string until you can play a major scale starting from any given note. Do the same thing with the minor scale, and so on. Also, as Victor Wooten said "Never lose the groove to find the note!" edit: Also also, it does feel pretty automatic now. Music is a language for expressing emotions and feelings. Channel your energy into getting into the groove and the notes just come naturally. I doubt that many musicians make music in any other way.

  1234. musictheory 2017-03-21 19:41:37 Xenoceratops
    Indian culture traditionally divides the day into 8 *prahar*, and there are certain ragas that fit into each prahara. [Bageshri](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9plxQW71ic) is a nighttime raga. [Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCi2u265wxQ) is a classic, but I'm not sure that it really has anything to do with night. (Nor does it really have to. If it sounds like nighttime to you, so be it.) [Bartók's night music](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m129k5YcQnU&t=14m34s) is more stylistically consistent and is meant to evoke the sounds of nature at night. Chirping crickets, etc. Overall, I would say his focus is on texture and timbre rather than harmony. [From the 4th string quartet.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTnbrLXEGjI&t=9m8s) Penderecki's [The Dream of Jakob](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sifwa_-GYTw) starts with what I cannot help but to hear as snoring. Sleeping, dreaming, snoring, that's nighttime stuff, right? But, you know, this stuff all sounds different from Daft Punk's [Get Lucky](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NV6Rdv1a3I), which has 1.27x10^3^3^3 instances of the word "night" in the lyrics.

  1235. musictheory 2017-03-21 21:22:30 mrclay
    If you muted the open D string, you would certainly have F#m, but that D establishes two strong P4 (A-D) and P5 (D-A) intervals, making the whole bottom of the chord 1st inversion D major. Another thing I like to think about is what I'd put in an "easy guitar" book, D or F#m. Play the tune with those choices and see which retains the character the most.

  1236. musictheory 2017-03-23 12:17:04 LukeSniper
    Melody: the most basic component of a song. A song, if nothing else, is just a melody. A tune. A sequence of single notes, to rhythm. Think about simple tunes you know... Happy Birthday, Mary Had A Little Lamb, Twinkle Twinkle Little Star... those are just melodies with words. Here are a couple simple melodies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrnhg-VSKSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Hw5adoiHE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUrm1n6fpEM Now, beyond the melody, you have the "accompaniment". That's all the rest of the stuff besides the melody. It could be chords played on the piano, strummed on the guitar, or something more complicated. Here's a song with some basic accompaniment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-ctKT_D8yw He just sings and plays some chords. Just about as simple as it gets. A "riff" is a particular accompaniment part. You're not just playing chords or whatever. You've got something very specific that you've got to play. It's usually a short thing (usually a bar or two) that you just repeat over and over. Here's a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEGJeHiunwI The bass and guitars aren't just playing some chords with whatever rhythm. They've got a very specific part to play and they just repeat it throughout the verse. A "lick" is just a short little ditty that you can throw in wherever. It just sort of punctuates things. For example, this song, 22 seconds in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RxBHRZpIdg That short little guitar thing after the vocal would be a lick. This song is full of them. Setzer plays a little something after nearly every single vocal line. Many players will use the same licks in a variety of situations. You could also string a bunch together to make a solo. Speaking of solos, skip ahead in that song to 1:18. You've got a fairly lengthy section where the guitar gets the focus. That's a solo. The vocals take a backseat and the guitar gets to do something really cool. Solos are often improvised, but many folks prefer to compose a specific solo that they play the same way every time. Here's another example of a solo (but this time it's a flute solo!) 2:48 in for the radness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MYthUR_6Ss Of course, none of this really means jack in the grand scheme of things. What you call something doesn't change it, and "properly" labeling them isn't going to help you understand the song much better. I think you're worrying it about it too much. If you just start learning music, you'll catch on as to how people use these terms and what they *generally* refer to.

  1237. musictheory 2017-03-24 16:52:23 Jongtr
    In examples based on guitars (if no keyboards were used) it's possible they just tuned the guitars by ear - to themselves rather than a concert instrument. No tuners in those days! Jimi Hendrix began the tradition of tuning down by half-step (approximately) in order to get bigger string bends. It didn't really matter if he wasn't exactly a semitone down: why would it? The other - perhaps more likely - possibility is that the tape was sped up or slowed down for some reason. (The famous story about the Beatles' Strawberry Fields Forever is that it was spliced together from two takes, one in A and one in Bb, and the tape was manipulated to make them meet in the middle, by speeding one up and slowing the other - luckily the tempos matched when they did that, because there was then no way of maintaining tempo while changing pitch, or vice versa.)

  1238. musictheory 2017-03-25 23:27:57 clarkcox3
    It depends, and can change (even over the course of a single piece). When playing a string instrument, you have a lot of freedom to adjust your pitch depending on what you hear around you; in many cases, the adjustment is automatic and unconscious.

  1239. musictheory 2017-03-26 03:46:09 pouffywall
    Personal anecdote, I feel my guitar sounds best on the treble strings, specifically the B string. Standard tuning for the guitar is EADGBE. Given those two things, and the comfortable range of playing on certain strings, some keys are more desirable to write in. G for example is very suitable for the guitar. I'm sure it's a similar situation for other instruments, (e.g. C Major/A Minor for the piano). There might also be some tradition/history involved in the perpetuation of that practice. Composers used to utilize temperaments based on a non-equal arrangement of notes, so different keys would actually have entirely differently sized significant intervals. Sometimes a major third would be mistuned super sharp, sometimes fifths would be way too flat, etc. Many of these tunings were called meantone, and they could give a totally different sound to each key that would affect the music itself. The practice of writing in various keys could have just survived past the death of meantone tunings. Also, composers have been known to select keys to make references/pay homage to pieces that were written in a time when meantone tunings were used, where the key might have actually made, for example, Eroica sound more heroic or whatever.

  1240. musictheory 2017-03-26 11:48:05 ljse7m
    Interesting. I recently responded to a thread where one poster was convinced that he never met a person with perfect pitch that did not have good relative pitch as well. I responded that they are not connected and an untrained person with perfect pitch would not have an innate advantage on how to use the ability to name tones that they heard. And here you are! Its difficult to give you a specific answer without knowing more about what you can do and what you can't do with this "gift" or possibly "curse" when it comes to music. Let me explain a bit. There are two basic "perfect" types of hearing that are relative to how we hear notes. If you are totally untrained, some of this may not make sense to you but I will try anyway and will certainly explain in other non technical language if it is to technical for you at this time. From the common perception of perfect pitch you would have the ability to hear any note and name it. That by itself, without any training is merely a "parlor trick" and is of little use if you have not training. A modern electronic tuner can do the same thing but can't compose or write or perform music. That is ONLY if you do not train yourself in music! With training, it can be a big help. The other way to listen is commonly called "relative pitch" and this is learned to the level of being "perfect" allows the listener to understand how the notes relate to each other and how to use the notes to create music. If you are familiar with "solfege", the Do a Deer a female dear, Re a drop of golden sun! etc, This is a tool for relative pitch. When someone with good relative pitch hears a major scale, they hear Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti DO. If you ONLY have perfect pitch your only hear C D E F G A B C if the major scale is on the white notes or the proper names of all the notes when played in succession in any key. Without training you would have not idea of the notes you heard being a scale or just notes that just get higher one after another. We use Movable DO in the US and they use Fixed DO in europe. The fixed do is like perfect pitch. It tells you the names of the notes. Movable Do changes the DO syllable to be the first note of the scale and then all the other notes are heard by how they function in a major scale. this is very helpful for playing or singing in all the keys and also has the advantage of hearing the Names of the notes if you Tune up your ear to know the name of your starting note. With perfect pitch, you need to know what a major scale is before you can assign function to it. that can be a problem. Before i ramble too much, I will say that you may want to start out by learning what you can do and what you can't do with your "gift". You may know more than you think you know. If I discovered or acquired this gift, with my training, it would be useful to an extent but it would only really make a difference if I was doing literal transcriptions of music off a recording or live performance if I have good Pitch Memory! Other than that, I can with relative pitch get my starting note by playing any reference note on the piano and hearing how it fits into what I would be hearing with relative pitch. Before starting on an instrument I would try to see what you already know. I would suggest that you start with ear training to learn how to put the notes you hear and can name into a context! Yes, I would learn how to sight sing with solfege so that you can start to learn music theory starting with melody. Then when you get a handle on what you can and can't do, it will be easier to select a path that will allow you to make best use of your talents. Other than that, you should study what ever instrument you like the best as that is the one you will do best in, but be careful. If you have what some call True Perfect Pitch, you may not be able to stand your playing out of tune and then your "gift" would be a "curse". I had a teacher with "perfect pitch" but she could not pay in the orchestra because her fingers did not want to go to the right places and she could not stand to here her and the other member's "out of tune" playing in the string section. If you want, I could "interview" you and ask you some questions to help you discover what the extent you can hear different musical things. I prefer to do this through Private Messages as years of being a teacher makes me reluctant to share a student's personal data with the whole world watching but I would do it in public if you are open enough to answer rather personal questions about music on a public forum and not be embarrassed to give totally truthful answers. Upon your request, I will be happy to interview you on either stage but I would like to at least start with a P.M. so you can get an idea of what I will be asking. ALso on reddit, there is likely to be a lot of "noise" with opinions flying and diversions going on all over the place. Just tell me if you want to pursue this and how you want to do it and I wil follow up with helping you do get a musical perspective of what you are getting into. If you chose the proper path, you have a great gift. If you happen to chose a wrong path you could become very frustrated as you try to learn possibly the wrong instrument! I don't think you can do any harm if you try to develop your ear using your voice as you are not limited by the instrument as to how you play the pitches. The piano is fixed. The guitar is somewhat fixed. The winds are fixed but rather out of tune until youlearn to control them with the various imperfections of the tone producing chambers. The orchestral strings are VERY pitch sensitive. SO you choice should be better if you understand a bit of what you can do and especially what you can't do. If you are like my teacher I mentioned, you certainly should not start with the violin etc as you would probably think you were "tone deft" by the wrong notes you play by being out of tune! That would not be helpful. The piano may be better but you may then be hindered as the fixed pitch notes you hear are in 12 tone equal temprament which is not the way ALL music is played. I really thin that the voice is a good place to start as you are connecting your voice to the theory and your voice is inside your body so when you learn to hear funtion you should not be hindered by perfect pitch as you are learning how to hear the natural sounds of the function of the tones which will hopefully help you to expand your listening to both naming the notes AND hearing and feeling the tones as to how they function in a musical context. If you can ONLY name the pitches, it will not help you to learn music by playing and may hurt your playing in the long run. If you can hear both perfect and relative pitch, then you have a GREAT GIFT as you will learn how to use your perfect aspect of your pitch in a musical context. Good luck and I really think I can help you get started. LJSe7m

  1241. musictheory 2017-03-26 12:14:05 SinisterMinisterX
    On instruments where pitch is fixed like piano or fretted string instruments, yes: the intervals between half-steps are all the same, so all the keys work that way. On instruments with variable pitch like non-fretted strings, the notes can be slightly different. "Just at a different pitch" is a noteworthy difference. Transposition is like wearing the same clothes, but all in different colors. You might ask, "Isn't a black t-shirt the exact same thing as a red, blue or green t-shirt?". Functionally, yes ... but some days you want to wear green, not black.

  1242. musictheory 2017-03-26 13:36:17 Pelusteriano
    Emotional perception of chord progressions has more to do with the listening subject, tempo, and instrumentation rather than the chord progression itself. For example, blues uses the I - IV - V progression all the time and it manages to sound sad, while at the same time pop uses that very same chord progression and it sounds happy and upbeat. A chord progression played at 60 bpm with a string ensemble featuring a chinese violin would we perceived different than that same chord progression played at 120 bpm with an ukulele. As a very simple guideline, minor chords have a more sad feel than major chords. If you have more minor chords in your progression, you have more room to make it sound sad. Considering keys are equivalent between themselves, you can take any song you consider to sound sad (independent from the lyrics and vocal melody) and transpose it to A minor key.

  1243. musictheory 2017-03-26 13:58:07 Pelusteriano
    [From the FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/wiki/faq/core/keys): > Different keys feel different under the fingers of performers, which changes how easy or difficult some passages are to play. A key may also be chosen because it fits the range of the instrument or voice a composer is writing for. Keys may also sound different depending on the physical properties of the instruments involved (e.g., a piece in C lets you have a low open string on the cello be a tonic note). Another good reason is simply for the sake of variety. Some keys also have intertextual associations, i.e., a certain kind of music might be associated with a certain key. Similarly, composers might have individual and personal affective associations for certain keys. However, there is no objective emotional quality associated with any one key. Also, we couldn't use modulation (key change) or chromatism if we only had one key. Check this video by Adam Neely which explains part of the history of the keys, back in the day, [they actually sounded different](https://youtu.be/6c_LeIXrzAk)!

  1244. musictheory 2017-03-27 02:50:09 Jongtr
    The way I like to see scale structure is that it doesn't come from dividing the octave (into 12, 7, 6 whatever). It comes from dividing a musical device, such as a stretched string or pipe. The octave is the first division: 1/2. Divide the string into the next simplest fractions (2/3, 3/4) and you end up with the perfect 5th and perfect 4th. Those two notes divide the octave into *approximately* 5/12, 2/12, and 5/12. So you get an irregular 5-2-5 arrangement to start with. The reason that works is that those perfect intervals *sound good*. The whole point with constructing scales is to find stuff that sounds good! Simple ratios do that, for reasons connected with the harmonic series (the fact that any vibrating string contains partial vibrations that are fractions of the whole). The decision then is how to divide up those two 5/12 spaces. It makes sense to take that 2/12 space in the middle and call that a basic unit. You can then divide each of the 5/12 spaces into two and a half of those units. The most popular modes in use in western music use various permutations of that basic structure: keeping the 4th and and 5th fixed, while varying the positions of the 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th. Just two modes alter either the 4th or 5th; the one that alters the 4th (Lydian) was common in the middle ages, but is rare today; the one that alters the 5th (Locrian) was almost never used for music, and same applies today. The reason is that the perfect 5th (2/3 of the string length) strongly supports the acoustic "root" nature of the main keynote (full string length). That's again due to the harmonic series. The "major scale" was a relatively recent development in western music. It's only existed for a few centuries. Same with the minor scale. For around 1000 years before that, four other modes ruled European music: Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian. The note "A" was not so-called because it was the root of any of those modes. It was simply the *lowest* note of the range then in use. (Roughly equivalent to the A an octave and a 3rd below middle C, the 5th string of guitar.) That makes sense if you think of the music being based on voices, so that low note is a good comfortable low limit for most men. "What's the lowest note that all you guys can sing? OK let's call that "A"." The keynote ("final") of the lowest mode then in use was D, a 4th above, but it was obviously useful if melodies could descend below the keynote. Later, an additional low G was added, known by the Greek letter gamma. The invention of the "major scale" (Ionian mode) was then still a few centuries in the future.

  1245. musictheory 2017-03-28 03:24:44 cesarpim
    True, the "whatever the string instrument", as better explained in the app's description, refers to commonly fretted chordophones, with frets defining 1 semitone intervals, using the most predominant western 12-TET system (with 12 notes in each octave). But writing all this in my post would be a little bit too heavy and would just confuse most readers i think.. And yes, there are many apps for many instruments out there. I believe the interesting points about this one are: 1) it's not for a few specific instruments and tunings, it's universal (within the types of instruments explained above) 2) it does not use any database, it *generates* the chords on the fly 3) it doesn't just show the most commonly used fingerings, it generates lots of them but carefully uses "human-like preferences" to present the easiest/best-sounding ones first.

  1246. musictheory 2017-03-28 05:31:54 Hansderfiedler
    True as that may be, we do use the 7th harmonic in vocal music, and we use it in string music. Furthermore, it is undeniable that the 4/5/6/7 ratios capture the essence of the true dominant7 sound more purely than does 36/45/54/64.

  1247. musictheory 2017-03-29 03:31:16 cantillate
    Just (following my curiosity) came across another [piece of software](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_artificial_intelligence#REAPER.27s_TabEditor) that does something similar. May be an idea to have your app listed on the same Wikipedia'Music and Aritificial Intelligence' reference page. :-) "REAPER's TabEditor[edit] MIDI to string instrument (guitar, violin, dombra, etc.) tablature conversion is a nontrivial task, as the same note can reside on different strings of the instrument. And the creation of good fingering is sometimes a challenge even for real musicians, especially when translating a two handed piano composition on a string instrument. So in TabEditor[21] (the tiny plugin for REAPER DAW), an AI was used that solves this puzzle the same way as a musician would: trying to keep all the notes close to each other (to be possible to play) while trying to fit all the piano notes into a range that can be played simultaneously on the instrument. When direct translation is impossible (piano part has more notes than are possible on the guitar) the AI tries to find an acceptable solution, removing as few notes as possible from the original composition. The Prolog programming language was used to create this AI".

  1248. musictheory 2017-03-30 08:05:37 RyanT87
    Petrus' *Compendium* is a fascinating treatise. I think it occupies an interesting historical position; I understand it as half *Klangschritt-lehre* treatise and half *Contrapunctus* treatise in all but name. The relationship to discant is difficult because "discant" is one of those historically slippery terms taking on many different meanings in various periods. I don't know enough to offer a definitive answer at this point (this is one of my 'things-to-do' in my dissertation), but so far I've taken the term "discant" itself with a grain of salt and tried to understand what's implied behind the term. In both Petrus' *Compendium* and the "Cum notum sit"/"De diminutione contrapuncti" treatises, "simplex discantus"/"contrapunctus" forms the underlying structure of "discantus mensurabilis floribus adornato"/"discantus" (respectively). The way I understand Rob's argument is that Petrus uses all of the similes to demonstrate that even though this piece is a complex adorned surface (too complex for the Pope), it is simply a decorated version of this underlying note-against-note structure, which does conform to his restriction. "The justification, for Petrus, is that you're still, in a way, singing *simplex discantus*, except that it has been made even prettier than it already was" (2014, 39). The point, then, I argue, is not that *contrapunctus* is related to a particular style (although I'm not denying the possibility; I'm simply saying that's not the main point here), but rather that this demonstrates in part a significant conceptual shift occurring especially in the early 14th century in which florid surfaces are thought of as elaborations of an underlying structure. (I talked about these very points in my recent SMT paper and analyzed examples from Petrus' treatise and "De diminutione contrapuncti" to demonstrate this idea.) I think this has relationships to several other disciplines, including architecture, grammar treatises, and scholastic philosophy, but I think it notably has a strong relationship to the conceptual shift in rhythmic theories of the time from additive to divisional conceptions of time. In 13th-c. treatises, especially Franco of Cologne's, the *tempus* is an abstract beat equivalent to the breve and you can make longs worth two or three of these, but then you string together these breves and longs and arrange them according to the rhythmic modes. In the mensural system, though, the *tempus* as the breve is divided into smaller rhythmic values, so the *tempus* is not so much an abstract beat but more so like a measure (almost like the *Takt* in the eighteenth century), which can be divided into smaller rhythmic values. Similarly, the abstract *contrapunctus* note (which often corresponds to the breve) can be divided up into more notes of smaller rhythmic values. I'm rambling, so I'm gonna cut it off here. This is my dissertation topic in a nutshell, so obviously I have a lot of ideas floating around in my head!

  1249. musictheory 2017-03-31 01:45:42 cob50nm
    Thats an interesting point about if its a 6 or 3 + 3, which I hadn't considered. I'm not sure what the stuff I'm working on is, its 3 note per string stuff on guitar, so presumably it could be either depending on the context?

  1250. musictheory 2017-03-31 17:41:59 Jongtr
    AFAIK, Pythagoras himself did not establish any such precise figures. He established the principle of ratio (factors of 2 and 3), but it was later theorists who built it into a tuning principle for 7-note scales. (The Ancient Greek system only fixed 4ths and 5ths mathematically, not all the other notes.) There is nothing special about 432, except the preservation of whole numbers when calculating other notes. To attach importance to it as a *frequency* is therefore "numerological bullshit" as xiipaoc succinctly puts it. :-). (A vibrating string - or rather our perception of it - only "cares" about ratios, not whole numbers. IOW, it's the ratios that are better as simple numbers, while the actual frequency figures are irrelevant.) "Tempering" a scale is about re-tuning a scale - destroying the pure ratios by shifting notes this way or that (by tiny amounts) - in order to make a scale that is usable in different keys without retuning. That's because a scale tuned according to simple ratios (Pythagorean or 5-limit) is only perfectly in tune in one key. Luckily - for most of us - our ears have a tolerance for intonation that is within a certain threshold either side of pure ratios, or tempered scales would simply be intolerable. (Obviously some people have more sensitive ears than others, and will prefer "just intonation" to any tempered alternative.)

  1251. musictheory 2017-04-01 05:25:51 duncanus
    Everyone pretty much has this covered, but you're talking about guitar, correct? As in [this chord?](http://www.play-acoustic-guitar.com/images/C7-Basic-Guitar-Chord-Charts.png) This voicing has two roots, which can be considered redundant depending on what you're going for. If you like you can play the G on the lowest string on the 3rd fret with your ring finger, instead of the root note. Like u/ljse7m said, the most important tones here are the 3rd and 7th (E and Bb) i.e. you can imply a C7 with only those two notes.

  1252. musictheory 2017-04-02 01:15:27 qhs3711
    Yeah this progression actually is derived from Neoclassicism. You see, in the early to late centuries, the violin was growing increasingly discontent with its rather harmono-melodic dichotomy, and composers sought to alleviate this, because if you've ever met a violin you know how annoying they are. Ludwig can Beethoven (an otherwise unremarkable blind composer who mostly did jingles for Sunday morning television) came up with a rather staggering new chroma-temporal revelation for the role of strings. He proposed that, rather than leaving the fiddle's lowest string unused, as was custom for the time in favor of the more screechy cat-summoning upper strings, that you actually play it. This practice became colloquially known as "screwin' wit' da' G-string, yo." Massive social uproar resulted within the musicology community, which at the time (and to this day) consisted of ten or twelve unemployed, smelly, but otherwise good-intentioned outcasts. Never matter, after a few years it was clear that a directly indirect result of this breakthrough was a widespread fluctuation in the aural vocabulary of observational Neoclassicism - no longer was the bass figured, but rather the figures were the bass, so to speak. So we began to see far more composers use the eighth rest as a tool for expression, rather than simple notation of pitches, for one. This is perhaps best seen in the work of Johan Christian Bach, a prolific late Romantic composer and more moderate brother to the infamous man who nearly ruined all music, J.S. Bach. Fuck that guy. Sorry. Anyway my man J.C. could spit, I'll tell you. I don't know how keys work, but I ripped these chords off Ultimate Guitar and they sound legit. Cbb7 Adomdim4 Bb#8addsus b1-2 and then the riff is like E-------10----------------- A---------------5----------- D-----------------------0--- G--------------------------- E----0---------------------- B-------------------4^------ edit: formatting! I see that as an bI2 IIV64 IIX^2 progression with typical suspension chains, though if we take a more contemporary jazz harmonic approach as I'd argue is warranted, I'd analyze that as "it don't matter, it's jaaazzzz, man." In conclusion, I think Serge Rachmanikov said it best: "Ask not what your Neapolitan 6 chord can do for you, ask what you can do for your Neapolitan 6th chord." ;) Qhs3711

  1253. musictheory 2017-04-02 13:42:21 neutronbob
    Lost in this thread is that A# and Bb are only enharmonic on some instruments. On all string instruments, those are different notes. They sound differently and are played with different fingerings. You need to view them both conceptually and actually as distinct notes.

  1254. musictheory 2017-04-02 19:49:07 TS_Drummer
    As long as you know the relationship between the sixth string (D) and the rest of the chord, you shouldn't have an issue with the transcription. What song, and what sounds wrong to you if I may ask?

  1255. musictheory 2017-04-02 20:25:15 TRexRoboParty
    If your goal is composing, I'd say focus on developing your ear. If the notes sound wrong, try some other notes until they sound right. Being able to hear all the intervals and common chord qualities (major, minor, dominant, diminished, augmented) is a huge part of being a musician. Figuring out songs by ear is one of the best ways to improve overall musicianship. Have confidence in your ear: your ear is telling you it sounds wrong, so something is probably off with your reasoning about other things. Drop D just means any notes on the lowest string will sound a tone lower than with regular tuning. Playing the fifth fret normally produces an A, but with dropped tuning it'll give a G. On the piano, play a G.

  1256. musictheory 2017-04-03 15:46:12 sarcasgnostic
    Honestly, the dividing line between what a melody is and what its harmony is is blurred. The way I choose see it is so: The melody is like the various colours used to give meaning to a picture or painting (analogous to what the cones in our eyes see). They give the music beauty, richness, and emotional depth, but there's little of any inherent structure, or *sureness* to it. Conversely, the harmony is the lines and borders between the colours that we see in a picture (the rods in our eyes). They give a sense of direction, unity, and "oneness" to the music, which melody alone has a hard time doing. At most, melody and harmony may not exist without one another, and and least, they complement one another. Take the finale to Beethoven's Eroica Symphony. He initially presents us with a bare, skeletal harmonic accompaniment, which comes off to us as featureless, even comic, in its lack of depth. But as the piece continues, he introduces melody, counterpoint, changes in rhythm and tempo, modulation, and shows us that the most bare-bones, laughably simple string of notes can become an anthem for humanity. In case you haven't realized, I'm at a party and absolutely smashed right now.

  1257. musictheory 2017-04-05 15:46:52 smk4813
    > I have my bass tuned F# C# F# B E to make it a bit easier for this topic. Can I make a suggestion here as one bass player to another? That tuning is gonna sound like muddy shit even with huge gauge strings. It's gonna sound really dead and floppy. You'd have to slap hard or have a really heavy pick to get a good attack when you've detuned your low B 5 half steps and all the others down by 3 half steps. I'd say go back to standard tuning. If your band favors the keys of F# major or minor, then that's already easy to do on bass. Any key is easy in standard tuning. The only time you'd want the open F# string is when you're playing a riff or drone or whatever that utilizes it. If you really need it, here's a more practical F# tuning: From low to high, B F# B E A The first four strings are tuned up a whole step to F# standard while leaving the low B string alone making the lowest three strings equivalent to a drop B tuning. There. Now you can play (I'm guessing) brutal shit, not have your strings sound like mud AND you get to keep your open F# string. And yes, if your guitarist is playing notes from C major/A minor, then you need to do the same. C D E F G A B You can still play any scale/key in whatever tuning. You just need to learn where those notes are on your neck. With C major, in your current tuning, your lowest C would be on fret 6 of your low F# string and then you'd just need to find where the other scalar notes appear on your fretboard. **E**|-**F**-F#-**G**-G#-**A**-A#-**B** **B**|-**C**-C#-**D**-D#-**E**-**F**-F# F#|-**G**-G#-**A**-A#-**B**-**C**-C# C#|-**D**-D#-**E**-**F**-F#-**G**-G# F#|-**G**-G#-**A**-A#-**B**-**C**-C# Good luck and BASS! like crazy! ;)

  1258. musictheory 2017-04-06 08:47:38 Corolo1
    Im also a self taught musician all the way until I got into Music school. I would say start from the basics. Learn your scales in 2 octaves in one position starting on the low E string then on the A in 2 octaves. From there you can figure out your 1-3-5-7 arpeggios. In the case of C it's C-E-G-B. Then you can learn them starting off the third, then off the fifth and the seventh. A lot of my technique with the 2 hands was from learning songs that were fast and creating exercises that implemented a metronome. A huge thing would be to set goals for yourself like I want to play faster, or I want to be able to play this song at that speed. So on and so forth. With chords, it's important to learn a little about the theory aspect of it because from there you can make build your own voicings. What I mean is you figure out the relationship between your fingers and what the distance of the frets is in relationship to your root note is. For example, taking your middle finger and placing on the third fret of the A string which is a C and your pointer finger on the 2nd fret of the D string which is an E. the relationship is a major third and then taking the chord you know and figuring out those relationships. This will help you be able to know what you're playing and possibly changing it that chord. Now I personally don't know your ability and it would be a lot easier for me to answer your question if you explained your goals a little more in depth. Let me know

  1259. musictheory 2017-04-06 09:27:17 furnavi
    Here's what it sounds like on the viola: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9PSGdSKep5rLTllOVhmVC01UFU/view?usp=drivesdk My "E string" passage was a bit out of tune, sorry about that >.< Also, today I learned that the mic on my phone is terrible! Good luck in your adventures on the violin! It's a long process, but very rewarding. It's even more rewarding if you switch to the viola ;) Edit: posted wrong recording

  1260. musictheory 2017-04-06 13:45:43 dadumk
    I can play cowboy chord pretty well, too. But I like jazz, and jazz chords are hard to play on the guitar. So you can just do what I did - play piano. Now, I can only play a steel string guitar for about 15 minutes before my fingers kill me due to lack of callouses - and boring cowboy chords.

  1261. musictheory 2017-04-09 00:09:28 proggybreaks
    String harmonics, slow tempo in minor that resolves to a major chord, loose tuning and subtle pitch bends

  1262. musictheory 2017-04-10 05:05:34 RickDeyja
    Doesn't sound too far off, and I know I've read that they played in Haydn's string quartet together!

  1263. musictheory 2017-04-10 14:26:07 smk4813
    >You play cowboy chords. You know, G, C, E, D. That's why your frets near the headstock are worn out." "Oh... right. Yeah, I do. Then it's not just about implementing jazz chords. You should also learn the higher voicings of the triads in three and four string shapes. What I did to do this was to look at barre and open chords and cut off the lower portions since so many notes are just repeats and can be redundant. Here's a three string transposable major triad shape taken from the open D major chord (xx0232): xxx010 or xxx232 or xxx787 are all major chords (C, D & G respectively) with the root on the second string. Here's a four string shape taken from the F major chord (xx3211): xx5433 or xx8766 or xx10988 are all major chords (G, Bb & C respectively) with the root on the fourth string. Here's a 3-string minor chord shape taken from the middle of an A minor open chord with the root on the third string: xx221x (Am) or xx665x (C#m) or xx998x (Em) Here's another 3-string shape with the root on the first sting: xxx000 (Em) or xxx333 (Gm) or xxx888 (Cm) Minor 7th chords add another interval in the same spot. xx8888 (Cm7) and minor 6th chords flatten that note xx7888 (Cm6). With maj7 chords, you can go back to the F major shape (xx3211) and flatten the note on the first string (xx3210). This shape means you'll apply a single finger to each string once you start moving it up the neck (xx5432: Gmaj7 or xx8765: Bbmaj7) Dominant 7th chords have a really easy four string shape taken from the top half of a G7 open chord (320001) with the root being on the third string: xx5556 (C7) or xx99910 (E7) or xx2223 (A7) These and other voicings come in real handy when you want to promote a different texture or play a chord in a higher register or when playing with a band and maybe you don't need to take up so much harmonic room playing full open chords. Adding new tools to your repertoire is a great way to increase your creative horizons and versatility as a musician. Good luck.

  1264. musictheory 2017-04-10 16:27:31 xiipaoc
    Get a score! I know that's cheating, but you're just not going to be able to do this because there are just so many different sounds happening at once, and if the orchestra is doing its job, they're blending. Usually, if I'm transcribing a piece like that, I'm actually writing an arrangement, not a straight transcription, so I get to decide how to score what I hear. There's just no way that you'll be able to reproduce Holst's original orchestration, but you can definitely do something similar. It helps to know what instruments are actually available. I've never looked at the scores to The Planets, but I know that at least in his band stuff Holst loves the Eb clarinet. Is that instrument doing stuff? Also, string instruments kind of all sound the same. I know I can't tell a viola apart from a violin, and there are usually two separate violin sections anyway. Did Holst employ saxes in his orchestral music? Singers (I'm pretty sure one of The Planets has singers, but not Mars or Jupiter -- maybe Neptune)? And any inner notes in chords are just not going to be heard, only felt. I'm not saying that you should give up. Never give up! Trust your instincts! But you should also be realistic about what's actually possible. You should realize that you won't get it exactly the same as what ol' Gustav did, and you should be OK with that. And you should *definitely* get a score if you're interested in the piece so that you can see what you missed.

  1265. musictheory 2017-04-10 17:05:46 Jongtr
    I'm guessing F2 is your comfortable "resting" pitch, at or near the bottom of your range, roughly the pitch at which you would speak when relaxed (probably the bottom of the narrow range of pitches you'd employ in speech). I'm similar in that I can hum an E2 reasonably (not completely) accurately, partly because it's my lowest comfortable note (I can just get down to the D below with a little effort) - and partly because I've been playing guitar for 50 years and am familiar with E2 as the sound of string 6. (I can tune a guitar with no reference to within a semitone of concert.) This is not absolute pitch in any sense. It's partly pitch memory, partly the feel of a certain frequency as I hum or sing it - i.e., a physical sensation, not just an aural one. You should certainly focus on improving your relative pitch (which already seems quite good), and forget about absolute pitch, which is of little or no use to a musician. (If you already have it, OK. If not, it's not worth trying to get it. The evidence suggests AP is learned before the age of 6, and if you don't have it by then you never will. But like I say, it doesn't matter! No need for regret...)

  1266. musictheory 2017-04-11 02:07:11 alechungry
    Listening to as much as possible to avoid unintentionally quoting other styles/artists/etc. is important, but this also fits into a larger question: as a composer, how can you avoid making a compositional choice that feels cliche or cheesy to you? One of the many things composers should strive for is to "say what you mean to say" - your piece and its performance should be filled with intention. To avoid making choices that seem cliche, try as much as possible to imagine the performance of a piece as you write it - imagine the performers themselves, the sound they will make (realistically) and the experience of sitting in the audience listening to it for the first time. If you fully intentionally wrote 3 bars of genuine, heartfelt oompah music in the middle of your string quartet, the likelihood that your audience perceives it as cheesy is less likely than if you did it by accident.

  1267. musictheory 2017-04-12 06:09:53 pouringlikewater
    'In Your Face' by Children of Bodom (or really any of their later material) makes a good reference point for C, as they play in dropped-C tuning and they frequently chug on the open low string.

  1268. musictheory 2017-04-12 07:34:11 Rhypht
    Definitely bothers me. Guitarist Guthrie Govan has a song called 'Fives' and another called 'Sevens' on his *Erotic Cakes* album, in 5/4 and 7/4 respectively. Marco Sfogli has a song on his solo album *There's Hope* called 'Seven' that's in 7/4 as well. Pretty sure Medeski, Martin & Wood have a song called 'Seven Deadlies' in 7/4 or 7/8. And as already mentioned, Gorillaz has a 5/4 song called '5/4'. I think it just bothers me because it assumes that these time signatures are so foreign that they need to be pointed out in the song title. It makes it seem like they're writing the song specifically to write a song in that time signature, that's all. That being said, I still really like the artists and songs. Just a little thing that bothers me. Similarly I guess, Joe Satriani has a song called 'Seven String' that's played on a seven string guitar. Not really theory, but it fits this same thing.

  1269. musictheory 2017-04-13 01:28:35 AngusKirk
    It is not about "modes", it is about wich note a memorable phrase starts so I can connect it to my pitch memory. First note on Judas Priest's Breaking the Law is A, and more, open A of the 5th string on the guitar. This is the reference I'm looking for, not the "harmonyof the music" or anything. Watch the video and it will make sense.

  1270. musictheory 2017-04-13 01:28:49 AngusKirk
    It is not about "modes", it is about wich note a memorable phrase starts so I can connect it to my pitch memory. First note on Judas Priest's Breaking the Law is A, and more, open A of the 5th string on the guitar. This is the reference I'm looking for, not the "harmonyof the music" or anything. Watch the video and it will make sense.

  1271. musictheory 2017-04-13 10:35:20 olljoh
    if a string (or flexible solid) of any length vibrates after being hit by high impulse, it vibrates in fractions of wavelengths of its own string-length. 1/1, 1/2, 2/3 and 1/4 fractions are most dominant. other fractions exist (depending on material properties), but have much lower amplitudes (log2() scale actually) due to these fractions occurring naturally, they are parsed as non-threatening, harmonic. multiplying these fractions with self results in more harmonics between what you multiply. but the product of n fractions is as disharmonious as different prime factors of any 2 different whole numbers (except for music you reciprocate/invert all the values) as for a favoured base-frequency ending up to be "C4", it likely has to do with earths atmosphere favoring some frequencies over other frequencies, driving the evolution of ears on earth. this could be as simple as asking yourself "what is the average frequency of the average wind, running water or a waterfall" and which frequencies are never emitted by anything that is life threatening, unfavourable.

  1272. musictheory 2017-04-15 00:55:29 NedSnark
    You asked how to figure this out, so here's a crack at it. This advice relates to jazz but is also relevant to the blues. 1) listen to the song with your bass out and figure out the chord progression. Skip this step if you have the chart. 2) on any given chord change, listen carefully to see if the bass player is playing the root of the chord or if he's playing something else 3) once you've figured out the chord structure and seen if the bass is hitting the root on the one, then you want to pay attention to how the player "moves" from one chord to the next. 4) there are generally two kinds of notes in a walking bassline : chord tones (notes found in the arpeggio) and passing tones that let you "walk" between the chord tones. 5) chord tones are the easy ones, especially if you have the chart 6) passing tones are tricker because they can be either scale tones (I.e. Diatonically correct notes for the key) or they can be notes outside of the scale, usually in the form of chromatic half steps 7) to get a feel for what a simple walk sounds like, play the first four bars of the blues. Start on the one and play first, third, fifth, third. Then move up the fourth and play that pattern again. Then come back to the first and play a two bar walk, something like first, third, fifth, octave, octave fifth, third root. So in G it would look like this: G B D B C E G E G B D G(octave) G(octave) D B G Then to make it more interesting, use the fourth beat of the measure as a passing tone. In other words, in the fourth beat of any given measure, play a note that is either a half step or a whole step away from the first beat of the next measure. So in G it might look like this: G B D C# C E G F# (play this low, on the second fret of the E string) G B D F (play this on the third fret of the D to emphasize the walk up to the next note) G(octave) D B G Good luck

  1273. musictheory 2017-04-15 08:01:08 DRL47
    Guitar music sounds an octave lower than it is written, so a written middle C will actually be the C in the bass clef (even though it is written in treble clef). You do need to play the correct octave that it is written in, but there are often several places to play a particular note. For example: the E in the top space of the treble clef is the open E of your first string, but that note can also be played at the fifth fret of your second string or the ninth fret of your third string, etc. Which of those to play is up to the performer, although it can be indicated by a position number. Tablature, of course, shows which E to play at what fret on which string.

  1274. musictheory 2017-04-15 09:31:32 DRL47
    > So, if I wanted to play ledger line C below the first line on a music sheet in Treble Clef I would have to play one of the many C's that correspond to that particular note in that Octave? Is there any way to play a Guitar Sheet note wrongly? That note can be played at the third fret on the fifth string or the eighth fret on the sixth string. Those are the only places to play that note, since it is rather low. Well, there are plenty of ways to play "wrongly", but the only thing "wrong" about playing the right note in a different place, is if it makes getting to the next note difficult, or drastically changes the tone. On many instruments like piano, there is only one place to play a particular note. String instruments often have multiple places to play the same note. Wind instruments sometimes have alternate fingerings for some notes.

  1275. musictheory 2017-04-15 22:11:28 DRL47
    You can always just count up from the open string note to find the notes on that string, but I wouldn't worry too much about learning them all right now. Learn the notes up the neck as you need them. One reason to need them is so that you can play a multi-string passage across the neck instead of up and down the neck.

  1276. musictheory 2017-04-16 07:48:11 ljse7m
    Are you talking about commercial productions like movie and TV shows and commercial recordings, LiamGaughan seems right on target. But if you are talking about Symphonic Orchestras and respected conductors the answer is NO! If there are bad "arrangements" they won't play them. If the orchestra members can't get it right they get orchestra members that WILL get it right. If the conductor can't get it right with rehearsals they get a new conductor. Symphonic recordings still follow at least the concept of Live two mics for stereo of the olden days. Some will of course use more microphones inserted in the sections to give better resonance on the recordings than one mic can produce but that is not what the symphonic music is about. The composer is only one aspect of what the serious listeners are concerned about. Its the balance and the dynamics and the nuances that make one Beethoven 7th Symphony different from another and its a combination of the musicians, and the conductor and possibly a little bit of the concert hall. Buf they want to hear it like it is heard in the concert hall on that particular night by that particular orchestra and conducted by that particular conductor as it actually happened. I noticed when I lived in China that they did use various microphone techniques for the live performances but it was VERY subtle. Even I didn't notice until the second or third piice that they were being used. They had a nice "live" balance and then they did not mess with it. Somr of their halls ARE very large and I think that is a consideration but they used the minimum for the Operas and Symphonic Concerts. Now just this season, I had the occasion to hear that Broadway musical/light opera about Sweeny the barber who was a serial killer with is razor and this was over miked like some other Broadway shows I have heard and they either had horrible sound men or they had terrible equipment as the sound was horrible and at Opera prices that is not a good thing. Everyone was disappointed by the sound. It was just so phoney it would have been better to have it pre recorded! But later in the season I heard Faust and it was no mics at all and it was such a breath of fresh air! The music was beautiful the orchestra was balanced with the singers and everything was heard in its natural beauty and a few years ago I hear Parsifal in Berlin with the State Opera Orchestra and it was so pure that you could hear the overtones of the rich harmony in the brass and woodwinds and of course with the singers! and again, it is what it is supposed to be. SO when people buy a recording of the se types of performances, they do now want to hear what the sound engineer thinks is a good balance, they want to hear what the Maestro thinks is a good performance. So, even though the technology is there, there is still a large audience that does NOT want to use it except to the extent they an hear EXACTLY what the music sounds like when performed in the live performance to the audience sitting there? Do you know that in the early days of Rock and Roll that they all sat in a room with one or two mics? the guitar amp was the little15 watt Fender Champ (I think it was called the Champ) to get the blue tube sound without being too loud? Even the often used String bass is there in the live room. OF course that changed over the years as the producers decided that they could sell just as much by messing with it and overtracking and dubbing etc so its really about what the audience or the consumer will tolerate and how much money that they can save to get what they want. Live recording have to be done in ONE take. And for an opera or symphony, that is a long ONE take. LJSe7m

  1277. musictheory 2017-04-16 13:08:35 maestrophil
    Start in your head and stay there a while, get to know it. Get to know how to compose without an instrument, Sing it into your device, record it. Later you can transcribe it, it's there. Do this a lot. Compose anything. Then go back and make codes that you can understand, if you know basic music figure it out, use the chord symbols or a code you know. What you invent is legitimate music. Later you can even take it to a pro transcriber who can write it out if you feel the desire, later you can even learn how too. But, don't let what others have done force you to do something that isn't you. Save all your ideas t of, they are rare and valuable. String lots of them together. About books, read everything. You're still at your beginning. Take some time away from listening to music to compose it. Use your listening times now as your writing time. Instead of turning on music turn on your recorder and just play. Just hum into it, whatever you can to emulate what's in your mind.

  1278. musictheory 2017-04-16 23:23:08 LiamGaughan
    'Of course, “Natural Balance” involved more than just equipment. 'To achieve a coherent sound picture for mono recording, the orchestra’s string sections were often “bunched” close to the conductor’s podium. Dynamic contrasts were reviewed in the score and then discussed with the musicians so that loud/soft contrasts were proportional and kept within the limits of tape (60 decibels) and the normal range for home listening (40 decibels). With rare exceptions, Westminster recording teams neither “monitored” nor adjusted the loudness levels of the incoming signal; nor did they apply artificial reverberation to a finished master tape. ** A typical LP tape would be produced from a trio of three-hour recording sessions, carefully edited from up to twelve original reels of Scotch 111 recording tape.'** http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/gb/album/westminster-legacy/natural-balance.html So it seems even deutche grammophone were changing 'the performance' to fit the recording medium, and then editing it for the recording.

  1279. musictheory 2017-04-17 06:21:50 furnavi
    Oh yeah, intervals is definitely the way to go, duh. That way you can have partial matches. And also not have to search 12 versions of the same thing to match key... I'd definitely keep it! Also, something to look up would be 12-tone serialism. It defines standards for analyzing music mathematically. In particular, it treats notes as numbers in mod 12 which allows you to do cool things with them. Each note in an octave is a pitch-class starting with C = 0 and B = 11. Also handy is to represent pitch classes in base 12, so B would be, well, B (Bb would be A and A would be 9 etc.). That way you can represent sequences of pitch classes (or intervals) as a string and use string analysis techniques. Or whatever. I'm sure you've got something figured out already :) Here's a silly (but simple!) way of searching I just came up with: Intervals are represented as an integer. A piece would be a sequence of intervals converted to string and delimited by spaces. Use a text search API to find matching melodies. Boom :D

  1280. musictheory 2017-04-17 13:06:38 Pelusteriano
    Guitarist here! Standard notation for guitar has a slight modification from traditional standard notation. In standard notation, [middle C is found at the bottom ledger line](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Middle_C.png). Middle C (C4 in scientific pitch notation) corresponds to the note found at the B string - 1st fret and its equivalents (G string - 5th fret, D string - 10th fret, A string - 15th fret, E string - 20th fret). Using the traditional location of middle C for guitar creates a problem: A lot of guitar music uses notes below middle C pretty frequently, for example, open E major chord has 5 notes below middle C. Why is that a problem? If you were to notate those notes, you would have to (a) use a lot of ledger lines, or (b) use bass clef, or (c) some of both. The thing here is that, in contrast to piano-like instruments, there's only one "real" playing hand (the fretting hand), so having both treble and bass clef for a single hand would create confusion (in comparison to piano players, who assign one hand to one clef). To solve that problem, standard notation for guitar has C3 (C one octave below C4) as the bottom ledger line. C3 is the note you can find at the A string - 3rd fret and it's equivalents (E string - 8th fret). It's important to have in mind how the octaves are laid on the fretboard, [it isn't as intuitive as it is on a keyboard](http://plankchoir.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/2/7/14279649/690396_orig.png). I recommend you learn two things: (1) all the notes on the fretboard, and (2) how to find octaves. Those two pieces of knowledge will help you understand better how notes are laid on the fretboard. Here's two useful videos: * [Learn Every Note on the Guitar Fretboard |Ep. 5| GuitarWOD](https://youtu.be/D9sOqWUiRJ8) * [Paul Gilbert Lesson How to Organize Patterns on the Fretboard](https://youtu.be/GR7yqXdKwVg)

  1281. musictheory 2017-04-17 21:14:05 musicprojectplzhelp
    > Intervals are represented as an integer. A piece would be a sequence of intervals converted to string and delimited by spaces. Use a text search API to find matching melodies. Boom :D Pretty much bang on what I have lol, you know what they say about great minds!

  1282. musictheory 2017-04-18 16:28:02 Jongtr
    Coincidence! [This] (https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/65zk4k/i_just_came_across_this_article_about_the_problem/) thread has some good answers on the issue. The obvious answer is both. IMO, the note names are simply useful labels to help reach your goal, which is mastery of your instrument. The patterns, obviously, are another route to the same place. You will find that, even after you know all the note names, you will be thinking in patterns. E.g., I know all the notes on the fretboard (and in every major scale), but if I want to play (say) an F# major scale I don't do it by mentally plotting out all the required notes; I do it by applying a known scale pattern around a known chord shape. Ie., I choose a specific F# note (on any string anywhere), and immediately see it as the root of a major chord shape, and I know the scale pattern that fits around that chord shape. I'm playing the scale within less than a second, and not thinking notes at all. Of course I know all the other chord arps within the same pattern, and I know all the intervals too - but it's all via shapes, not note names. (Thinking of the note names takes a second or so longer...) IOW, you can never reject or escape the patterns. You can't avoid them, so you may as well exploit them. The important thing is to *hear* what you are playing - to know the *sounds* of those arpeggios, eg, the sound of the ii chord in each key, and how it relates to he V chord. The goal is to link sound with vision with feel (where your fingers go). The note names - as I say - are just signposts on the way. Once you know your way round a neighbourhood, you don't need to read the street names any more... but you do need them at the beginning.

  1283. musictheory 2017-04-20 08:50:44 keyofw
    Am I reading the notes bottom to top? If so, this is the "O Mangum Mysterium" chord - maybe not the official title but it's the opening chord of [this bad boy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn5ken3RJBo). Basically it's an Fadd2 or Dadd2 or Cadd2. The second note in each string you wrote is the root, so it's F-G-A-C, or D-E-F#-A, or C-D-E-G. These are all the same quality of chord, and add2 chords tend to sound great no matter what you do with them. I'm not sure to what degree of detail you'll want in a "quick answer," but I can tell you that as a rule of thumb an add2 chord adds a lot of character to a chord without really changing its function. It's very useful that way.

  1284. musictheory 2017-04-21 14:54:04 sveccha
    It depends on the scale you're using. You have to tune the sympathetic strings (the small ones underneath) to the scale and then move the frets if need be. Tune the main string that plays the tonic first. Then tune the octaves in the sympathetic strings, followed by the fifths. If you are playing with a natural fourth, use the tuned tonic strings to tune these, using the tonics as fifths, and continue. If you get it right, you'll know because when you play on the frets, the sympathetic strings will vibrate. It's not easy! Good luck.

  1285. musictheory 2017-04-22 04:35:52 m3g0wnz
    You're wrong about this. Dissonance does refer to tension, specifically tension that *must* be handled in a specific way. It does not simply "unusual." From Grove: >**Dissonance.** The antonym to consonance, hence a discordant sounding together of two or more notes perceived as having ‘roughness’ or ‘tonal tension’. In Pythagorean terms this meant that dissonances were intervals produced by string lengths in ratios formed from numbers greater than 4. For the subsequent development of this view by music theorists and for psychoacoustic explanations of the phenomenon of consonance and dissonance, see CONSONANCE.

  1286. musictheory 2017-04-22 15:01:09 glow100
    <<I would say that jazz uses root position chords less often than classical music>> Having an incomplete chord doesn't mean it's a chord inversion. It means the bass, usually the root, is implied, or is played by the string bass like in Errol Garner trios, or is played only occasionally. Where the jazz piece is playing a full chord with the bass note, how often is it the 3rd or 5th? I was guessing, a hunch, but I would be surprised if it's more often in jazz as you say. Thanks for the bit about scales. I was sloppy in my description, and have somewhat (but completely enamored for those pieces) limited knowledge of jazz. But I am still not convinced that it is inaccurate, as a generizliation, to say that the most common texture in jazz is homophony -- melody and accompaniment, just as it's a fair generalization to say that the most common texture for certain types of Renaissance sacred vocal music is polyphony.

  1287. musictheory 2017-04-23 07:23:33 Analog-Digital
    I believe you're talking about the whole tone scale. The whole tone scale is a scale where each note is a whole step higher than the previous. In this case I believe the scale starts on an Eb, so the scale consists of the notes Eb-F-G-A-B-C#(Db)-Eb. I agree that this scale is quite humorous, in fact, Mozart actually uses this scale in the 2nd movement I believe of his piece "A Musical Joke." The joke is that Mozart is transcribing a poorly played and poorly composed piece. In one cadenza, the violinist is trying to go up the C major scale, but fails and instead plays the C whole tone scale! The violinist acknowledges his mistake by plucking a string in frustration and then trying again!

  1288. musictheory 2017-04-23 19:49:45 niexx
    Haha yeah it's great. It gets a bit cheesy and OTT later on though. Mainly I'm just obsessed with all the fancy rhodes piano and string ornamentations - theyre great for sampling. Reminds me a lot of David Axelrod. The film is really good too.

  1289. musictheory 2017-04-24 14:21:38 Eddieisfiction
    Fun fact there are a few bands that actually play in drop E for vocal reasons. By that I mean standard tuning tuned up a whole step and then you drop the low string to E. you don't even have to change what you are doing if you do that.

  1290. musictheory 2017-04-25 11:22:05 FlexVanilla
    Modulation is used to move between different sample layers. Play a chord with a string patch; move the mod wheel down, and what you'll hear is 1 sample cross-fading into another sample, into another, until the quietest sample recorded once the mid wheel is at 0. Velocity acts the same way as a mod wheel and is typically used for percussion instruments or articulations that are percussive in nature: staccato, pizzicato, etc. Expression is an overall volume fader. Yeah, use all 3, plus the CC set to vibrato. I'd ask questions like these maybe in r/composer, or just ask Google.

  1291. musictheory 2017-04-25 17:24:18 Jongtr
    Intro: G |B . . . |F7 E7 Eb7 . | G B . . |E7 . . . | Verse: |A - - - |A - - Bb|B - - - |B - - - | |E - - - |E - - - |A - - - |E - - - | The intro is obviously strange - Syd being as deliberately (and irritatingly) cute with his chords as he is with his lyrics later (and letting the open E string ring when he hits the Eb7) - but the verse is a common enough sequence in A major, using a secondary dominant: B = V/V, dominant of E. The other off-kilter element is the beat shifting around in the last two bars. Sometimes a beat is dropped, sometimes it isn't, it just sounds like it. It all adds to the whacky, druggy, let-it-all-hang-out vibe. Maaan. :-)

  1292. musictheory 2017-04-25 23:17:05 maestro2005
    Velocity is basically just volume. A patch may be designed to produce different waveforms based on velocity--for example, a wind instrument patch might have a more aggressive attack at higher velocities--but this is still based on the idea of volume. Modulation and Expression are whatever the patch needs them to be. Modulation is usually used for any kind of warbling effect. For a realistic string patch, it's typically vibrato (some combination of both amplitude and frequency), for a retro synth keyboard it's usually LFO speed, for a B3 organ it could be leslie speed, for a guitar it could be the wah pedal. These assignments aren't mandated by anything, it's just an understood standard. Expression is more up in the air, and usually left for the performer to assign however they need.

  1293. musictheory 2017-04-26 16:00:45 andurilsoulreap
    It sounds good, though at times can be either frantic or too sparse, and there's not much sense of overall themes, which makes it sound a bit unfocused. Also, for the next few compositions of yours try using simpler instrumentation, maybe start out with only 3 or 4 instruments (a string quartet for example) and just really practice the fundamentals of writing music. Furthermore, when posting your own content use a subreddit such as r/composition or r/wearethemusicmakers as r/musictheory is intended for specifically finding help with theory related questions.

  1294. musictheory 2017-04-26 23:12:30 Jongtr
    All the common modes in use divide the octave 5-2-5. (Lydian and locrian are the exceptions, but lydian is rare and locrian almost never used.) The variations come in how those 5-semitone spaces ("tetrachords") are divided up. So - as xiipaoc says - dorian is symmetrical because each tetrachord divides 2-1-2. The other six modes form invertible pairs: In ionian (major), each tetrachord is the same: 2+2+1. In phrygian, that's reversed: 1+2+2 - so you could say phrygian is the inverse of major. Similarly, you could say aeolian (2+1+2|2|1+2+2) is the inverse of mixolydian (2+2+1|2|2+1+2). And lydian (2-2-2-1-2-2-1) is the inverse of locrian (1-2-2-1-2-2-2). Meanwhile, harmonic and melodic minor provide two other variations. Both have the aeolian lower tetrachord, while HM's upper tetrachord runs 1-3-1 and MM's is the same as major (2-2-1). BTW - superfluous info follows ;-) - the octave divides 5-2-5 (perfect 4th and perfect 5th) because the frequencies of the 4th and 5th form simple ratios with the tonic. If you divide a guitar string in 2 you get the 12th fret octave. 2/3 of string length 3 then gives you fret 7 (and 19) and 3/4 gives you fret 5. Similar ratios apply to wind instrument tubes, bars of xylophones, etc. (In equal temperament these are not quite precise, but extremely close.) So that's a way that the basic scale degree of a tone can be arrived at - as the difference between 4th and 5th: 1/12 of the whole string length but (more significantly) 1/9 of the distance from fret 5 to the bridge. Naturally, the maths of all the other intervals won't pan out if every tone is 1/9 of the octave and every semitone 1/18. But - outside of equal temperament - notes could be shifted this way and that by ear. (The "rule of 18" was an old way of ascertaining fret positions on fretted instruments; you wouldn't quite get an octave after subtracting 1/18 of the string length 12 times, but it would be near enough. In fact it would be a little short of the half-way point, but playing technique might well make up the shortfall in intonation, sharpening notes simply by pressing them down. http://www.liutaiomottola.com/formulae/fret.htm)

  1295. musictheory 2017-04-29 02:47:37 Caedro
    I think this is spot on for my progression as a musician. I tried to work in 7ths and 9ths for a while, but they never sounded that interesting. Then, I got more comfortable with three string (guitar) triads and all the inversions. I find with the inversions, I can write more interesting music which is less harmonically complex.

  1296. musictheory 2017-05-02 17:58:00 Jongtr
    I recommend [musictheory.net] (http://www.musictheory.net/lessons). It's not exactly interactive, but you click through each stage (each line of text is a link), and it gives you sounds as well (each time the speaker symbol appears at the bottom of the page). It's not guitar-friendly, unfortunately - but that's no bad thing, if you can work out at least a few notes on guitar (and try using your ear to play along with the sounds). The one thing you need to be aware of when reading treble clef on guitar is that guitar transposes by an octave. E.g, the note a pianist calls "middle C" is written on their music on the ledger line below treble clef (or above bass clef). On guitar music, the same sound (fret 1 on 2nd string) is written in the 3rd space up. This is because guitar is also a middle-register instrument, and "middle C" is also roughly in the middle of the guitar's range - but we only use one staff, so we just need to raise middle C (or lower the staff); otherwise most of the guitar's range would be way down off the bottom of the staff. The sounds on that site are therefore the ones a pianist would play. So, the sound for the G that appears on the 2nd line up on the piano staff is the sound of your G on fret 3 1st string. In guitar music you would play a G written there as your open 3rd string. This is only an issue when comparing guitar music with piano music. With music written for guitar, you only have to know that the G on 2nd line up is open 3rd string (or fret 5, 4th string, or fret 10, 5th string). As you'll see, the site goes on to explain theory in a similarly clear and progressive way.

  1297. musictheory 2017-05-02 19:07:29 Jongtr
    Basically, we don't divide the octave at all. ;-) The octave division arises from other calculations. What we do first of all is take some kind of object producing a musical tone - a stretched string, a metal bar, the pipe of a wind instrument - and divide it into simple ratios, because that seems to provide pleasantly consonant additional notes. So the first division is in half (2:1) - which produces the octave. A guitar string is a good guide here. The 12th fret is a half-way, and gives an octave above the open string (the reason that fret is number 12, of course, comes later). Next is to divide by 3. 2/3 string length gives us the perfect 5th, which is marked by the 7th fret. This is the first clue about how the rest of the octave will divide up. Next is to divide by 4. 3/4 string length gives us a perfect 4th above the open string, and is marked by fret 5. Now we have an octave divided into the proportions 5-2-5. We could go on to divide the string by 5, which gives us a major 3rd and fret 4. But the Ancient Greeks who performed this maths didn't go that far, because they saw no need. They could carry on dividing by 3 to get other scale divisions. (E.g., dividing 2/3 by 3 - and multiplying by 4 - gives a note we'd call the 2nd of the scale.) But they had those 5-"fret" spaces (without frets in those days of course) and decided to introduce two other notes in the middle, which they set by ear. The various positions they chose produced the Greek modal system - which was more sophisticated than our modern modes (derived from a medieval adjustment of the Greek system), and featured quarter tones as well as semitones. But from our perspective (following the medieval one) we can see that we can take that 2-fret space in the middle, call it a "tone" (whole step), and divide the 5-fret spaces into various permutations of 2 and 1. That gives us seven notes, five tones and two semitones. That's basically where the medieval system stopped. They used the notes we'd call ABCDEFG, with no sharps or flats (and they only used 4 modes, dorian, phrygian, lydian and mixolydian - no ionian or aeolian, no major or minor scales, no chords...). Sharps and flats arrived surprisingly slowly - mainly, once the primitive beginnings of harmony got under way, in order to avoid the dissonant B-F tritone by lowering B or raising F. It took a few centuries before a full complement of chromatics was arrived at, and before the modal system evolved into the 12 major and minor keys we use today (that system is barely 400 years old). As other posters have mentioned (and as you know), the apparently simple maths of ratio division doesn't produce 12 equal semitones. It's all approximate; close, but no cigar. So, over history, scales have been "tempered" (pitches adjusted) in various ways to get notes to fit and still sound good. It really wasn't until the 20th century that the octave came to be seen as 12 exactly *equal* semitones - "12-tone equal temperament" - and Schoenberg decided to treat them all as musically equal as well, attempting to abandon the old 7-tone system (transposable to 12 different keys). Of course, because the 12-TET system is (by definition) out of tune - in pure terms - various other systems have been tried (such as 19-tone or 31-tone), but usually with the idea of extracting 7 usable notes that sound more in tune with each other. (The 3rds in 12-TET are particularly problematic.) But the 12-tone system has stuck because its *near enough* acceptable, is highly versatile - and simpler to apply when designing musical instruments.

  1298. musictheory 2017-05-02 21:38:29 Jongtr
    Basic definition of inversions: root in bass = root position 3rd in bass = 1st inversion 5th in bass = 2nd inversion (7th in bass = 3rd inversion, if you go beyond triads) There are many ways of playing triads (and their inversions) on guitar, but to begin with you obviously need to know which notes are root, 3rd and 5th, for any chord you play. The main use of inversions is in creating scale-wise bass lines. E.g., C -Em/B - F/A - C/G. In a band, it would usually be the bass player that played that C-B-A-G line, and you could play any shape you wanted - i.e., you wouldn't need any knowledge of inversions at all. But for playing any chord sequence, you will (often without knowing) be playing inversions, just to keep the chord shapes in the same position on the neck. E.g., this series of triads: C G Am F --3---3---5---5------------------ --5---3---5---6-------------------- --5---4---5---5--------------------- --5---5---7---7--------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- Those shapes are 2nd inversion, root position, root position and 1st inversion respectively. (If you want 3-string triads, omit the top string, which is just doubling the 4th string. Omit the 4th string, and the inversions become: root position, 1st inversion, 1st inversion, 2nd inversion. Remember "triad" just means 3 different notes. You can have a full 6-string chord shape which is still just a triad.) Then again, if you have a bass player playing the chord roots, then these shapes are not really inversions at all, effectively (i.e., they won't be heard as inversions, because the bass controls that). They are just ways of keeping the shapes moving smoothly from one to the next, rather than jumping up and down the fretboard with the same shape. Most guitar players will choose shapes in this way, whether they are aware of inversion terminology or not. What is more useful (or maybe just as useful) is exploring the different "voicing" options for any one chord - i.e. what order the notes go in from bottom to top. The following is two ways of playing a root position C major triad: ------0-- --------- --0---0-- --2------ --3---3-- --------- The first is "close-voiced" meaning all the notes are as close together as you can get them: C-E-G in a stack of 3rds. The second is an "open" voicing, achieved by raising the E by an octave, so you now have a C-G 5th, with a G-E 6th on top (and a C-E 10th as the outer interval). It's still just a C triad, but you can hear the difference in sound. When you have 7th chords, then there are many more options for voicing (and inversion). Remember "inversion" just refers to the bass note - the notes above that can go in any order or spacing.

  1299. musictheory 2017-05-03 07:32:47 TheChurchofHelix
    Partch's book? I know he liked the term utonal; I'm not sure anybody else but him has really ever used that particular term. Yeah, the undertone series is an oddity. It only exists as a hypothetical device, because in reality you have to break all sorts of rules to go below the harmonic series, and there isn't much rhyme or reason to it the techniques used to do so. Mari Kimura's violin playing is a good example of this - she can play a low F and lower on her G string by skillfully manipulating how her bow drags the string. Another thing entirely are "difference tones", where if you play two notes perfectly in tune with each other, they produce a third lower pitch (and usually a 4th higher pitch as well). This actually always is happening any time multiple waves interact, but usually the generated new pitches are far out of our hearing range, or are so tonally dense that we perceive them as a timbre and not a pitch.

  1300. musictheory 2017-05-04 01:46:43 frajen
    do you have minor major 7 on here? (e.g. C-Eb-G-B) > your input on the "function" of any of the black cells Because of the way your chart is setup, it seems like the composer starts with the chord and then determines the mode that matches? Is the idea to be able to string together chords based on similar modes? Personally, I don't think this way because it's easier for me to accept "changing keys" as a reality. So, context is very important. Consider the following: Cmaj7 | Bbm7 | Eb7 | Abmaj7 home - C Phrygian - C Phrygian - C minor Or you could think of it like I in C major - ii-V-I in Ab major The question of "what chords make sense after I in a progression" has more to do with "how much tension do I want to create and how do I want to resolve this tension" I think there's a "tension style" or "level" that comes with going from the I to say bVI7 b13 vs. going from the I to the IVmaj7. There are stylistic/personal differences, as well as "commonly used" chord progressions. A I7 makes me think of resolving into the IV. It doesn't come across to me personally as a sign to "be in Mixolydian" A m7b5 (hdim7) on the I w/out context makes me think of a ii-V-I into the bVII, for example C | Cm7b5 | F7b9 | Bbmaj7 I think this is more of my personal reaction than anything else. A 7#9 on its own implies a jazzy/funky blues feeling to me, especially if voiced widely (e.g. C7#9 as C-G-E-Bb-D#). I'm not sure what you'd put in that black box though, to fit into your categories. Can you make a table that has the modes as the columns, and chords+extensions as the rows? I feel like it would fit more of the "mode mixture" concept better.

  1301. musictheory 2017-05-06 02:29:37 sleepymuse
    Yeah I've heard some things about Tymoczko... like relating notes in a chord to different dimensions using string theory or something? Not exactly the most practical approach :P

  1302. musictheory 2017-05-06 02:54:41 vornska
    That's... not exactly what the book is about. It's actually a pretty straightforward attempt to do what your OP asked for. In his own words: >I will argue that five features are present in a wide range of genres, Western and non-Western, past and present, and that they jointly contribute to a sense of tonality ... The aim of this book is to investigate the ways composers can use these five features to produce interesting musical effects. This project has empirical, theoretical, and historical components. Empirically, we might ask how each of the five features contributes to listeners' perceptions of tonality: which is the most influential, and are there any interesting interactions between them? ... Theoretically, we might ask how the various features can *in principle* be combined. Is it the case, for example, that diatonic music necessarily involves a tonic? ... Finally, we can ask historical questions about how different Western styles have combined these five tonal ingredients--treating the features as determining a space of possibilities, and investigating the ways composers have explored that space. —*A Geometry of Music*, page 4 In other words, he attempts to set up a way of asking those empirical, theoretical, and historical questions derived from his 5 axiomatic starting points. If that doesn't sound practical to you, I wonder what sort of approach you *are* looking for! ("Relating notes in a chord to different dimensions using string theory" is the kind of description someone gives to convince you not to read it, not in order to tell you what it's about.)

  1303. musictheory 2017-05-06 15:40:28 Candygram420
    You will find that many chords on the guitar contain doubles due to the way that the strings are set up. It's tough to play chords where the root, 3rd, and 5th are all in order. You'll find a lot of different voicings on a guitar than on a piano. EDIT: For example, you can play the 6th string (low E) and then you have 3 E's, but (depending on context) it will still sound like an A major chord.

  1304. musictheory 2017-05-06 16:01:05 gtfo_mailman
    Yeah! I noticed this works pretty well on string instruments as well. Put a C in the cello and Db on the first violin. Sounds very cool!

  1305. musictheory 2017-05-06 17:08:07 Jongtr
    In a "tertian" chord (one built by stacking alternate notes in a scale), the lowest note of the 1-3-5 will always *sound* like the root, even when you put the notes in a different order. (That's provided the 5th is perfect - it's a slightly different issue when the 5th is diminished or augmented.) The reason is to do with the harmonic series. The note A contains many overtones, of which the most prominent are E and C# (or very close to those pitches). You can test this on guitar by playing harmonics on the A string over frets 5, 4 and 3. You get the notes A-C#-E, equivalent to the triad at x-x-x-14-14-12. (If you test those harmonics against a tuner, you'll find the 4th fret harmonic reads as a little flat of C#. That's because our tuning system "tempers" the natural notes so that all semitones are equal. Don't attempt to tune your strings to the 4th harmonic! Everything else will be out...) Therefore when you add C# and E notes to the A note, it confirms the ruling status of A. The pitches of E and C# each contain their own harmonic series, of course, but the note A is not among them. IOW, you could say E and C# "belong" to A, in a way that A doesn't "belong" to them. Therefore you can double up any of those notes, and place them in any order, space them now you like ("close voiced" or "open voiced") - it's the frequency relationships that determine the "root" quality, and therefore the chord identity. Things are less clear with the minor triad, because - in an Am triad - the note C is not part of the harmonic series of A (at least, only as a very high and weak overtone). But the perfect 5th A-E is strong enough to point to A as root. The minor 3rd just adds that distinctive "mysterious" quality to the chord. (In fact, the notes A-C-E are all overtones of a very low F, which may be another factor helping them sound good together.) Still, as you may know, all you need to do is add a 7th to Am (A-C-E-G), and the chord becomes ambiguous. Now, thanks to the C-G 5th, C becomes an alternative root for the chord. You only have to place C in the bass for the chord to sound like C6 rather than Am7. This means that either name is correct, and we choose according to context.

  1306. musictheory 2017-05-06 23:40:01 __wasistdas
    You can always play x07650 which is exactly that + bass. I personally feel that getting the right note on lowest string is more important than duplicates and inversions.

  1307. musictheory 2017-05-07 00:41:30 DRL47
    > I personally feel that getting the right note on lowest string is more important than duplicates and inversions. The note on the lowest string IS the inversion.

  1308. musictheory 2017-05-07 01:46:04 Jongtr
    As with many music theory terms, there are not 100% exclusive definitions here. You can always say "it depends what you mean by [key/mode/function/etc]" ;-) But essentially the system of "keys", or "tonality" evolved from the medieval modal system. The key system was based, essentially, on ionian and aeolian modes (with occasional harmonic and melodic alterations to aeolian), and had a very different approach to harmony - essentially tonality and harmony (as we understand it) went together. Chords built in 3rds go together with the major-minor key system. There is a "tonic" or I chord, and all the other chords are relatively tense in comparison, experienced as deviations from the I, usually strung together in "progressions" where each chord contains an expectation of what will follow (expectations which clever composers often confound of course). When jazz rediscovered modes in the late 1950s, the whole idea was to create a new kind of music, to escape from the key system still employed by bebop. So they were very careful about avoiding chords built in 3rds, going for quartal harmony mostly; and also avoided predictable chord changes. Quartal chords have ambiguous identities, therefore no clear function. They contain no expectation about what might follow. D7sus4 (maybe voiced as A-D-G-C) could be played for several bars then followed by F7sus4 - as in Maiden Voyage. The change is non-functional: D7sus doesn't "lead" to F7sus, and F7sus doesn't "resolve" it. It's simply one mode giving way to another. In this sense, modal harmony is *static*, unlike key-based harmony, which is always moving forward until brought to rest on the tonic. Modal jazz tunes are a series of "I" chords, each with a different root. If you can liken functional harmony (esp the frantic changes of bebop) to an "emotional roller coaster" - taking you up, down and round, but always on the rails and heading for a known destination - then modal harmony is like being presented with a series of still images; single moods, not necessarily related to one another, lasting long enough for you to contemplate each one, but with no expectation of what might follow (or when). Functional harmony is "hot"; modal harmony is "cool". Sine the modal jazz revolution, functionality has crept back in (because why not, man?), and most modern jazz combines both concepts - as indeed does most rock music, albeit more intuitively, less consciously than jazz. The modal effect in rock is usually about one-chord grooves, which can last as long as you like, typically on a "mixolydian" major chord, or a "dorian" minor chord. Even alternating I and IV chords (as in some 90s indie rock) can be seen as an Ionian modal vamp, rather than a major key sequence. The modal influence on rock came from a combination of blues, folk and Indian music, at least as much as from jazz. Indian raga is a kind of modal music *par excellence*, and blues can be seen as an instinctively modal folk music, on to which three European chords have been grafted. (Folk modes - like Indian raga - are not about harmony at all, tertian or quartal. They are about *melody*. Blues is a specific scale, with variable pitches - hence all the bending that goes on - and chord accompaniment is incidental, although it does create a useful structure against which the blues scale can be more expressive.) As for locrian mode... It can't be a "key" because its I chord is unstable, due to the b5. If you harmonise locrian mode, then every other chord will sound more stable than the nominal "I" chord. Of course, you can still create a one-chord locrian (or locrian #2) groove if you want. You could even string together 2 or 3 different locrian modes. That would certainly be "modal" in the jazz sense, but definitely not a "key".

  1309. musictheory 2017-05-08 03:43:16 DRL47
    The note on the lowest string BEING PLAYED is the inversion. If your low E is not being played, then it really doesn't enter into the discussion.

  1310. musictheory 2017-05-08 11:12:03 gravitasce
    Octave strings means that the string section is playing two notes at the same time; one note is a low note, the other is the same note, but an octave higher. The chord progression is a D minor chord to a G major chord to a B flat chord to a C chord and back to a D chord. You also have a very "cowboy-esque" rhythm which sounds almost like a horse galloping; you'll hear that a lot in western music. Finally, you have the whistling that kicks in some time into the song, which really seals the deal.

  1311. musictheory 2017-05-08 22:23:15 Here_for_points
    I love the 3-note per string method for learning scales. But, lately I've been feeling like it makes everything sound like triplets, so I've been trying to add some variety when practicing scales. I still like to tie things together with the 3-note patterns though.

  1312. musictheory 2017-05-10 04:56:09 pucklermuskau
    not entirely sure what aspect of what i said confuses you, if it helps, this is the instrument i use, its basically an 8-string instrument, with notes increasing chromatically to the right, and tuned in 'fourths' going up. the individual notes can be lit, or unlit, and the root note can be denoted. The examples on the page show notes lit for the major scale, but you can change the lighting on the fly to show different scales, which i found invaluable for learning the relationships between different scales. the ableton push is another example of an isomorphic layout. http://www.rogerlinndesign.com/linnstrument.html

  1313. musictheory 2017-05-10 07:54:07 DarrenTPatrick
    A visual way to think of the substitution on the fretboard is to move one string over and one fret "up" or "down" (diagonally) depending if your root is one the low E or A strings, respectively. Example on the low E string (5th fret) = A. Related tritone sub (TT Sub) of A7 = D#7/Eb7 (A string, 6th fret).

  1314. musictheory 2017-05-10 22:59:21 ljse7m
    good video on how the timbre is created and how it is related to the harmonic series. It is an aspect of the harmonic series that is often not considered. I like the presentation for its use of technology and visual representation of how the string can have different combinations of overtones depending upon which node you pluck the string with the pick. In my youth I used a strobe light as well as an oscilloscope and tone generators to do somewhat the same thing. What I thought was missing is that the focus did not extend into how this helped the musician with the most obvious advantage of understanding how to apply the timpre and the physical characteristics of the harmonic series into Orchestration. This is where it becomes important to the composer and orchestrator from a musical perspective. The question is, "how does the combining of the overtones creating the timbre of each instrument with another create a usable way of determining how the resulting shape of the wave will sound when played on instruments. "Why and how do the combining of a flute with a trumpet and/or a clarinet combine to produce the sound of the ensemble?" This type of information is, in my opinion, what the focus should be concerning timbre and how it relates to live performance or instrumental and vocal performances in regard to how to compose music. What is in the video is interesting. I would like to see more of a pragmatic approach to live music rather than to how to "recreate" or "create new" sounds by manipulating the overtones with electronic technology. So, a fine video, just not what I think is the important context of what this means to the composer of instrumental music. LJSe7m

  1315. musictheory 2017-05-11 05:52:27 nmitchell076
    >**c)** so you're telling me if you took 'chords'... and renamed them 'turbochords'... and maybe even threw in some caps lock... that music would just become that much more better because all instances of some thing once known as a 'chord' are now known as a 'TURBOCHORD'? Well turbochord would suggest that there's something called a chord that this is a "turbo" version of. This would reframe the category in a way that acts like chords are the energetic version of something else (maybe in this universe, "chord" maintained its original name of string?), like triads are "turbo-charged." So I do think it changes the semantic sense, which could change how people orient themselves to the thing they are hearing.

  1316. musictheory 2017-05-14 00:43:32 bonestormII
    But the sequence isn't broken--it's just not as long as you would like! Also, denying resolution of any kind is certainly an artistic choice, but it is not synonymous with "denying your listener". It's fundamentally wrong to use that chord in some styles, and you have no context within which to hang your argument. In a piece of music, if you observed this chord progression, you could argue that the specific piece would be better served by the additional chord. You say it breaks the harmonic rhythm---but there is literally NO harmonic rhythm expressed here at all. This is not a piece of music.. It's just a series of chords. You are literally *imagining* a harmonic rhythm. Also note the current progression is, in fact, a string of V-I relationships, so the sequence does in fact continue even in the last two chords. It just isn't a sequence that is descending in a totally linear fashion.

  1317. musictheory 2017-05-14 09:27:04 LeonDeSchal
    He did that with a steel string acoustic.

  1318. musictheory 2017-05-14 10:02:59 telperiontree
    Is this just for yourself, or do you actually want to perform? If you want to play on stage with a group, Clarinet or Cello, depending on whether you are interested in band or orchestra. You can play clarinet in both, but you need to be really good. I'd do violin if it were just for myself. Why those? Piano is great for music theory, but it's not that interesting to me - you don't have much control over how beautiful you sound, and it all sounds the same. With a cello or violin, you can pluck the string, you can play with a bow, play with a bow upside down, add vibrato, don't add vibrato... you have a lot more control over what you sound like. I'd pick cello for orchestra because they always need cellos and they have gorgeous melody lines, or fantastically dramatic ones. Listen to the beginning of Beethoven's 3rd. Yep, that's cello. Bass lines in classical are awesome, unless you're a tuba. Clarinet for band because you are the equivalent of a violin section in a band, and you can do rhapsody in blue/cantina band jazz awesomeness. If you can get really good, you can play in orchestras as well. So... pretty much everything. Violin if for myself only because there are tons of solo violin stuff. And it's easy to transport - I swear I'm going to try busking someday.

  1319. musictheory 2017-05-14 11:05:58 Akoustyk
    No, you're right. Theres a lot more organic kind of stuff like that on guitar. But you can still do some slide stuff sort of by dragging your nail on the keys. Piano has a lot of other advantages though. It has a bigger range, and the layout is really simple, and inversion possibilities far more flexible. It does have the pedals, which add a level of expression, and if you go digital, you can have after touch as well, and it *could* be even more advanced. There are mod wheels and stuff like that also, but, guitar is still better in the bend and tremolo and slide area and stuff like that. It's also a lot more difficult. Especially acoustic guitar. Piano, you just press the buttons. Guitar is really difficult to play some chords, and do some things. Sometimes to just add one note you need to completely reset your grip, and there are a lot of chords you can actually fully play. On acoustic you are very limited for all the keys from A-Eb, for your low tonic. They need to be on the A string, which isn't very low, and you only have one higher chord you can play for it. Switching keys is easy on guitar and tough for piano, but guitars configuration is fucked up, whereas piano is real simple and logical layout. Visually easy for any given key, but transposing is more confusing.

  1320. musictheory 2017-05-14 22:54:33 Corolo1
    You should definitely transcribe that first part including the piano and the alto sax and later the violin. I'm sure you've realized it's in 5. Take note into things like the use of instrumentation that he uses, so the alto is the melody here and the piano provides that background harmony plus the motion (the rhythm of the piano). When you listen try to envision what the composer was going for. For example, how do you think the composer went about beginning the piece? With the piano or with the melody? This you can deduce from transcription. Take note into how he starts with one melodic phrase/idea and develops it or transitions to another. Especially around 4 minutes the tune kind of picks up from very floaty to fast moving and the crescendo, etc. These subtleties are what allow us as listeners to understand how the song has moved. For me, finding the core instruments of the tune is most important and then figuring out what they are doing helps me. I did a guitar ensemble arrangement of Crooked Creek by Brian Blade Fellowship(sort of in the ball park of this tune) and figuring out the harmonies used, how the melody was written and how it relates to the harmony, and then also transcribing the solos, allowed me to dig deeper into that style of composition and soloing approach. You can also transcribe some of the portions of his solo that you really like. From just listening, it sounds like he started with the piano rhythm and not the melody. The melody also trades from the sax to the violin. In the string portion around 3:30, he uses some unusual harmonies so take note of those. His transitions heavily rely on dynamics. Also, his solo develops well from subtle to very busy and you can also hear how some of his lines are almost like they are classical. I just looked and it's either Antonio Sanchez on Drums or Brian Blade, but from my listening I think it's Brian, who adds a lot of texture to the background. Drums also help to figure out periods in the song. Hope his gives some insight. (Side note: I've never heard of Billy Child's before so thanks for introducing him, this piece is incredible)

  1321. musictheory 2017-05-15 01:05:51 YouSuffer
    Maybe it's odd, but I found theory much easier to grasp once I'd learned a bit of guitar -- not that I'm any sort of expert! Piano and guitar work in different ways, gabrielsab's comment above was pretty spot on about the trade-offs. I think I know enough to explain. Theory lesson 0: What it means when someone says "We're playing in C Major." C is the key, Major is the mode. Together they define a set of notes that are going to make sense to play together. Piano makes it easy to stay in one key and change the mode. Guitar makes it easy to stay in one mode and change the key. With a guitar you can learn a chord shape or a scale shape and play the same chord or scale in different keys just by moving that shape up and down the neck. On a piano, if you want to play in C major you can do so with only the white keys, but if you want to play in F major or any other major key you'll need to learn a different combination of white and black keys. The trade-off for this is also the reason for it: If you stay in the key of C on a piano, you can play in other modes by continuing to use all the white keys, but resolving your melodies to a different note (e.g. beginning and ending a melody with F, using all the white keys, will be a phrase in F Lydian). It's really easy to just stay in the minor mode and change key whenever you want on a guitar, but to change your mode freely you'll have to learn different shapes representing different modes. On piano it's easy to stay in one key and change the mode, but to play in different keys you'll have to learn the shapes of the keys. I think that, whichever instrument you choose, it would probably be helpful to play the other as well once in a while. When I started learning about music, I was taught piano, but I was absolutely rubbish at it. Later I learned bass guitar, and that seemed a lot easier. Now it's helping me learn to play 6-string guitar, so I'm encountering chords again (note: it's still important to learn your chords when playing bass, you just generally don't play all the notes at once), and going back to learn just a bit about piano really gave me a different perspective. With either, if you learn all the shapes corresponding to keys or modes on either instrument, you can do many of the same things. A guitar can play six notes at once while a piano can play ten, where having five on each hand allows you to more naturally play two things at once, but a guitar can slide and bend notes and if you're into rock and roll you'll appreciate being able to play melodies with power chords in any key by holding one simple shape, as well as the portability and the powerful sound of a good amp. If you prefer classical music, piano will probably be a better tool for understanding that world. Those are the major trade-offs, but learning either or both would be worthwhile.

  1322. musictheory 2017-05-15 03:50:44 phalp
    > There are few things it can't do in relation to other instruments, but when it can, or can e manipulated to do so easily then other instruments are basically pointless. Lol what. This is parody, right? Piano is fine but it can't replace having a string or air column to push on directly.

  1323. musictheory 2017-05-15 13:59:14 daryl993manggip
    If you have studied all the five positions, you should already know the positions in which the root is on the 5th string. The root note is NOT the same as last note on the 6th string in that particular position. Try to take again at the charts for the 5 positions, usually the note is indicated somehow, like the dot would be darker and bolder for the root note. source: am a guitarist.

  1324. musictheory 2017-05-15 23:41:45 DRL47
    Although in a different key, This is the chord progression for the bridge in "Everyday" by Buddy Holly. The first C is the end of the verse, then the bridge, then the last C is the beginning of the next part. The interesting thing about this string of secondary dominants is this: usually you jump away from the tonic and use secondary dominants to bring you back "home". In this case, you use secondary dominants to lead you AWAY from the key and then a little half-step slide down to the dominant and you are back home.

  1325. musictheory 2017-05-16 01:11:21 rawbface
    It's all about context. F# makes more sense for string instruments, since the open strings are mostly "sharp" keys (G D A E for violin, for example). For wind instruments you might see Gb more often because woodwinds are often in "flat" keys (Bb, Eb, etc). An Eb alto sax has to add 3 sharps to the concert pitch, so Gb is easy and F# would be majorly annoying.

  1326. musictheory 2017-05-16 03:22:10 arcowhip
    Violinist here, strings don't really care about flat versus sharp in the context of this key in a vacuum. It depends entirely on the relationship to the modulations around it. If we are in Bb major and then modulate, going to Gb major is visually easier to see and hear. If we are in B major and then modulate to the same key, then F# major makes more sense. Look at the string repertoire, especially quartets and you will see this is the standard practice. Nearly all the logical reasons I have seen basing it on the instrument make equivalent sense in the opposite direction. Beginning string players like sharps because many violin methods focus on sharps first, and this mantra has stuck. But at a certain point it is not necessary at all to determine the key to use because of the open strings on the violin.

  1327. musictheory 2017-05-16 03:32:00 clarkcox3
    There's also the difference in that physically, it is easier to play a sharp than a flat on a string instrument (i.e. You can *always* move your finger up a half-step; you can't always move down a half step without switching to a lower string).

  1328. musictheory 2017-05-16 03:37:36 TrickDunn
    While the String vs. Brass argument has been made, I would still say Gb pretty much universally. Gb's relative minor is Eb rather than F#'s D#. In D# minor you'll run into Cdouble# to hit the leading tone, whereas Eb simply has a Dnatural.

  1329. musictheory 2017-05-16 05:13:05 PM_ME_UR_COLLARDS
    Am string player Love sharps

  1330. musictheory 2017-05-16 06:42:52 Derantol
    Even when a piece is written in a minor key, the leading tone (as it would be playing in a major key) is still used sometimes. I forget the exact name for the scale, but I know practicing the violin I played a couple different minor scales, and one of them used the leading tone while you ascended the scale (to contrast the normal minor key while descending). Playing C## is a pain in the ass even for a string player, from a conceptual standpoint.

  1331. musictheory 2017-05-16 15:28:20 Xenoceratops
    [Caplin - Classical Form](https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Form-Functions-Instrumental-Beethoven/dp/019514399X) [Gjerdingen - Music in the Galant Style](https://www.amazon.com/Music-Galant-Style-Robert-Gjerdingen/dp/0195313712) [Hepokoski/Darcy - Elements of Sonata Theory](https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Sonata-Theory-Deformations-Late-Eighteenth-Century/dp/0199773912/) [Gauldin - A Practical Approach to 18th Century Counterpoint](https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Approach-Century-Counterpoint-Revised/dp/1478604700/) [Rosen - The Classical Style](https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Style-Mozart-Beethoven-Expanded/dp/0393317129/) [Lester - Compositional Theory in the Eighteenth Century](https://www.amazon.com/Compositional-Theory-Eighteenth-Century-Lester/dp/0674155238/) This should all be supplemental to studying Mozart and Haydn scores. Grab the [Dover printings](https://www.amazon.com/Complete-String-Quartets-Chamber-Scores/dp/0486223728) (I'd say "editions," but all they do is reprint from old Breitkopf & Hartel plates) of the string quartets and go to town.

  1332. musictheory 2017-05-16 18:29:16 gtfo_mailman
    I recently finished a piece I'm hoping to add to my university portfolio. It's a Toccata for the cello. I'm not a cellist but it was a part of my studies of how to compose for the string instruments. I even got some help from the kind people of /r/cello!

  1333. musictheory 2017-05-16 20:04:09 Jongtr
    Ah, but with that fingering D is your bass note, not A! The A on 12th fret is a 5th higher than the open D string, so the voicing is D-A-B-D-E in that order. That makes D sound like the true (acoustic) root. So I'd be tempted to call it D69, even though there is no F#. "D69(no 3rd)" to be precise. The other option is E7sus4/D. "D6sus2" - although unusual - fits the bill too.

  1334. musictheory 2017-05-16 20:09:25 spitz81
    The bottom D string is muted, so a *is* the bass.

  1335. musictheory 2017-05-17 06:02:54 Jongtr
    The 4th string is open though, yes? That D is lower than the A on 12th fret 5th string.

  1336. musictheory 2017-05-17 17:53:06 Jongtr
    In the Seer, it's a combination of the broad spectrum of sound (low bass, metallic timbres higher up), the sustained chord, probable compression (levelling out the mix, which makes it sound loud, even when not played loud), and probably some reverb - hard to tell, because the spectrum is so full with pitched material. The chord starts as a reasonably clean G chord, but then the high B (distorted organ? synth?) moves to C, a Bb seems to come in lower down, and there are hints of Ab - so plenty of dissonance on top of an implied minor chord. Generally, you could say the "apocalyptic" effect comes from the combination of: low bass, big reverb (for "space" and "size"), long sustain - ideally held notes on organ or synth. The fuller the sound spectrum (bright, glassy timbres over the full bass), the more intense and *overwhelming* the sound - it should fill your ears (which is where compression comes in). That should work work with fairly clean chords, but distortion and dissonant intervals (minor 2nds) would add extra menace (if required). On Dead Flag Blues, the bass tone slowly creeping in is ominous, even before the monologue comes in. Without the monologue, that bass could be appealingly mysterious, but the words obviously make it dark, depressing. The strings then serve to enhance that mood, although softening it a little due to the consonant harmonies. They outline a Db6/Bbm7 arpeggio. (The initial bass tone was actually between E and F, so not exactly a preparation for the string arrangement.) The major-minor indeterminacy, and the aimless sound of the phrasing (and the steady repetition), makes for a useful sense of aimlessness, of contemplation. By the time the voice stops and the guitar comes in, it's more definitely focused on the moody Bb minor, and there's plenty of reverb, compression and sustain to make it big, distant, and "spacey". The fact the notes just continue to outline the arpeggio, with no development, gives it a sense of *stasis* - "we're stuck, we're not going anywhere". That's not in itself "apocalyptic" of course - the same effect could be used to express peaceful meditation (especially as the guitar tone is clean). It's the preceding stuff (especially the monologue) that sets the dark tone.

  1337. musictheory 2017-05-17 21:04:00 HansLN
    Speaking of Muse, another apocalypse-themed piece of theirs, which IMO does an even better job at having that kind of sound, is [Part 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZD0yp-E0rw) of "[Exogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exogenesis:_Symphony)". I could probably write a whole book about the symphony, but a big part of the apocalyptic feel set up in the first part of Part 1 is the sudden change from the peaceful Lydian/major-key string melody to the almost exclusively augmented chords in the next part, just as the low strings and brass come in.

  1338. musictheory 2017-05-18 08:56:51 trycat
    It's for a program I'm writing that gives you any conceivable chord that can be played on a 6 string (or less) instrument - if a chord starts with C it kinda has to be a C chord unless I completely restructure everything - I guess it doesn't really matter what I name the chords but I want to get it as right as possible. I thought about using Forte pitch class sets but people are more familiar with "Maj7" etc and some of those Forte things are really counterintuitive (Maj7, 0158 as a good example)

  1339. musictheory 2017-05-19 16:38:29 Jongtr
    There is a logic to the circle of 5ths which may help. As you've probably noticed (and ljse7m as has explained), in the clockwise direction you add a sharp or subtract a flat, and vice-versa anti-clockwise. This is so that each major scale can preserve the w-w-h-w-w-w-h formula. It's in 5ths, because if you take the 5th note of any scale and make that the new root, you need to raise the 7th note of the (new) scale, i.e. add 1 sharp. In the other direction, if you start 5 notes *down* from the original keynote (or 4 up), and make that your new keynote, then the *4th* of your new scale needs to be *lowered* (adding a flat). E.g., C major starting from its 5th note, G = G A B C D E F G. For the major scale sound, the F-G step is too big, so F needs to be raised to F#. Then if you start G major from its 5th (D), you find it's the C that needs to be raised; and so on Going the other way, starting C major from F = F G A B C D E F: now the B needs to be lowered to Bb to get the proper F major scale sound; and so on (the next scale in that direction will start on Bb). The guitar is actually a good instrument for understanding scale structure, if you work up one string (any string). C major is frets 3-5-7-8-10-12-14-15 on string 5, or frets 1-3-5-6-8-10-12-13 on string 2. There you can see the W-W-H-W-W-W-H formula laid out in frets. Apply the same pattern to (say) the G string, and you get 0-2-4-5-7-9-11-12. The 11th fret is F#. Try it on the D string and you get F# on fret 4 and C# on fret 11. Notice the formula consists of two of the same WWH pattern (2-2-1 in frets) with a whole step in between. This exercise is not just about "seeing" major scales on the fretboard, but learning the notes themselves. So, now you know that frets 1-3-5-6-8-10-12-13 are C D E F G A B C. If you forget any note (on any string), you can apply the formula to find it. This is just one of many ways of learning the fretboard. Another good way is chord shapes. If you know a C major chord contains the notes C E G (and you should!), then every C chord up the neck (in the so-called CAGED system of 5 shapes) contains the same 3 notes; or - if you learn the notes first - you can make a C major chord anywhere by finding those 3 notes. Your natural curiosity should drive this kind of exercise, but no need to spend hours on it each day! A few minutes each day should be enough - eg trying to find every E note on the neck one session (using both ear and calculation), maybe every G note next session. The main focus of your practice (IMO) should be playing *music* - enjoying yourself - but also thinking about what you are playing: asking yourself what chords those are, what notes are in those chords, what scale do those notes fit? Could you find alternative shapes for the same chords? Can you play that riff in another key, in a different place on the neck? (Using your ear to check you get it right.) Remember that when playing actual music, you will often find tunes that seem to "break the rules". The tune might seem to be in G major, but then there's an F note or F chord, perhaps alongside a D chord (which has an F# in it). It sounds fine, so everything is in order. No rules are really being broken - the truth is the major scale formula is just one rule among many: a kind of basic beginner rule that's flexible in practice. Many songs do stick to one major (or minor) scale - but many don't. But our musical culture is still based on the old "do re mi fa so la ti do" as a familiar *foundation*, a starting point; which is why it's the first piece of theory we all learn. (Historically, btw, the major scale is only a few centuries old - but that's old enough! ;-))

  1340. musictheory 2017-05-20 15:11:52 rprmnmnmn
    Assuming this is standard tuning and going from low to high, Gmaj7 G-B-F#-x-x-x Cmaj7 C-E-B-x-x-x Em9 E-G-B-F#-x-x Am9 A-C-E-B-x-x G major consists of G B D G major 7 is the same plus F#: G B D F# If you don't have D, the 5th of G, that's okay. You can assume the note would be a D if the rest of the progression is still in the key of G ( G-A-B-C-D-E-F#) C major C E G C major 7 C E G B E minor E G B E minor 9 E G B F# A minor A C E A minor 9 A C E B When playing every string open(not fretting, 0 in tabs), your diagram would read E-A-D-G-B-E. I hope this wasn't confusing. I'm bad at explaining. Also please correct me if I'm wrong.

  1341. musictheory 2017-05-20 18:13:57 LukeSniper
    Not really sure what you're talking about. The relative tuning of the ukulele is the same as the upper four strings of the guitar (except the "bottom" string is tuned an octave higher). Any chord shapes used on the ukulele work on the guitar as well. The reentrant tuning results in some really close voicings that sound great, but they're the same chord shapes.

  1342. musictheory 2017-05-20 20:49:00 Jongtr
    Maybe 4 strings is 1/3 easier to handle than 6 strings? ;-) The downside (obviously) is that guitar - while more difficult to play - is much *more* versatile: because it has 50% more strings, as well as a much greater scale length. You can of course *reduce* your guitar to the range (and lesser versatility) of a ukulele if you want, by removing the 5th and 6th strings and putting a capo on fret 5. But you would still miss one of the more intriguing differences, which is the uke's re-entrant tuning, where the 4th string is tuned an octave higher. This gives it some affinity with the 5-string banjo (which can be equally confusing for a guitarist to adapt to). It means chords on ukulele (at least, the much reduced range available compared with guitar) can be played with closer voicings than on guitar. And it also gives finger-style ukulele a particular charm.

  1343. musictheory 2017-05-20 20:51:56 4plus1
    Just like /u/LukeSniper said, the 4 strings of a ukulele are tuned to the same intervals as the top 4 strings of a guitar. Most ukes (soprano, tenor, concert) are tuned to GCEA (top 4 strings of a guitar are DGBE, same intervals). Reentrant tuning means tuning the lowest string (G) up on octave, which doesn't change any chords, but results in a overall 'brighter' sound. And then, there's baritone ukes, that are tuned DGBE, just like a guitar. Ukuleles are very accessible for a number of reasons: * Nylon strings instead of steel strings - easier on the fingers and less strength needed to hold down chords. * Less strings than most plucked instruments. Which means that playing chords is more straightforward than on a guitar, which requires to either mute or not hit certain strings for specific chords (C major, for example). * A lot of chord shapes that you can move up and down the fretboard to play a number of chords. For example, if you can play a B♭ major chord, you already know how to play B major, C major, C♯ major, D major, D♯ major... * Smaller size requires less stretching of the fingers when playing chords/scales. * All the most common chords in western music (C major, F major, G major, A minor) are *very* easy to play on a ukulele.

  1344. musictheory 2017-05-23 12:51:47 arcowhip
    Violinist here. There is more to it than just the double stops creating that sound. It's possible for a violinist to play those double stops very smoothly. It has to do with articulation. In Danse Macabre the performer is making a choice to be very articulate and emphatic. Marcato is probably a good descriptor for it, and very specifically in this piece they are probably getting that sound with something called Fouette'. This is an accented detache' (meaning accented detached or separated stroke), and the accent is achieved by very slightly lifting the bow off the string and striking it down again with energy to prevent bouncing. The note then speaks clearly and with a harder consonant sound. It should be stated that this definition is an American one from the Franco-Belgian school of violin. Other traditions and countries have a slightly different meaning for Fouette'.

  1345. musictheory 2017-05-23 16:02:03 ITwitchToo
    Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but what leaps to my mind is "sawtooth wave", see this for more info: http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/fiddle.cfm I'm sure you know that every instrument has specific overtones (frequencies which play together with the main/root/base frequency). In the violin these add up to give the waveform that sawtooth shape, which is characteristic of string instruments.

  1346. musictheory 2017-05-24 01:59:36 Karmoon
    Yes of course. It's not just the tone but how you get there. A dramatic glissando sometimes works better than a jump. Also, while tonally they should be the same, they will have slightly different timbred for each string. A on the low E string and open A are the same totally, but they still sound unique :) For me these are always personal, creative choices. While there is undoubtedly some theory to explain why each one works, I don't know it.

  1347. musictheory 2017-05-24 05:31:47 Karmoon
    Basically which string you play a given note on. Like C-4, as you know, can be played in a few places. While the only you play is largely governed by efficient fingering, sometimes you might choose to play it in a specific location on purpose. Tonally, they are the same, but there are subtle differences between them.

  1348. musictheory 2017-05-24 12:37:50 OtyliaSafiry
    It's random how I start a piece of music. Sometimes it's a melody or just a couple of notes and I expand on that. Other times I've created chord progressions as I like to create longer phrases that don't follow traditional phrasing. I like to work with odd time signatures, so sometimes I'll put together a string of like 10 measures of changing time signatures and from there create a melody or chord progression. Slower songs I generally create the melody first and chords later. Faster paced song I'll usually do chords and rhythm creating a melody later on top of that.

  1349. musictheory 2017-05-25 01:51:26 metagloria
    7-string guitarist, so I tend to gravitate toward B roots: minor, phrygian, Lydian dominant, etc.

  1350. musictheory 2017-05-25 04:18:14 sickbeetz
    My dissertation was on repetition in verse-chorus forms, and a sizeable portion dealt with music psychology, so I came across quite a few articles dealing with the psychological aspects of musical form. >I think the B section is necessary for exploiting the “spacing effect” of memory retention. I'm not so sure the B section is the reason we remember the A section. Ollen and Huron point out that music of most cultures tends to have "clumps" of repetitions. So in an AABA, rather than the B section being a necessity, it's more likely that the "AA" part plays a more significant role. In his book, *Sweet Anticipation*, Huron says that at least one repetition is required to move the melodic information to an immediate-term memory, hence the second A. The final A is what Leonard Meyer would call a *reiteration*, which emphasizes the similarities between a musical segment and its repetition, so again the return of A is what is important here, not the departure to B. I would argue that the B section maintains interest via novelty, but isn't THE section that cements A material in your memory. The B section material would have to be related to A section material somehow. >For this hypothesis, I’m focusing on the repetition of sections and I leave aside the issue of individual notes and motifs. This is a good call. In *Studying Popular Music*, Richard Middleton talks about the length of repetitions, and how they differ in their roles. Shorter repetitions (musematic) are act as a single layer, whereas longer repetitions (discursive) "tends toward a hierarchically ordered discourse." As an analogy, anyone reading this doesn't mind that I've used the word "the" in this post over and over, but if I repeat a string of words you tend to notice, but if I repeat a string of word you tend to notice. Also, I wouldn't underestimate the role of culture in your study. AABA form was more popular prior to the 1960s so it's efficacy may be more apropos to "old timers", as opposed to verse-chorus forms being more popular since the 1960s. Check out Allen Forte's *The American Popular Ballad of the Golden Era* I'd like to hear more of what you intend to do on this topic. My study looked at verse-chorus forms and eventually I intend to use the same method of analysis on AABA forms. Here's some relevant sources you might check out. Huron, D. (2006). *Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McAdams, S. (1989). Psychological constraints on form-bearing dimensions in music. *Contemporary Music Review*, 4, 181-198. Meyer, L. B. (1956). *Emotion and meaning in music*. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Middleton, R. (1990). *Studying popular music*. Milton Keynes, U.K.: Open University Press. Neuhaus, C., Knösche, T. R., & Friederici, A. D. (2009). Similarity and repetition: An ERP study on musical form perception. *Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences*, 1169(1), 485-489. Ollen, J., & Huron, D. (2003). Musical form and habituation theory. [Presentation] *Poster presented at the Society for Music Perception and Cognition Conference 2003*, Las Vegas, Nevada.

  1351. musictheory 2017-05-25 06:08:59 guitarelf
    Sure thing. I think it really has to do with standard tuning and the keys associated with the open strings. In other words, if you play keys that contain the notes of the open strings, you have access to fuller sounding chords. This isn't set in stone whatsoever though. Hendrix, SRV, YJM, EVH all play a half step down from standard, so all of their songs are in the flat versions of the keys I listed. Most modern heavy metal drop tunes by a whole step or more. I don't know about most guitar work being in A or E, but in general once you step out of the keys I listed you're basically barring every chord and you no longer have access to open strings that harmonize with a majority of chords in those keys. I think the "best" keys in regards to standard open strings are arguably G major and E minor - literally every open string is a note that's in those keys.

  1352. musictheory 2017-05-26 10:40:34 ts73737
    It's just guitar lead over a chord progression. The progression uses only root and relative third. Root is on the low string, third is on the higher string. If you want, fill in the fifth and the octave of the root to get a normal bar chord. It's completely diatonic as another user pointed out, and is just major and minor chords. The lead is lead work that sounds good over those various chords. It sounds interesting because the rhythm excludes the fifth, so the chords sound less full and imposing. It gives more room for the lead to fill in some of the space, but also makes the rhythm feel less rhythm and more lead as well. It's almost like 2 guitars just playing harmony with each other. The rhythm also had a nice rhythm with good use of dead notes in the strumming pattern.

  1353. musictheory 2017-05-26 12:57:23 ts73737
    One thing will help is looking up the tuning of the guitars. They will be dropped to... Something. The low End string is dropped 2 semi tones but if I remember right that band likely plays downtuned a couple semitones as well. What gives those chords an amazing sound is the amount of open strings in them. Each chord will be holding a note on say the A and D string, leaving the rest of the notes to ring out. This isn't constant, they'll play notes on the higher strings too, but having lots of open notes gives the pedal tones as another user alluded too, as well as the intense open resonant tone you here. Drop your tuning and have a play around using the low open note as a pedal tone for either D major or D minor (assuming you go to drop D). You'll eventually stumble across a similar sound to this song.

  1354. musictheory 2017-05-26 18:28:07 zygote_harlot
    Do you write ensemble music? Maybe if you approach your piano compositions from more of an orchestral or ensemble mindset you may have an easier time coming up with more varied textures. The piano can be your string quartet or orchestra or jazz trio... there are so many possibilities!

  1355. musictheory 2017-05-27 11:50:02 Badicus
    I think it sounds just fine! Something you *might* do, by the way, is play that upper open E string on that E major chord before you go to Emaj7, then don't play that string on your Emaj7 chord, so your highest voice is that D#. That'll give you a little chromatic line in the top, which I think sounds nice, and leads into that D♯ nicely to make it sound less like it came out of nowhere. This is a matter of taste, though, and I think it's really fine as is. The Dorian scale has the raised 6th like (ascending) melodic minor, but not the raised seventh. It's also the same ascending and descending, where the melodic minor does not use the raised 6th and 7th when descending (because if you're descending, you're not using that 7th degree as a leading tone). To give you some famous examples of the Dorian mode, you've got Scarborough Fair, and sometimes Greensleeves (that sixth is sometimes lowered to make it sound like minor, I've noticed). It's pretty common in folk tunes like that.

  1356. musictheory 2017-05-29 05:14:02 CamQTR
    When 2 notes are sounded at the same time, the vibration rates will have some mathematical relationship, a ratio. The A string on the violin is usually tuned to 440 vibrations (waves) per second. If you go up the scale 8 notes to the next A( counting from A to A, the higher A will be 880 vibrations per second. Thats a ratio of 2/1, Pythagoras thought that made a clear, pure, harmonious harmony. The next note combination that P. liked was the combination of the 1st note and the 5th note, so A and E, 3/2. He liked that harmony too. But he didnt like harmonies with higher numbers in the ratios. If you stack each 5th note until you come around to a C#, you get a major 3rd, which has a ratio of 81/64. That will sound okay melodically, going from A to C#, but P didnt like they way they sounded together as harmony. So Europe went for about a 1000 years with music harmonised with unisons or 5ths, Gregorian chant etc.

  1357. musictheory 2017-05-29 09:47:51 xiipaoc
    All right, here's how this works. Let me know if there's any part of it that you don't understand. The way we hear pitches is essentially multiplicative: an interval corresponds to a frequency ratio. For example, if you go up by an octave, you multiply the frequency by 2. The A above Middle C (A4) is 440 Hz, so the A an octave higher (A5) is 880 Hz, and the A above that (A6) is 1760 Hz. Going down, the A below Middle C (A3) is 220 Hz, the A below that (A2) is 110 Hz, the A below that (A1) is 55 Hz, and the bottom note of the piano (A0) is 27.5 Hz. So, if an octave is a factor of 2, and there are 12 half steps in an octave, what's the ratio for the half step? 2^(1/12), of course. That means that every frequency for the notes on the piano (other than the various A's) is an irrational number. But Pythagoreans can't have that, can they? What the Pythagoreans discovered was that if you hold off a string at small whole number ratios (like the 2:1 octave), you get an interval that sounds consonant. In particular, the sound of the 3:2 ratio is very consonant, as are the ratios 4:3, 5:4, and 6:5. 3:2 happens to be the perfect fifth, 4:3 the perfect fourth, and 5:4 is a major third (ish). So, people (not necessarily the Pythagoreans, I think) decided to make a musical system based on this 3:2 ratio, which is known as Pythagorean tuning. This way, all of the fifths sound pure. If you play a C and a G, you'll get a perfectly in-tune perfect fifth! Pretty nice, right? But the Pythagoreans were rationalists, and this system has... some problems with rational numbers. In particular, you can go up by fifths as high as you'd like and you'll never reach an octave. Let's see how this works. Let's say C has frequency 1 (in some arbitrary units, doesn't matter). Then G has frequency 3/2. D has frequency 9/4, but let's keep it in the same octave so we'll bring that down to 9/8. A has frequency 27/16. E has frequency 81/64. And so on. We'll *never* get back to C, because the numerator is always a power of 3 and the denominator is always a power of 2. If you go up 12 fifths, you'll get not C but a note 3^(12)/2^19 higher than C. That interval, 3^(12)/2^(19), is called a Pythagorean comma (a comma is a small musical interval that comes from these rational number shenanigans; the most famous is the syntonic comma, 81/80, the ratio between the Pythagorean major third of 81/64 and the 5/4 major third). So let's go down from C instead. F has frequency 4/3. Bb has frequency 16/9. Eb has frequency 32/27. Ab is 128/81. And so on. The problem here is that at some point, you'll want to reconcile the ratios with the 2's on top and 3's on bottom with the ratios with the 3's on top and 2's on the bottom. If you want to only have 12 notes in your octave, at *some* point you're going to need a fifth that's off, because your fifths are simply not going to wrap around. That "bad fifth" is called a wolf fifth. I think it was usually the fifth between G# and Eb. Instead of the 128/81 Ab, the tuning would have the G# at 6561/4096. The 128/81 note is in tune with Eb at 32/27, but 6561/4096 isn't; on the other hand, it *is* in tune with the 2187/2048 C#. Pythagorean tuning also suffers from another problem: the thirds *suck*. 5/4 is a nice, pure major third; it sounds in tune. The 81/64 major third in the Pythagorean tuning is *much* sharper, by about a quarter of a half step. This makes triads sound like shit. If they're even possible, because if the wolf fifth gets in the way, you'll have further problems. Let's look at this numerically. We usually divide a half step into 100 cents (a half step is a factor of 2^(1/12), so a cent is 2^(1/1200); there are 1200 cents in an octave). In our equal-tempered system, a perfect fifth is (exactly) 700 cents. A Pythagorean perfect fifth, with the ratio of 3/2, is approximately 702 cents (remember, this interval is rational, but cents are irrational, so 3/2 becomes an irrational number of cents). A Pythagorean major third is four fifths minus some octaves, so it's about 408 cents (the equal-tempered third is 400 cents). The 5/4 "pure" third is about 386 cents. In equal temperament, thirds already sound out of tune; they're 14 cents sharp. Pythagorean tuning makes the problem *worse* by making them 22 cents instead! I hope your music doesn't use triads! Indeed, Pythagorean tuning is only practical in music that doesn't use tertian harmony. But since when were the Pythagoreans concerned with what's practical? They eventually died out due to lack of protein, since they were vegetarians who refused to eat beans.

  1358. musictheory 2017-05-29 18:03:19 Jongtr
    Different types of music are defined usually according to formal elements, not according to the mood or overall effects. So you have "waltz", "minuet", "tango", "saraband", "fox-trot", "rumba", etc, referring to *dances*, and therefore all based on rhythm or metrical elements (beat counts and patterns). A "march" is also defined by its metre - which will be in 2 or 4, not 3 - designed, obviously, to be marched to. (It could be 6/8, which is another 2-beat metre.) Then you can have "sonata", "rondo", "12-bar blues", "AABA", etc. - all based on formal structures. There are "symphonies" (defined as an orchestral piece played by a mix of different instruments, containing separate sections ot "movements"), "concertos" (defined as a showcase for a specific instrument accompanied by orchestra), "cantatas" (choral works). You can, of course, have "major key" and "minor key" pieces, or "modal" pieces - defined by their scale structures, not their expressive moods. (A major key piece can be "sad", a minor key piece can be "happy".) Then there is the word "ballad", which has a very flexible meaning. In a jazz/pop sense, it means a slow, romantic song. In the folk sense, it has no tempo connotations, and refers to a narrative tale, typically quite long, often concerning a crime or tragedy. A "lullaby" is a piece of music designed to help children sleep. It could be in any of the above forms, it's just played in a certain way, with a gentle dynamic, and probably with very simple instruments (if any - it could be unaccompanied vocal, of course). IOW, the factors which would define something like a "horror song" are not down to any single formal element like the above. For the music to be suitably "shocking" (aside from any lyrics of course) it would need a mix of elements: plenty of dissonance, startling changes in dynamics, big range of pitch (doomy bass, screaming violins?), harsh timbres, maybe studio effects such as reverb. > what would you call "Pink Floyd's" (The Trial) from the Wall Album? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fa7AtI1msk Sounds to me like something from a melodramatic [operetta] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operetta), or a cheesy Broadway musical. Something of Kurt Weill about it, maybe, but less classy. More Andrew Lloyd Webber. Obviously it's designed to be dark and scary (the "big" production and the string arrangement), while the bouncy march tempo suggests something mechanical and inhuman - but also kitsch in its heavily theatrical self-awareness. IOW, for the average Floyd fan, this is far enough out of their comfort zone (thanks to Bob Ezrin more than Roger Waters) that the music doesn't need to be particularly scary to unsettle them a little more.

  1359. musictheory 2017-05-29 23:51:52 legimpster
    From Gary Burton, vibraphone extraordinaire: "This is an interesting topic and one that definitely matters to professional level vibraphone players. I have struggled with this for decades. In the USA 440 is the norm, in Europe and Japan and South America it is 442, although I run into instances of 440 even in Europe sometimes. Then there is 443, which sometimes is the norm in certain places (Berlin concert halls). For a reason I can only guess, Musser started tuning their instruments to 442 about 20 years ago. I suppose it was because the rest of the world was requesting 442, and even in the USA, orchestras tend to use 442. That leaves the lowly club date musician and jazz band musician with an instrument that is out of tune with the pianos in clubs and other venues they are likely to play. I have two sets of bars, a 440 for the USA and 442 for most of the rest of the world. When touring with a panist, like my duo gigs with Chick Corea, I take both sets of bars with me. And Nico is correct, the tuning of the resonators isn't an issue. Both sets of bars sound equally fine with the same resonators. The resonators tuning isn't all that precise. I don't know where the 443 tuning comes into the picture. I have one set of bars I got from Musser that are in fact marked with a sharpie pen as "443." Why, who knows? My general advice is this, based on hundreds of concert performances in USA, Europe and elsewhere. If you live in the USA, definitely order 440 bars, in the rest of the world order 442 if you are buying a new instrument. If you never play with a piano, it won't really matter (although I hadn't thought about the flute player mentioned below). But, better to be in line with all the other instruments on whatever continent you reside. The history of tuning is a sad one. Sixty or seventy years ago there was an attempt to get the world to agree on a standard tuning, but ultimately negotiations broke down and the USA went with 440 while Europe went with 442. And that opened the door to individual choices. Some orchestras choose 443, and supposedly the Berlin Philharmonic uses 444! Orchestra players seem to always play on the sharp side -- if you are slightly higher than the other instruments, you like you own sound better. So, strings and woodwinds keep creeping higher as a concert progresses. Even fifty years ago I remember percussionists getting their xylophones tuned to 442 and 443 because when they had a unison passage with strings, they needed to be sharp in order not to sound out of tune with the strings. Wouldn't it be great if all instruments were tuned at the factory like the vibraphone and we wouldn't have to worry about those pesky string players, etc." -- Gary Burton

  1360. musictheory 2017-05-30 13:53:24 Robinisthemother
    I can't speak for string instruments, but wind instrument intonation is affected by temperature. As you are blowing more and more warm air into the instrument, the pitch rises. A good warm up will help, but depending on the piece of music, some instruments may go 5 or 10 minutes without playing a note. Then they start playing and the pitch rises.

  1361. musictheory 2017-05-30 15:23:02 paulcannonbass
    Germany is nearly completely standardized at 443 at this point. It's a bit on the high side, but at least they agree on it. All the mallet instruments I've seen here are tuned accordingly. There are many more classical accordionists here, as well, which is another non-adjustable instrument. I've worked all over the US, and the range in professional orchestras is anywhere from 440 to 443. As a string player, that's fine, but imagine needing to own four separate full size accordions (approx $15,000 each) just to deal with different tuning standards. Source: American bassist now working in Germany.

  1362. musictheory 2017-05-30 21:33:12 Jongtr
    > joedubs.com/music-of-the-spheres *"These ratios are core tenants of Music Theory."* - Illiteracy is a bad sign, to start with. Certain facts seem evident, though: 1. Simple ratios occur in some natural phenomena 2. The harmonic series causes resonance between pitches whose fundamentals are in simple ratios (because they share some overtones). Naturally the way our ears work is relevant here. 3. Some planets and moons (quite a lot, but not all) exhibit orbital resonance, which is caused by gravitational effects - related to factors of mass, distance and speed. There is no sound in space, so there is no "harmony" in the musical sense. 4. Humans are pattern-seeking animals, because it's how we make sense of the world and learn to control it. Therefore we attach meaning to perceived patterns, even when they may be coincidental. A simple ratio caused by one set of natural circumstances has no necessarily meaningful link to a simple ratio caused by a different set of natural circumstances. There is (I guess) a kind of link between gravity and sound, in that the vibration of a musical object like a stretched string resembles a pendulum being always drawn back to central point where it eventually comes to rest. I'm no physicist, so I'm not going to expand on that.

  1363. musictheory 2017-05-31 06:06:07 Ian_Campbell
    I don't think I've ever heard Vivaldi use THAT one though. He of course used the chromatically ascending notes with secondary dominants all the time, and you do hear Bach do that sometimes like in the little fugue in G minor toward the end. But anyway, Mozart did by the time he was 26 arrange some of the Bach WTC fugues for string trios or quartets. I would be fascinated to learn more repertoire and track down an answer to this. I don't think those sequences are common in the classical era. http://www.schillerinstitut.dk/bach.html This talks about Mozart encountering the WTC and other Bach works.

  1364. musictheory 2017-05-31 22:34:46 AndrewT81
    String players, while not as strictly bound to temperaments as keyboard players are, will always tune relative to other pitches. We can adjust notes to make them fit chords better (i.e. be closer to the intervals in the harmonic series), but there's no situation in which an E# would be played differently than an F without context. If you wrote a G##### for a string player, they would count the sharps (because nobody would actually read that note) and play a C that's a perfect fourth above the open G string.

  1365. musictheory 2017-06-02 00:42:32 Dan_Pat
    To sort of extend this idea to the track you posted, the synth chords you have in the lower octave (until 0:58) are basically in the same range as the piano chords you have in the next section (around 1:09). Those two parts probably would take up the same spectrum and would sound pretty muddy together, but you got around that by moving the synth part to a higher register, which I think works pretty well. Throughout the whole song, there is never really a higher register part, so that could be an easy way to add something that isn't in the way of what you have now. An example that could work with your song would be something like a synth lead or a string melody.

  1366. musictheory 2017-06-02 02:36:01 Ian_Campbell
    Well wind and string instruments in a band or orchestra slightly adjust their tuning where appropriate within chords, and sure when they know pieces they will do that regardless of enharmonics, but the right ones may help a little to make more sense of stuff. Perhaps it really doesn't matter though. I play trombone and when we played some soundtrack from Star Wars I was getting G and G flat notes for a section that was clearly in G minor, and it pissed me off that it didn't just use an F# leading tone.

  1367. musictheory 2017-06-02 04:28:53 LuckySe7enTheories
    Seeing cowboy chord on electrics terrify me. Especially on high end guitars. I was thinking of a root position slightly higher, anywhere from the 6th to 9th frets to utilise open string voicing for prog. I've been playing seriously for about 4 years and have stupidly ignored chords until this last winter. I'm trying to make up for lost time as it were.

  1368. musictheory 2017-06-03 01:25:55 LuckySe7enTheories
    Well, each string has a specific character. You can play the exact same tones on different strings (like when you tune) and they sound slightly different. Plus, building completely dissonant chords adds texture.

  1369. musictheory 2017-06-03 02:32:53 SinisterMinisterX
    The first 30 seconds alone: some kid not old enough to shave who says... 1. He knows about writing for orchestra ... because of his "electronic instrument". 2. String orchestras can't be powerful. Is this seriously what passes for music theory these days?

  1370. musictheory 2017-06-03 08:38:18 ljse7m
    The simple answer would be, "Was he a genius before he went deaf?" To me, the answer is YES, he was a genius all of his musical career. People are born genius and that is a large part of his success as a musical artist. But there is more to it than that. Being a genius is not enough. He had training, he had a musical environment, good teachers and a mind that was very high on the musical critical thinking scale. He also learned or was innately gifted to hear the music in his head. So by the time he went deaf he had already learned to hear the music in his head. His deafness, in my opinion, gave him the "opportunity" (like he had a choice) to totally, even by his standards, to totally immerse himself into music without any aural distractions. His imagination was then free to allow him to continue to "experiment" and to expand some musical concepts further than if he was listening to all around him. I am not an historian enough to know if he continued to read and thus "listen" to other composers after he went deaf, but I would think that he at least did not listen to as many as if he were not deaf so he was not limited by the advances in music that his peers were doing and he was free to have an unlimited canvas to use in his mind to continue to create music. His Ninth Symphony was gargantuan in concept compared to the other symphonies in his era. But then again, his motivic development and continued expansion of form started long before his deafness so that was not the driving force. So, I think that his genius was "always" but the extra focus forced upon him due to his deafness did contribute to the scope of his later works. I don't know where the last of his String Quartets fall in relationship to his deafness, But to my ears, they sound VERY late romantic and years ahead of his time. Maybe an historian can fill me in on the time frame of his string quartets and his going deaf. Good question. I enjoyed thinking about him. LJSe7m

  1371. musictheory 2017-06-04 09:25:17 pouffywall
    There absolutely can. I play the classical guitar, and a huge part of interpreting pieces on that instrument is manipulating timbre. If you strum closer to the neck or over the middle of the string, you get a "warmer" sound than when you play near the bridge. Playing harmonics returns notes that you can play regularly with the frets, but sounds totally different. That's a different timbre as well.

  1372. musictheory 2017-06-04 13:25:22 BAOLONGtrann
    As an experienced guitar player one can easily hear when a note is played on open string as well.

  1373. musictheory 2017-06-05 05:14:02 ljse7m
    Also consider the possibility of the built in resonance tuning of the great violin makers. They individually tune their instruments to have the best resonance. One would think that with the accepted tuning of the instrument in fifths on G D A E that they would tune it to the open notes on the strings. It would be the easiest and thus the easiest way to make the instrument sound resonant. Also, since the open strings are the most resonant as they are in contact with the body through the bridge and have the longest "string length" for vibration. The composers would also most likely choose these keys because of the string tuning making the instrument sound better and more resonant if they were making use of the instrument's best sounding keys. LJSe7m

  1374. musictheory 2017-06-05 08:49:52 4plus1
    So first, [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=816VLQNdPMM) is a video by Rick Beato that explains all the basics of perfect pitch and why you can't develop it as an adult. What you are describing sounds like something I've heard a lot of string players say in other forums and communities. It seems like being exposed to a specific pitch very often (when tuning your instrument, for example) can result in being able to remember that pitch without a reference to varying degrees of accuracy. If you combine this with fairly good relative pitch, you probably could memorize a lot of pitches and develop something that's *sorta*, *maybe* similar to perfect pitch. I guess everyone (even a non-musician) has this ability to some extent, because people are generally able to tell if a very familiar piece of music (*the Star Wars theme*) is being played in the original key or if it's been transposed. I'm actually very curious how accurate your pitch recognition is! How accurate in cents is your ability to sing the notes you have memorized so far? Can you reliably sing an *A* over an *A♭ major chord* or does that affect your pitch recognition? Can you accurately sing these notes in different octaves? Can you tune other instruments like a guitar (specifically the A, D and G string) accurately using your ability?

  1375. musictheory 2017-06-05 09:20:27 ljse7m
    But if there were an instrument besides the piano that did that, unlike on the piano, the older concept of each key having it own unique sound quality. Unlike the piano, the solo violin has not only the possibility of playing "in the cracks" but even if they DID play totally in equal temperament, the violin would still retain a unique quality of sound on each chromatic key because of the way the violin was carved out to give it special resonance with the natural sound of the open strings of the violin when the master maker put the final touches on the violin by tuning the instrument to itself. An argument could also be made for Brass instruments as well as woodwinds having the same capability as the tubing and body shape of these instruments are designed to be in tune with itself most commonly in the key of A Bb Eb F G and historically other keys and they are then set to "equal temperament" fingerings but the acoustics of the instrument still is designed to give the more natural sound to the Key of the instrument's design. As such, these instruments favor their namesake just as the stringed instruments seem to favor their open string as the standard for manufactured tuning. LJSe7m

  1376. musictheory 2017-06-05 09:30:24 bossjams
    this a million times. d string and open d always sounds great when bowing. src, played violin 20 years.

  1377. musictheory 2017-06-06 04:14:58 DRL47
    The hammer hits the string in exactly the same place and in exactly the same way except for the velocity, which changes the volume. How can the hammer action possibly vary the timbre? Different pianists certainly produce different sounds by varying the volume and articulation. They DO NOT and CAN NOT change the timbre by manipulating the keys. Timbre is determined by the volumes of the different overtones being produced. How are those overtones being affected by the articulation?

  1378. musictheory 2017-06-06 04:29:07 Snather
    No, it's not just velocity. The timing of the hammer on string matters. The force (i.e. its acceleration) of the action matters. The angle at which you articulate on the key matters. These things all affect sound, your statements here are false.

  1379. musictheory 2017-06-06 04:44:49 DRL47
    The force (i.e. its acceleration) is determined solely by the velocity, that is just plain physics. There is no "angle at which you articulate on the key". The key goes DOWN! What does "The timing of the hammer on string" even mean? Do you mean WHEN you hit the string or how LONG you let the string ring? You keep saying my statements are false, but they are true and you just keep throwing out specious arguments.

  1380. musictheory 2017-06-06 05:37:21 Snather
    >The force (i.e. its acceleration) is determined solely by the velocity, that is just plain physics. You clearly don't understand basic kinematics or dynamics lol Anyways. The timing on the string i.e. how long the hammer is interacting with the string, i.e. a proxy for impulse. The direction, the angle, of articulation is something you'd know if you were pianist. How you articulate massively affects the sound produced.

  1381. musictheory 2017-06-06 09:35:54 TrebleStrings
    Well, really only the viola and cello are similar to the violin, and the violin is the odd one out since it has a high E string instead of a low C like the viola and cello. Since the three instruments were always intended to be an ensemble as far as we can tell, you could just as easily say the violin was based on the viola or cello. We actually don't know. D Major also works well for the guitar and viol families. The guitar/lute is older the the violin family by centuries, and the bass (a viol) shares it's tuning with the lower four strings on the guitar and came about around the same time as the violin family. In other words, the violin is one of the younger string instruments, not one of the older ones, and it therefore probably isn't true that anything is actually based on it. I think there is a greater overarching concept here besides just the violin that unifies all Western string instruments.

  1382. musictheory 2017-06-06 09:51:36 DRL47
    I am a pianist. I also know what "articulation" means: it is the duration of the notes, more specifically, it is the amount of space (or lack of) between the notes. There is no "angle" or "direction" to it. You keep using words and phrases that have no musical meaning. As to "The timing on the string i.e. how long the hammer is interacting with the string," The hammer interacts with the string the same no matter how the key is played. The hammer bounces off the string the same every time. That is not controllable by the key, as the key is not directly connected to the hammer. You can only control the velocity of the hammer. As I said before, yes, the articulation massively affects the sound. It just doesn't affect the timbre (the tone).

  1383. musictheory 2017-06-06 11:34:25 Snather
    FYI force is not determined at all by velocity, let alone solely. The hammer does not bounce off the string the same way every time, it is different every time, depending on the articulation. It is not an all or nothing event. Angle of articulation makes a difference in the sound produced. If you're a pianist and you don't know this then I don't know what to tell you.

  1384. musictheory 2017-06-06 23:57:50 Snather
    The way you articulate the note on the key, including speed, acceleration, how you angle the attack on the key while you articulate, these all factor in to the sound produced by the hammer action on the string. The interaction is different depending on how you articulate the note, it is not always the same regardless of how you articulate the note.

  1385. musictheory 2017-06-07 00:28:19 DRL47
    Are you saying that the angle of your finger on the key changes the timbre of the note? The hammer hits the string and bounces off. How hard it hits and bounces off is determined by the velocity of the hammer. What other interaction is there? As I said before, articulation is the amount of space (or lack of space) between notes. What other definition are you using?

  1386. musictheory 2017-06-07 04:04:14 DRL47
    > FYI force is not determined at all by velocity, let alone solely. The mass of the hammer, mass of the string, friction and air resistance are all constant. The velocity is variable. What other variables are there?

  1387. musictheory 2017-06-08 01:13:44 trainercase
    It makes more sense if you stop and think about what makes a song sound like it's part of one genre and not another. Every musical genre has its own characteristics that define the sound of that genre. Sometimes harmony and note choice are part of it - the blues wouldn't be the blues without planing dom7 chords or b5s and blue notes. Sometimes harmony has very little to do with it - dubstep, for example, is defined much more by use of thick and heavy bass synths (often with a lot of triplets) and certain structural elements (ie the drop). Vaporware is defined largely by how the song is made and what kind of samples are used and slowed and chopped up as part of that process. The great thing about these defining elements applying to different *aspects* of a song is that makes it much easier to mix and match from these different musical traditions and still end up with something coherent. For example, maybe you have drums from one musical style supporting an ensemble more typical of a different style. Or perhaps you want to write a piece for string quartet + laptop with a tight, robotic drum loop and sicknasty bass drop. Maybe the verse is inspired mostly by one genre, the chorus by another, and in the climax you bring these disparate ideas together and have them work meaningfully together. The point is, just looking at harmony can never give you the full picture, you'll miss seeing the forest because there are too many trees. This kind of stylistic merging is about more fundamental stuff.

  1388. musictheory 2017-06-09 04:27:49 MiskyWilkshake
    You have to ask yourself if these alternative tunings actually make the performance of any music easier. We generally use alternate tunings on a guitar for three primary reasons: **1)** It makes certain chord shapes/voicings/runs in the song easier to finger. You often see this in songs where the open strings are tuned to a chord type which occurs frequently throughout the piece so that transpositions of that chord type require only the barring of a single finger across the fretboard, and simple alterations to that chord shape (eg: changing a m7 chord into a dominant 7 chord) require only the addition of one or two fingers a semitone higher than the barred fret. **2)** To allow for easier access of certain notes on open strings to act as pedal-tones. This you see both in cases where the guitar is tuned to the tonic chord of the piece, and particular chord-tones of that tonic run throughout a lot of the pieces harmony (lots of Led Zeppelin's pieces do this), as well as in metal and similar styles, where the lowest string is tuned to the piece's tonic to act as a low pedal-tone above which melodies can be integrated. **3)** It gives us access to a set of notes which would be otherwise be outside of the guitar's usual range. This decision can be informed as much by timbral concerns as performance ones, which is why a lot of rock and metal downtunes the whole guitar. If you can think of situations where your alternate piano tunings might fulfil these goals in a way that is musical and helps the performance of a piece, then by all means go ahead! Just remember that you'll need to swap out strings rather than just tune them (to prevent slackness or snapping), and you'll need to give your pianist a **lot** of time and practice with the new tuning.

  1389. musictheory 2017-06-09 06:19:15 eritain
    When you're new, all sorts of things can mislead your ear, even switching from one vowel to another. It happens to almost everyone. Matching pitch vocally is a perceptual skill plus a motor skill, and saxophone didn't exercise them for you. But you can exercise them on your own. Practice matching arbitrary notes: play a note, stop, sing it on the syllable 'la', watch a tuner for feedback. Practice in short sessions twice a day, morning and evening. I do mean *short;* you can be slightly bored or frustrated, but if it's more than slight it's time to end the session. You'll wean yourself off the tuner soon enough. Then try different syllables (you may need the tuner back). Once you can match single pitches, do two things. One, start practicing intervals: play a note, sing it, sing the note one <interval> away, play it to check and/or consult the tuner. Do octaves first, then perfect fifths and fourths, then major and minor thirds, then major and minor seconds. This is boring as crap, so again, short sessions. The other strand is real melodies and harmonies, with other singers that you can check yourself against. If you can find a nearby [Sacred Harp](https://fasola.org/) singing, that is the most fun it is possible to have while sight-singing at the top of your lungs for two hours. You get to know some of the tunes better than others, so you face varying levels of challenge, and the solfege and shape notes will make different intervals more distinct to you. If you can't get to Sacred Harp, at least find someone to sing with you out of [Happy Songs for Unhappy Singers,](http://davesmey.com/eartraining/happysongs.pdf) followed by [Eyes and Ears](http://www.lightandmatter.com/sight/sight.html) or [Dave Smey's sight-singing bonanza.](http://davesmey.com/eartraining/sightsing.pdf) At this point if not sooner you should be able to satisfy Ye Olde Grouchy Professor's prerequisites. If you reeeeeeally want to rock the perceptual skill, at this point you can also spend some time tuning a stringed instrument. Match one string open to a neighboring string fretted, then go up or down a fret and tune the open string to match it. Don't check a tuner until you're done, do it by ear. It'll work better on the high strings: the stiffness of a string at its ends distorts its harmonics a little, but thin tight strings minimize the effect. After you do this for a while you will have razor-sharp pitch discernment.

  1390. musictheory 2017-06-09 21:33:43 watteva
    Looks like a string bend though not a common way to notate that. In fact it looks like the kind of symbol you would use in tablature but used on a notation staff. Usually string bends in notation are grace notes and crooked slur lines.

  1391. musictheory 2017-06-10 00:36:34 CaptainSteelmeat69
    Ben Johnston's [String Quartet no. 7](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TdFgtAf5Cg) uses up to 1200 microtonal pitches per octave at one point. When it was premiered, William Kraft's [*Encounters II*](https://youtu.be/VFG-IeEAxxY) was so tough that only one person, Roger Bobo, was able to play it, but it's now the entry-level audition piece for the New York Philharmonic.

  1392. musictheory 2017-06-10 01:41:35 phalp
    > Ben Johnston's String Quartet no. 5 uses up to 1200 microtonal pitches per octave at one point. Are you sure you're not thinking of no. 7? I don't believe the liner notes for the Kepler Quartet recording mention any extreme number of pitches for no. 5, anyway.

  1393. musictheory 2017-06-10 11:40:10 ljse7m
    As a composer, how would you answer, "How much theory is there for Trumpet? " or "how much theory is there for Piano? or "How much theory is there for the Human Voice? Each of these musical instruments have their own theory if you want to talk about Brass instrument theory and other wind instruments have the theory of the acoustics of sound. AND (among other things) the Theory of Music. Each of the other instruments also have their own separate theory of what makes them different but they ALL have the theory of Music in common. BUT and here is the first problem with your question. Brass, woodwinds, strings, Vocals and Percussion all share MUSIC theory. You mention you play Keyboard. Do you realize that the Piano is a percussion instrument? The Trumpet is a Brass Instrument, the Violin is a String instrument and etc, point being, you are isolating one small part of the percussion family to Drums. That is number 1. 2 is that Time signatures, Rhythmic notation, is not really MUSIC THEORY as much as it is the most basic of tools that are used to describe music theory from a Rhythmic standpoint. Do you think that because you know the names of the notes on the stave and that you know rhythmic notation and keysignatures that you know all the theory needed to write for the piano? or the Violin? or the Brass section or of the Percussion section? Your question says DRUMS but you describe a most basic drum kit but already you have Snare, drum, Bass Drum, Cymbals of several types, I don't think you mention Tom Toms, and there are several kinds of those so obviously, you are asking about more than drums. If you ONLY know about the drum kit, you are missing a lot about percussion. You can't play a whole lot of music that is around. You are missing classical music, Latin music, Indian music, Melodic Percussion, literally hundreds of ethnic instruments, both membranophones and idiophones, and you are limiting your "drum" to a real extreme small segment of the concept of percussion. Your Kit is very bsic and boring. And yes it is Boring UNLESS you understand the theory of RHYTHM which you seem to not be including it your concept of music theory as you don't even mention RHYTHM. Even with your simple kit, if you understood the Theory of Rhythm, you could write musical drum parts. If not you are probably writing metronomic tracks on the hi hat, and the bass drum and repetative layers of subdivisions on the cymbals and if you add the toms and other sounds, each sound has a pitch or sound of its own and now you are talking about melody with a rhythm to create an ensemble and certain combinations of Percussion instrume played in rhythmic HARMONY create a more musical textures and feelings to support the Melodic lines of the other instruments and to to support and compliment the harmonic rhythm. Notice that the term RHYTHM keeps popping up in everything you talk about in music theory. So how much theory is there in the drum? Its as much as you want to put into it. I have not even gone into any specifics. But as a beginner, I think the best thing you can take away from this is that if you think that Time signatures that your concept of theory is rather limited as well as your knowledge of Rhythm which is an extremely important part of music theory. Notation, is not theory. Notation is a tool. Theory is what you use the notation to describe. That statement of your is equal to saying that you learned to read key signatures and what else do you need to know to understand the theory of the symphonic orchestra? So what else is there to learn about "drum theory"? You need to study the theory of rhythm and how to use it and that includes all kinds of rhythm. Dance rhythm, melodic rhythm, harmonic rhythm, color tones of rhythmic instruments. and well, everything. Learn to listen to music, all of the music, what the drummers play, how they incorporate it into the the melody is and what the rhythm section plays and well everything. But you already know time signatures. So that is a start. But just as a self check, Do you know which are the strong and weak beats implied by the signature? do you know all the possible subdivisions of all the time signatures? Do you know how to do the basic function of all the instruments in the genres? Until you learn these simple conventions, you are not ready to understand how to write for the instruments. The first thing I wold suggest is to listen to music more and pay attention to the RHYTHM both of the various melodic and harmonic aspects of music and how the percussion interacts with that before you think of how to write a fill at the end of a phrase for example. I don't mean for this to sound harsh, but you really have not given any indication that you have really did a study of the basic elements of music from a percussive point of view. If you want to compose, yo need to study the instruments you want to write for either by physically playing them or by really analyzing them to see what they are about. At present. At present you are asking how to put the details on the decorative rose bud on a cake when you have yet to learn how to read the recipe completely. You need th foundation before you can build the house. You don't start with the weather vane on the top of the roof. LJSe7m

  1394. musictheory 2017-06-10 14:43:42 ts73737
    I didn't see that website had separate instruments. I'm looking again now. I'm also referring to a guitar pro version of it from ultimate guitar. I actually think it's a bit more accurate. And funnily enough, they are using the exact chords I'm talking about haha. So the version in the tab you're using I don't think the guitarist is actually playing the note on the F string, I think the tab is wrong. It's pretty awkward playing that note in drop tuning, so a lot of the time it's omitted. But they use the mu-2 chord twice there, 13-13-15, 15-15-17. The note is a second, and pianists might refer to this chord as a ninth (although omitting the 7th). If we go back to the lead guitar, he's playing some nice stuff over the mu-2 chords, and then on bar 4 he plays one an arpeggiated 7th chord, a really nice extended diatonic chord. And then some more stuff, ending on a rather interesting line of the 5-8, which is a 2nd, that same interesting interval. Then the two guitars do an alternate little lick of 2nd intervals, across octaves and guitars. I could go on analysing the song, but they use loads more really interesting intervals and harmonies throughout. They do a lot of standard relative third harmony's. They do lots more 2nd throughout, Honestly this is a really great study for this type of genre, it's got so much good stuff that you can learn from. Just look at the chords they use, pretty much all diatonic, but with extensions in them to add flavour. Another band who use this type of sound, but in the minor modes, is Parkway Drive. They've actually got a song called Frostbite as well haha. They use very similar mechanisms and harmonies, especially those extended diatonic chords. They also do something pretty cool where one guitarist will arpeggiate a diatonic extended chord, and the other guitarist will harmonise with that in relative thirds. The result is the 2nd guitarist plays an extended diatonic chord as well.

  1395. musictheory 2017-06-11 01:08:21 gtfo_mailman
    Not that guy but I generally play 9ths root - third - seventh - ninth from A string to B string

  1396. musictheory 2017-06-11 01:22:37 krypton86
    That is definitely true. I believe I heard that work performed at least three times when I was in music school. Never once heard something like Night Fantasies or one of the string quartets.

  1397. musictheory 2017-06-11 02:50:34 Settl
    Same - and you can add the 13 with your pinky on the high e string

  1398. musictheory 2017-06-11 03:43:23 ColdOnTheShoulder
    Love this voicing. For those getting into it, it's really easy to find because it's always below the E string root. In the case of A9, A is 5th fret on the E string so the hip rootless voicing is just below on the A string (TAB: X4545X). I think this helps since your brain searches for roots when you're reading a chart. Also, as someone else said in a circle of fifths progression you could go from A9-D9-G6 hardly moving your fingers. A9: X4545X D9: X5455X G6: X5545X

  1399. musictheory 2017-06-11 17:57:03 gtfo_mailman
    Yeah they go great with the maj7 and m7 chords from the E string as well

  1400. musictheory 2017-06-11 20:25:11 Jongtr
    True, but F becomes 133200 and Bb becomes x13320 - much easier than the "dreaded" 1st fret barre shapes. IOW, all-4ths tuning would change guitarists' preferences for some keys over others. They would be much more likely to play in F or Bb than in E or A. The beginners' classic struggle with 6-string index barres would disappear (although partial ones would still be necessary). Everything would be movable shapes, and string muting would become a more significant skill. (Only playing devil's advocate btw. I'm too used to EADGBE to contemplate changing now.)

  1401. musictheory 2017-06-11 20:49:55 xiipaoc
    To make chords easier. The upper three strings form a minor triad, G B E, and the bottom string is also an E. You can play any minor chord with a barre and two fingers, or any major chord with a barre and three fingers. You couldn't do that with all fourths or all fifths. Violins and similar instruments *are* tuned in fifths, but they don't need to play chords. The bottom strings don't need special treatment because the variety of pitches available is good (unless you need drop D or something), but the ease of playing chords in the top strings is very useful.

  1402. musictheory 2017-06-11 21:37:04 konijntjesbroek
    Checkout brushy one string.

  1403. musictheory 2017-06-12 20:01:41 Bradlez92
    Oooh, I suppose it's 1-4, index through pinky? 0 being an open string, and the roman numeral is a bar? II = bar with second finger = the middle finger. Am I warm? :)

  1404. musictheory 2017-06-12 20:47:22 Jongtr
    Just to clarify, a roman numeral on its own means position, not a barre. So "II" means 2nd position, in which index plays fret 2, middle finger plays fret 3, etc. In this excerpt, the "II" only applies for that first pick-up beat - those first 2 quavers. After the barline it's all 1st position: fingers 1-4 distributed from frets 1-4, though not always playing the same fret number.) A barre is shown by "C" followed by a roman numeral. So "CVII" would mean a barre on fret 7. "1/2C" means a partial barre. Sometimes you get horizontal lines showing how long a barre lasts. A number in a circle, meanwhile, means string number. This is used (along with finger numbers) when playing in higher positions, or where a position is not as you might expect from the notes.

  1405. musictheory 2017-06-14 07:38:38 -JRMagnus
    To clarify my question: The context of this question was coming from my background as a guitar player. This would not be played in the context of a tuning accommodating more than just this microtone (neutral 3rd). The idea would be to tune a single string to allow for the neutral third and leave the remaining strings in standard tuning. This chord would be then looped and the guitar retuned to fully standard tuning. My question mainly pertains to how to approach improvising over such a chord. Do I have more options due to it being neither a 7th or m7th or have I invited harmonic constraints?

  1406. musictheory 2017-06-14 16:49:35 Jongtr
    As (I'm sure) mentioned elsewhere, it begins from ratios between vibrating objects that produce consonances: different pitches that nevertheless sound related (due to the effects of overtones). Eg., if you take a stretched string (and a guitar string makes a perfect demo) and halve it, you get two clearly related notes. (We'd get the same effect by doubling the tension on a string the same length.) Halving the length doubles the frequency, creating the "octave". This is important because it shows that the division process is *not based on dividing the octave*. The octave is just the first stage in the process, a 2:1 ratio. This point on the guitar string is fret 12 (obviously the frets came *much* later, and we're establishing why it was "12" in the first place - just as the word "octave" (8th) comes later). The next division is 2/3, which produces the "perfect 5th" - the next most consonant note. (Here it helps to imagine having two strings the same length tuned the same, and creating the fractions on one of them, to hear how they relate.) Now, as the guitar string shows, this is at fret 7. The first significant split of the octave seems to be a 7:5 proportion. The next simplest fraction is 3/4, which lines up with fret 5 on the guitar. Now the octave is split 5:2:5. The process could continue to 4/5 (fret 4), but the original Greek system stopped at multiples of 2 and 3. You can see that the 2-fret space between frets 5 and 7 (1/9 of the string length from fret 5) makes a suitable basic scale step or unit. The "5-fret" spaces can then have two of those units in each one, leaving a 1-fret space over. (These notes were placed in various positions, judged by ear, to create the Greek modal system. They used quarter ones as well as tones and semitones, but always in a 7-note system. Hence the Greek word for "8th" - octave - to denote the repeat of the first note.) In the Pythagorean system, the 2/3 string length would be divided again into 2/3, and so on (ie., a cycle of perfect 5ths); this process produces frets 2 and 9, and eventually something *very close to* a division of the octave into 12ths. The math, of course, doesn't work out exactly. If we take a cycle of twelve 5ths, we should (we hope...) arrive at a higher octave of the starting note. Instead we get a note close to seven octaves up, but not exact. The difference is the "Pythagorean comma". European music sought various ways around this problem for centuries, but it only became a serious issue when harmony advanced to the point where musicians wanted to be able to modulate freely between any of 12 different keys - without re-tuning their instruments. For some time, the scale had already been "tempered" in various ways - pitches adjusted a little up or down - to enable limited transpositions. Bach used what was called "Well temperament", which was very close to equal temperament, to produce his 48 preludes and fugues. Full 12-edo was an old idea - a well known theoretical concept - but (it seems) was resisted for centuries because it meant putting every note of the scale slightly out of tune. Only the octaves are exact (and even they are "stretched" in piano tuning). Perfect 4ths and 5ths are very close (2 cents out), but everything else is further away from the "pure" ratios that create ideal consonances. Of course the whole ethos is based on regarding smooth consonances as ideal! IOW, the scale structure is based on *aural judgement, according to a specific system of aesthetics*. Simple ratios are judged to be ideal ("perfect", pure"), so they govern how the octave is divided. For the Greeks, it was clearly significant that these pure sounds derived from simple mathematical ratios (of length, weight or tension), because it fitted with their religious philosophy, the harmony of the spheres, etc. It proved God was a mathematician! :-) European Christian culture also favoured purity of sound, and the earliest church music used no harmony at all - just unison or octaves. Eventually perfect 5ths and 4ths were judged acceptable, but it was a long time before 3rds were. (In fact in pythagorean tuning, 3rds are somewhat sharp, being an awkward 81:64 ratio. When a factor of 5 was introduced, that allowed the 5:4 major 3rd, which sounded better, but created other issues with octave division.) In cultures which enjoy clashing timbres (for various reasons), different scale divisions may be used. E.g., Indonesian gamelan uses a pentatonic scale dividing the octave into 5 approximately equal divisions. It sounds dissonant to western ears (because the overtones clash), but gamelan uses bells of various kinds anyway, which have different kinds of overtones. Many western musicians have experimented with other equal octave divisions (19 and 31 in particular), but usually in order to select a 7-note scale that sounds more in tune than a 12-edo one. Useful sites (as well as the FAQ here): http://www.peterfrazer.co.uk/music/tunings.html http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~mrubinst/tuning/tuning.html

  1407. musictheory 2017-06-15 05:59:51 snarvei
    Try finding clean chord backing tracks, for E, A, D, C also some common flat keys. Now look at your "5 positions penta scales" and practice connecting them where they overlap while staying in one key at the time. That will help you see how the 5 positions connects differently in different keys. The pattern they are connected in will stay the same but starts and ends on different shapes, you know what I mean? Now after you gone tired of practicing scales, work on memorizing the major triad notes, like "C, E, G" (root 3rd 5th), "D, F#, A" etc, and also importantly use a random note generator on google, and find that random note on every string from low to high E. This should be plenty work and not to heavy on the brain. (No offense!!!)

  1408. musictheory 2017-06-15 20:44:43 Drill_Dr_ill
    [Here's](https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/the-musical-instruments-from-ur-and-ancient-mesopotamian-music/) some more on the topic. > Playable reconstructions of several of the Ur instruments, using coniferous wood, produce rich sounds. (More recent research on the original wood fragments has identified them as boxwood.) The largest lyre (see Fig. 4), having the longest strings, has a register and resonance like that of a bass viol; the medium-sized silver lyre (Figs. 3, 7) has a sound reminiscent of a cello; Puabi’s harp (Fig. 8) sounds rather like a small guitar. Three playable replicas were made in Berkeley, at the University of California, by emeritus professor Robert R. Brown. None of the small lyres from Ur has been reconstructed (as far as we know), but in all likelihood, based on the relative string lengths, they would have had registers similar to that of Puabi’s harp. The oldest surviving instruments are the [Lyres of Ur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyres_of_Ur), dating back to around 2500 BC (wiki page includes images).

  1409. musictheory 2017-06-17 06:05:54 Bromskloss
    Are there any string quartets with viola profonda that we should hear and that you could link to?

  1410. musictheory 2017-06-17 08:40:52 Bromskloss
    Thanks. What I had in mind was specifically a string quartet.

  1411. musictheory 2017-06-17 09:50:00 MiskyWilkshake
    In that case, yeah, I don't know of any live recordings, but I haven't looked into it very deeply, so you might be able to find some if you look. I'd hazard that there isn't much though, since few players exist, and string quartets are such an established and well-balanced ensemble already - I think a lot of composers would shy away from messing with the setup, and those that feel confident enough to muck about with it might struggle to find a Viola Profonda player to perform it live.

  1412. musictheory 2017-06-18 01:47:28 TRexRoboParty
    I don't hear any polyrhythms here, the melody seems to fit quite neatly into 3. The tambourine keeping a constant pulse makes the 3 feel more modern and avoids it sounding like a waltz though. The string patch used has quite a slow attack, and gives the impression of laying back rhythmically in contrast to the drums. I'd recommend mocking it up in your DAW to tease out whether what you're hearing is part of the composition, or part of the sound/production.

  1413. musictheory 2017-06-18 06:49:17 icelizarrd
    > The string patch used has quite a slow attack, and gives the impression of laying back rhythmically in contrast to the drums. I would guess it's this part specifically that is making OP feel that the rhythm is weird here. That's what stands out the most to me when I listen to this.

  1414. musictheory 2017-06-19 00:22:36 snoosnoosewsew
    If you're playing a lot of acoustic stuff, strumming open chords and all that, I'd start with learning the sharps first. The guitar is definitely a sharp-friendly instrument, and most guitar songs aren't in flat keys. You'll probably notice a lot of songs in the keys of E, e, G, A, a, D, C, b.... more than you come across stuff in Eb or Ab. Those keys don't play as nice with the open strings. That being said, there are definitely plenty of songs, especially if you're playing jazz, where you'll want to know your flats. But honestly, guitar is a lot different from the piano also because it's a pattern-based grid. Edit: hit submit too son. What I mean is that on piano, a D chord is very different from a Eb chord, in terms of what your fingers are doing. With guitar, it's as easy as shifting your chord up a fret. So I'd say that mastering your chord shapes and the corresponding scale shapes (CAGED system) is arguably more important than memorizing what every fret is. If I'm playing in Eb, I'm not really thinking in terms of, Eb, then G, then Bb, I'm just thinking, tonic, major third, fifth. And since I know my scale patterns, I don't really need to think - 6th fret on A string is Eb, 5th fret on D string is G, 8th fret on D string is Bb - I'm just familiar with the grid, and what note of the scale I'll hit if I follow the pattern.

  1415. musictheory 2017-06-19 13:40:38 Mentioned_Videos
    Videos in this thread: [Watch Playlist &#9654;](http://subtletv.com/_r6i3kfx?feature=playlist) VIDEO|COMMENT -|- (1) [-Yakety Sax- Music](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnHmskwqCCQ) (2) [Llama Chase set to Yakety Sax](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8mUMSi5M8g)|[+8](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3eyb1?context=10#dj3eyb1) - I thought Yackety Sax was an inherently funny song, but then I just listened to it on its own w/o a chase scene and it just seemed to be "old timey & upbeat." So I dunno. I think I agree with the top comment about the importance of context - cause ... [The Aristocrats - Blues Fuckers - DrumSolo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgQwBGe-GzM)|[+3](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3bn57?context=10#dj3bn57) - Blues Fuckers by The Aristocrats is a funny subversion of just about every element of blues music. The first time I heard it I literally laughed out loud at the final cadence at 5:15. [Curb Your Enthusiasm Theme](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1o3koTLWM)|[+3](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3ds3w?context=10#dj3ds3w) - Of course you can! Let me prove it [Dansje doen @ Awakefest 2013 (Benny Hill) ORIGINAL](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pQAWOCofXo)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3on5n?context=10#dj3on5n) - Oh come on now. If you're going to talk Yakety Sax, you need to bring out the big guns. [The King's Singers - Masterpiece](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXhAz0DOpMU)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3fpms?context=10#dj3fpms) - I love Masterpiece by The King's Singers. Though it does have lyrics, I think it would still be pretty funny without, because the musical references they make don't necessarily depend on them. It would just make it harder to "get it" [J.G.Albrechtsberger - concerto for jew' Harp , Madora and Orchestra in E Major 1 mov.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L48oOAA8FoY)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3gbrk?context=10#dj3gbrk) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L48oOAA8FoY [VULFPECK /// Prom](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNn9_NMaW5k)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3guu8?context=10#dj3guu8) - This song made me laugh the first time I heard it [O Holy Night worst rendition ever FUNNIEST SONG ON EARTH](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk4woNRD7NQ)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3hrbk?context=10#dj3hrbk) - Yes. Usually it's when it's really bad. My favorite example is Steve Maudlin's spectacular rendition of Holy Night: (1) [Original Dixieland Jazz Band Livery Stable Blues](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9chC3kBlDdQ) (2) [SPIKE JONES:Tchaikovsky Medley](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be7O9g2sphw) (3) [The Ying Tong Song - The Goons](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nebe1zuEtbc) (4) [Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band -Jazz, Delicious Hot, Disgusting Cold](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABcNAwytrOY) (5) [Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band - Canyons Of Your Mind (1968)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hcZ4s9cvpw) (6) [THE RUTLES - Hold My Hand (1963)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qf8y7v0WIE)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3lm58?context=10#dj3lm58) - The first ever "jazz" record (1917) boosted its commercial appeal by exploiting the comic potential of the "chaotic" sound of bluesy group improvisation on Livery Stable Blues Spike Jones maintained and deepened that tradition. In fact, vaudeville... [Mr. Bungle - California (1999) [Full Album]](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITEDFYdLHFA&t=971s)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3ptzp?context=10#dj3ptzp) - I find Mr. Bungle to be musically hilarious. Exhibit A -> [RDRR (The Simpsons)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSFd_2oJgak)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3rwoa?context=10#dj3rwoa) - sure. anything can be funny and, semi-related, anything can be art. i think a piece that takes you in a certain direction and then completely backhands you with an unexpected element can be funny- though i can imagine this only being funny to people ... [Victor Borge act 1](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMEkNhulsI)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3s96k?context=10#dj3s96k) - Victor Borge comes pretty close [Gramatik - Just Jammin'](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv2CEeoL08A)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3sdb9?context=10#dj3sdb9) - Yes, in context. Here's one of my favorite examples example at ~4:52 Gramatik - Just Jammin You'll probably want to listen before that segment to get the context [Frank Zappa - Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu_kJ4jEJ9A)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3uys9?context=10#dj3uys9) - Nobody has mentioned Zappa yet so I'll just throw in a link to this mostly instrumental track that made me LOL when I first heard it. Even before the weird timbre of the vocals at the end the composition itself is sort of whimsical and goofy. (1) [Haydn String Quartet Op. 33 No. 2 "The Joke" IV. Presto](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDkWBzH6dkE) (2) [Haydn "Farewell" (pt 4 of 4) Igor Gruppman](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0ligH6PCW0)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3w10x?context=10#dj3w10x) - Oh and don't forget about the great troll of the Classical world; Haydn Joke Quartet: Farewell Symphony: [Inside a House - The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6564NtN1jp4)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6i3kfx/_/dj3zyv4?context=10#dj3zyv4) - Absolutely. The first thing that came to mind is this lovely and strange YouTube channel called SiivaGunner. He only makes high quality videogame rips. I would say, if you want a whole stock of humor, just go have a look at his most viewed videos. E... I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can. *** [Play All](http://subtletv.com/_r6i3kfx?feature=playlist&ftrlnk=1) | [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | Get me on [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf) / [Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mentioned-videos-for-reddit)

  1416. musictheory 2017-06-19 20:58:46 MrChestnut
    Haydn is your man! Check out his string quartet Op. 33 No. 2, "The Joke Quartet" movement IV, or his Symphony No. 45, "Farewell Symphony" movement IV In the string quartet, his repetition of the theme creates comedic effect (if performed well, there is a TED talk on the piece), and in the symphony, the players leave!

  1417. musictheory 2017-06-20 05:55:05 peristeronichemiola
    We played a jazzy song in my youth symphony and my friends and I were cracking up about how the piece was so comical. It was called the "Nose flute concerto" (for Hawaiian nose flute). That in it of itself wasn't the funny part, but the fact that the instrumentation was a drum kit providing a basic swing beat with the trumpet and trombones on top of that for the first phrase, and the second phrase was the same instrumentation with a little string accompaniment. It was meant to be serious but it was just plain funny. There's isn't a recording of it because I think it was composed by the nose flutist or something.

  1418. musictheory 2017-06-20 12:37:02 beast_in_black
    Hmmm... you may want to delve into the Carnatic [melakarta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melakarta) system, which was the original basis for the Hindustani thaat system. From what I understand, the melakarta system has some well-defined mathematical rules from which the 72 Carnatic melakarta raagas are derived. The [melakarta chakra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melakarta#Chakras) seems to be loosely analogous to the Western circle of fifths/fourths, and serves as a guide to constructing the notes of a raaga (somewhat akin to a Western key signature, although we are not really talking about actual note frequencies but the *intervals* between the notes of a raaga). From a practical perspective, you may be right in that if what you want to do is explore/play with a particular Hindustani raaga, then you could ignore the thaat on which it is based. Perhaps the thaat may play a role when attempting to link raagas together in a performance, or if you get into a deeper study of the musicology theory behind Hindustani. > I'm just making do with my guitar until I've got enough cash set aside for a decent sitar. I do, however, get the sense that I'm missing out on something without the proper instruments on hand. I really admire your dedication. I'm primarily a rock/metal bass guitarist, but I've [played](https://i.imgur.com/vSnPRxD.png) bass and six-string guitar accompaniments for various Indian Classical pieces - not only in a fusion-Classical style a la Shakti, but also for a full-on traditional Carnatic classical concert with a maestro vocalist where I was the only western instrument in the ensemble - with a number of very accomplished musicians. Every single time it was an immensely rewarding, enriching and humbling experience to have practiced and to have shared a stage with them.

  1419. musictheory 2017-06-20 15:15:47 mladjiraf
    They probably replace the M7, because the whole 3rd and the M7th are discordant when played on the piano. String and brass players have no problems with this chord, because of the natural intonation of the instruments.

  1420. musictheory 2017-06-21 04:02:40 J_Kenji_Lopez-Alt
    Yup, exactly. So in C major you'd use an Ab major chord that cadences back into a C (usually followed by a G and a C). It's actually a relatively common cadence in classical music as well. It's really prominent in the second movement of Beethoven's fifth symphony (right it's the last cadence right before the whole orchestra jumps in to play the melody in C major). You'll also hear it in the first movement of the Brahms G Major string sextet really prominently (right in the third bar of the main theme).

  1421. musictheory 2017-06-21 12:19:59 krypton86
    The 12 preludes for piano of Messiaen are fun, and possibly his most accessible works Any of the Bartok string quartets, but No. 5 is a theoretical tour de force Stravinsky's Petrushka is remarkable Dutilleux's Ansi la Nuit for String Quartet Rautavaara's string quintet "Unknown Heavens" is a revelation Prokofiev's 7th piano sonata is a favorite The "Concord" sonata by Charles Ives is wonderful Hindemith's Symphony: Mathis der Maler Respighi's Roman trilogy, but Pines of Rome in particular Lutoslawski's Concerto for Orchestra Schubert's B-flat Major sonata, D. 960 Rachmaninoff's Symphonic Dances (the two-piano version is my favorite) Elliott Carter's piano sonata (1945-46) Berg's Violin Concerto Sam Barber's Excursions for piano Britten's Nocturnal for guitar is fascinating this list is getting too long so I'll stop now, but this is probably less than 1% of pieces that I consider theoretical masterpieces worth getting the score for and studying

  1422. musictheory 2017-06-21 22:06:38 go_for_the_bronze
    >i really have trouble though coming back to my verse chords There are (of course) a few rules you can adhere to for chord progressions. A few I learned: 1. Most sections start on the tonic. That is extremely simplified, but a good place to start. *Moving from one chord to another will sound more natural when the two chords share notes. For example, C to Am. The C chord has a C, E, and G. You only move one finger to make it an A, which has a C, E, and A. The chords have mostly common notes, so the transition is easier on the ears. 2. Choose your chord forms wisely. This is hard to explain because my coffee hasn't kicked in yet, but let's say you have a song in G major. If you play a G and then a Bm, that's a I to iii (major first to minor third). That's a perfectly acceptable transition already, because you are playing completely within the bounds of the G major scale. But... if instead of playing [G](https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-cb3997dd5a511ac9e4e1bc9130497e52) and then [Bm](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d9/b4/91/d9b4910c5280a220feb61251b52d6dbd.png), you play your G, and then ONLY move the note on the low E string from G to F# instead, it will sound even more natural, because you are moving less notes around (Just play the three lowest strings). That's because the first Bm form jumps up an octave, so the transition is more jarring. This is way easier to show on a piano, but the idea has to do with chord inversions. You choose which form of the chord to play so that it transitions easier and flows better. 3. [Chord progression maps](http://mugglinworks.com/chordmapsArchive/images/map1.gif). Start on 1, move to any other chord, then follow the arrows back to 1. [boom](https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder294/500x/64294294/the-most-interesting-man-in-the-world-izi-pizi-lemon-squeezy.jpg) *edited for formatting

  1423. musictheory 2017-06-22 21:50:28 ljse7m
    Well, the progression can also be written as Fmaj7 **Fdim7** Gm7 C9 Cm7 and F7#5 Bbmaj7 Bbm6 In General Terms this can be notated in Piston Roman as I I II II V V (KeyBb) V I I or with lower case I i^o7 ii7 V v7 (Bb) V I i and then to the Amn which may be a new section. I am not familiar with the tune si so I wm not sure what happens after the Am chore BUT so as you can see, it follows the cycle of fifth functional progressions with color (mosal) changes of the chords rather strictly. This is a good example of how one can use the Cycle of Fifths to create more modern sounds while still following the "strict" rules of the Tonal cycle of fifths This really reduces to Fmaj: I II V I IV and then come the Amin. To show functional relationship or not to this chord I would have to see what comes later. The *bold* dim7 chord has four spellings and is a common Pivot chord) and the spelling of it is often not the way it functions. Functional harmony from a Cycle of fifth perspective is so strong that either the spelling of the chord (root) or the Bass note can "force" the functional cycle to continue. Brazilian music in general will follow functional harmony BUT will be VERY liberal with the substitutions. If you look closely, most of Jobim's progressions seem to follow a sketch of the Cycle of fifths but if you look even closer you can see the color substitutions that show the logic behind the Tonal Cycle of fifths as the underlying force that moves the harmony along and keep the continuity of the key while it adds the spicy flavor of Brazilian music. Hmm, talking about this makes me hungry for Feijoada Thanks for the interesting question. You have provided me with an excellent example of how varied the Cycle of Fifths functional harmonic progressions can be spiced up and still have the continuity of the original cycle that has been with us since the early Baroque periods! (I know in Bolivia there was a VERY STRONG Baroque musical influence by way of the Church and Baroque music was written in the Monasteries. I would assume that the same Conquistadors would have bought the same influence back then to Brazil but I leave it to some historians to verify this influence for me as it is not my speciality. I only know about the Bolivian connection as I worked with the man that was reviving the Baroque tradition in a small city where the residents were taught to build Baroque String instruments and then to play Baroque music while I was teaching in Santa Cruz. I do not find it a stretch however to assume that the Brazilian musicians carried on the Baroque tradition but spiced it up more than a lot of Western cultures possibly because of the importance of the dance music and the color changes possible on the guitar voicings. Sorry for the extra info, you just brought me back to one of my overseas musical teaching experiences. I hope I also helped you to understand "why" this progression is as interesting as it sounds. LJSe7m

  1424. musictheory 2017-06-25 16:11:27 mrclay
    I'd probably play Abm/Cb or just Cb(no 5) instead of these Db7/Cb because you really just need the Db and F voices to fall. The studio string arrangement is very nice, with voices making free lines instead of a series of triads. Note the "A" chords are Bbb (the flattened 6th).

  1425. musictheory 2017-06-25 16:43:16 mrclay
    Do you consider bends from 1 to 2 part of this core? E.g. in D, play C on the G string, hammer on D and bend to E.

  1426. musictheory 2017-06-26 23:27:01 Aranim
    It really depends on what you are going for in terms of the composition. If you are writing a symphony a la Mozart or Beethoven you can have a small intro that sets up the key and then get straight into your theme. If you feel like the melody you have come up with sits more in the development of a symphony you can simplify it, maybe change the key and stick it in as your first or second theme. That's if you're doing a symphony. The idiom that you write for has so much to do with how to treat a theme, and personally I like to come up with the concept for the piece first, as opposed to writing down the melody and the picking out the harmony that sounds good and adding more on either side. If you look at the concept of the piece, then you can organize the melody more and make it active. For instance: I am working on a movement of a string quartet currently. I know that I want the melody to be something that is catchy that I can play over and over again back to back that is essentially unchanging (the movement is called obstinance, and it's a bit programmatic this way). Because I know that I want the melody to function as something that never goes through change, I want everything else to highlight that that heme isn't changing, and everything else will hold more interest in a listener. So I want a catchy theme that sticks, against a lot of wildly changing material. This makes my material a bit more active, and really helps me to know what to do next. So that is my process for getting started. I usually do concept work first.

  1427. musictheory 2017-06-27 10:51:55 jakore
    In a wind band it will almost be Bb, because it's an easy note for all the instruments, and it's first position for the trombones. If you play with an orchestra, they tune to an A because the stringed instruments all have an open A string.

  1428. musictheory 2017-06-27 11:34:45 mladjiraf
    Because the natural instruments are tuned to specific note (or each string is tuned to specific note). It's the basic pitch. Check any good book on instrumentation or musical math.

  1429. musictheory 2017-06-27 11:50:03 Jthumm
    Is it just for string instruments and things that will only consist of tuning to a specific length?

  1430. musictheory 2017-06-27 22:46:56 Jongtr
    The main difference would be that playing each note individually would be more reliable in terms of balancing the relative volumes of each note. If you pick the notes together (fingerstyle), it's easier for some notes in the chord to be louder than others - unless your technique is good enough to control this. If you strum, then there's the difference of a very slight delay as the pick moves across the strings (down or up). When layering individual notes, it would be hard to synchronise them exactly in time, as when picking or strumming - but if your recording software allows shifting notes back and forward in time that can be corrected. As for the vibrations influencing each other differently, that's an interesting question. I'd say it would be a negligible effect, but I haven't tried it. The issue would be sympathetic resonance. If you pick a single note on the guitar, some pitches will excite sympathetic vibrations in other strings, if they share overtones. E.g. if you pick a high B note (1st string fret 7), then the open B and E strings will both vibrate a little, because those strings contain that B as an overtone. Pick a Bb or C and that wouldn't happen. But it also wouldn't happen if you were covering those open strings by playing a chord at the time. IOW, I'd suspect if layering individual notes (and not muting other strings), you'd get more resonance effects than if playing the chord as a whole

  1431. musictheory 2017-06-28 22:42:24 Tokkemon
    Most instruments are constructed so their "open" note is Bb. So it's an easy reference for most instruments in the band. In orchestras, they use A because all the string instruments have an open A string.

  1432. musictheory 2017-06-29 03:44:38 derekered
    Well first of all there are five parts, but this is supposed to be a string quartet. What's up with that?

  1433. musictheory 2017-06-29 21:36:33 ljse7m
    I don't like the V/V as its redundant. Why not just a simple II7? unless it continues with a more final cadence. A VI7 is a dominant of the ii or II. I know its accepted in a large group theorists, I just find in its simplest contexts its Redundant and in a string of them as in a series of secondary dominants it is also just a string of V/xs and if you are looking at the bigger picture, VII7 III7 VI7 II7 V7 just more clearly show that it is a series of the literal cycle of fifths in a secondary dominant context. BUT in RE my other post, this IS a subjective opinion of mine. If the reader studied the V/x notation, they should easily be understand the X7 notation I used above, but the reverse is not as true. I can of course see what V/x is saying but takes more mental steps to decipher it whereas x7 shows the spelling with the clarity of Alpha notation and if you understand the secondary dominant concept, it is perfectly apparent that it belongs to that context. But when mixed with (ii) and no key indications in a roman only notation, it simply becomes confusing and the reader wastes time translating it into what is going on. Again, I know this is a bit subjective. But its a very important clarification for you to see that what you used is not as clear to others as it is to you. That is the hump that we strive to get over when analyzing music. LJSe7m

  1434. musictheory 2017-06-30 08:39:50 Phrygiaddicted
    He's basically just talking about "Just Intonation", search that if you want to know more specifically. so... sounds will be "at a pitch", but what that pitch of the sound refers to is the fundamental pitch. the lowest component tone of that instruments timbre. it will also have component tones at (roughly) integer multiples of that frequency (or integer divisions of the wavelength)... so pluck a string at C256 and it will sound C256, but also C512, and G768, E1280 and so on... theses are the modes a string can vibrate at, this is what you see when you look at a spectrum analyser or something. so; when you play a C, it's fifth harmonic is *already there*... as a component of the sound of the C, 2 octaves above it at what is generally called "E". so, when you're playing say a major triad, you want your notes you play with the C to match up with the component sounds of that C as close as possible for it to sound "smooth". so; what we want for our E here is then... Cx5/4 (dividing by 4 (2^2) to bring the E down into the octave that the C is in) in "cents" notation that would be log2(5/4)x1200 = 386.31 cents above C. that is the location of C's "natural" E. the keyboard we use generally consists of 12 notes, equally spaced in intervals of the 12root(2) apart... which gives us 100 cents per step. so the major third on an 12ET keyboard is 400 cents wide... or 14 cents sharp of the E we "want" from our C. basically, that "sweet spot" is just aligning the notes such that they are multiples of the root... a CEG major triad on C is in the ratio 4:5... what he goes on about later on about the A changing frequency is because this process never ends; you can generate an infinite number of notes like this, its not a circle, but a spiral like "https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5e/f7/22/5ef722ff4ac1504ad6b07c6e46246a0b.jpg" so. so, let's take that E as an example. you can reach E by going straight from C->E by x5 (5/4 or 386 cents) , but we could also go C->G->D->A->E, or Cx3x3x3x3 (81/64 or 408 cents) we just got two notes called E, but they have different pitches... and in truth, are different notes. similar thing occurs with the D and between G and A. the 9/8 D is G's perfect fifth, but is not A's perfect fourth which is (10/9) so... if you want to go use G's D, you need to use G's D's A and the A moves up in pitch. by 81:80... and then it keeps going because you now need a higher F to sit under that new A... which gives us a higher C to sit above the new F and so on... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntonic_comma#Comma_pump nice midi example on the right of this. by the end of that cycle the note we're now calling the same as the one we started with is basically a semitone higher, but has the same name... (cue headache) this is one of the "issues" that you can also say, use 7 as a multiplier... (seventh harmonic) so in CEGBb which would otherwise be a dissonant dominant 7th chord, if you take this Bb to be Cx7, it is very smooth, sweet and harmonious with C and sounds not at all like a dominant 7th chord because the Bb is flatter than usual, and about half way between Bb and A. you could then treat that Bb as a root of it's own chord then use a pure 4:5:6 triad and so on... sorry if this is a bit rambley but its really not too complicated if you get that you can make intervals by just multiplying some other note by 3, 4, 5, 7, (insert all prime numbers here) and divide by powers of two to bring it down octaves. multiplication by 3 gives you "Perfect Fifth", multiplication by 5 gives you "Major third", multiplication by 7 gives "harmonic seventh (that flat flat seventh that sounds real smooth and barbershoppy)"... multiplication by 11 gives some sort of weird semiaugmented fourth and doesnt have any standard nomenclature. Division DROPS you by the same amount, so C/5 = Ab... this is how u can tell difference between Ab and G#... Ab = C/5 (C->Ab) = 814 cents, and G# = Cx5x5 (C->E->G#) = 773 cents. its late and this may not have been particularily helpful. please ask for specific clarification and i (or someone else maybe) can answer. i actually just replied to a thread a while ago and gave a long winded way of how to construct a just scale from a fundamental. this sub has been full of questions about JI in the past so a search may prove useful. even the wikipedia page is relatively helpful... it's not a hard concept to grasp once you understand which harmonics correspond to which ideal notes, and that there are multiple ways to arrive on a note with the same "name/letter" but with a different meaning (and tuning), like the two Es or Ds or As or like three B flats (C->Bb as Cx7) (Ch7's seventh) (C->F->Bb as C/3/3) (F's fourth) (C->G->Eb->Bb as Cx3/5x3) (G's minor third). http://www.kylegann.com/tuning.html more information. basically, alot of the things that make just intonation a huge pain in the ass also give you an incredible choice of tones, colours and relationships and so on to work with artistically... fortunately, computers make alot of the impracticalities of just intonation a non-issue.

  1435. musictheory 2017-06-30 13:33:44 banjalien
    I use Logic Pro X and I'm very happy with. Kontakt....that's that thing that made me scream a few choice words, lol. Seriously the first time I tried to load a string library and get it to work, terrible, wasted hours on that thing. It's working now but man somebody needs to get some better directions on how to make it work. Check out vi-control.net for some more advice on this stuff too.

  1436. musictheory 2017-06-30 21:52:33 LukeSniper
    Some good info already, but I'd like to answer this part of your question specifically: >Does anyone here know about how to tune a chord to its 'sweet spot'? You listen. If you've got a guitar, try this on guitar. If you don't have one, this might be trickier to illustrate. Just play a couple notes and listen to them. You should hear a slight "beating", almost a tremolo type effect. That's the waves going in and out of phase. If you adjust one of the notes slightly, you'll hear the frequency of this beating change. The closer to a justly intonated interval you are, the slower the beating will be. Just keep adjusting the note until there's no beat. This isn't as uncommon as you may think. String players and vocalists do this instinctively. You ever heard a barber shop group? Those tightly voiced chords that seem to be just one note? THAT'S what they're doing. They're singing justly tuned harmonies!

  1437. musictheory 2017-07-01 00:22:13 ljse7m
    I see your progress, but I still have some questions. I see your revised interpretation of the Ab intro measures but its really still very subjective and you seem to be giving good evidence that can be subjectively interpreted to support the opinion that they had played around (rehearsed? maybe) an intro over a Dominant Pedal point. Then with a live performance or live recording session, the meody began before the guitarist was ready and it took him a measure to adjust! I have had this happen on live gigs all the time. We don't stop and start over, we adjust and go on. But the fact that your description of what happened can be interpreted in those two different ways, to me that makes is fine for a music critic but does not belong in an analysis. It would be better just to point out what is there, the implied V root over the b9 and point out he ambiguity. Your opinion, no matter how correct or incorrect is still an opinion. A foot note would be "acceptable" as it points out that its your personal opinion and not part of the analysis. > iii V/ii ii V Fm7 Bb7b9b5 | Ebm7 Ab7b5 This is NOT wrong. But its an example of why I don't like the V/ii when the VI7 would more obviously show it to be correctly, a simple and obvious a 5th cycle back to tonic starting at the iii chord. With the strung out III VI II V you are pointing out how it is congruent with basic functional harmony. Remember, in functional harmony the cycle is defined by the ROOTS and sometimes the Bass to conform to the cycle of fifths' relationship to functional harmony. When you add the V/x's you shorten the cycle to merely a ii V I and sometimes that is appropriate, but it does obscure the overall relationship of how larger units of harmonic progression conform with the Cycle of Fifths driving the harmonic progression along to tonic. There is not any Tonicazation or even key areas in a moving progression like this. I can see using it if the progression repeated the VI7 ii progression several times or if the progression moved away from vi and then returned back in a functional manner and THEN with something else besides the single VI7 would be present to establish the vi to be tonic, THEN I can see it as being useful. BUt the cycle does not start with the VI7 chord it starts ith the III chord. or possibly the VII chord ( don't remember off hand what is before the III) but the point is, when there is a long string, longer than II V I, I find it more clear to use the literal roman numerals that show the extent of the cycle being used and reserve the V/x for when X has had something more substantial to rate it a V/x which I prefer to be used in a context when it points out something more substantial to call it a "key area" or Tonicazation. Its a rather subtle distinction but when used for a string of secondary dominants I find it NOT to be useful but rather taking away the cycle of fifths progression that goes beyond a single ii V progression which is obscured by using a very helpful notation of a "modulation" when there really is not any modulation to the target X. I When the target chord is only ONE chord in the progression, it is only a color change and not even really a tonic as there is no reinforcement of its being any thing but a color change in the Cycle of fifths. The only other thing is the terminology of Backdoor? I MAY be starting to see what you mean by that but quite frankly, I don't see real explanation. Could you mean simply an unresolved V7 chord or something like that? I just don't see a clear definition of what you mean by that. Is is a term from some Music Theory Course? or is it a "street term"? And with the exmples I see, I don't see any use or implication or function or non function information that is useful, mostly because I don't understand what you mean and I can't see how it relates to the analysis. I would really appreciate a more detailed of what Backdoor means. If it is something I missed with terminology I may just have another definition of what you are saying and if I don't understand the concept and it means anything, I certainly want to be educated as to what it means. I am giving this reply because I see the progress in your thinking but the V/x thing is something that in general I have with that notation. I see it in the rating tests of Canada and England and maybe other places so I am disagreeing with that approach to notating functional harmony, not you specifically. I know its considered standard by many and I subjectively believe that it hinders the understanding of the simple use of the cycle of fifths in harmony. IT obscures the larger picture of the true basic tonality. And the Back Door thing is for my personal education and understanding and also, since you seem to be sincerely interested, I feel obliged to point out the subtleties as you seem to be listening and applying them to create a more clear and useful analysis. Thank YOU for your post and replies and for reminding me that there are still some that really want to do things right and on a deeper level than theory taught by Apps on the cell phone. LJSe7m

  1438. musictheory 2017-07-01 01:30:49 Jongtr
    Trouble is, you need to do this for every chord. That's OK for singers and string players, who can adjust intonation on the fly. It can't be done on guitar, because of the frets, and also because each string performs a different role in different chord shapes. Get one shape in tune, and the next will be out (more so than in equal temperament). Very sensitive players with good ears can push and pull strings into tune as they play. Playing one string sharp is not too hard, by bending a little or fretting harder, but flattening a string means pushing the fretting finger towards the bridge to reduce the tension. IOW, if you tune all the strings a little flat to start with, then - in principle - it's possible (if you avoid open strings) to play every chord in tune by pushing each one sharp to different amounts; using your ear to check of course.

  1439. musictheory 2017-07-02 03:30:10 Carda_momo
    Yes, but I'm not sure if I would call it that haha. I'd see it more as a string of secondary dominants or just a sequential circle of fifth progression possibly, depending on whether it continues the pattern. Secondary dominants often resolve deceptively just like regular dominants. Here's a video of a harmonic analysis of Tchaikovsky's Morning Prayer that highlights the use of secondary dominants in context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQlex9bejIc

  1440. musictheory 2017-07-02 03:59:43 mimomisu
    I am just finishing an album recorded whole in 432. And honestly -it was just for fun (and to mess up with people trying to learn it later on maybe), also I liked the idea being it in a mix with other normal songs and the transition just sound weird at the beginning. Anyway, for the string instruments the under tuning does give it a nicer vibe, no matter what the frequency is. PS: I am sure more bands used to do it but most of R.E.M. songs are in 445 (I think). It might have been because of the mandolin they used to use so often or they just wanted their songs to "pop" when played on the radio

  1441. musictheory 2017-07-03 07:11:12 peristeronichemiola
    Music ed majors take those. I believe at most places they are required to take beginning trumpet, trombone, clarinet, violin, and perhaps some others. I'd say learning wind or string instruments would increase yor musical ability by a lot, similar to how instrumentalists need to learn to sing

  1442. musictheory 2017-07-04 00:13:05 Scatcycle
    Firstly, score is huge. Youll want to put a lot of work into the score making it as intuitive as possible. Especially at your age, it will impress them a lot if your score looks professional without mistakes. Secondly, use contrasting pieces. Even if you have two diatonic string pieces that you think are your best, maybe take that decent brass quintet one you have and put it in. Try to use pieces that express your voice and don't just subscribe to the current fads (though this is a useful tool to have in the future). Because of this, complexity doesn't matter. If they give you lots of slots (mine only gave 2) for pieces, you could add a complex piece to brandish your harmony and other skills, but don't prioritize it.

  1443. musictheory 2017-07-04 02:30:44 kimjongbonjovi
    Warning: someone will likely answer this more clearly than I can. The spacing *is* even. After the fundamental each note is a fraction of its frequency: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 etc. So if the fundamental is 100Hz, you get 100Hz, 200Hz, 300Hz, 400Hz, 500Hz etc. EDIT: not a fraction but a multiple. I picture fractions because that would be like the length of a vibrating string. Like, halving a vibrating string doubles it's frequency.

  1444. musictheory 2017-07-04 03:59:03 Phrygiaddicted
    it's not irregular, its logarithmic. think about the space of string avaliable to vibrate. 1 meter string will vibrate a N hz. half of that (0.5M) will vibrate twice as fast at 2N Hz half of that again (0.25M) will at 4Hz... half of that again (0.125M) at 8Hz each octave is half the length of the previous octave... http://moderncellotechniques.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Harmonic_nodes.png look at that imaage; you see when splitting the string into N equal parts... the length of any one node gets smaller and smaller, but it will never reach 0 size. harmonic number N = the number of wave periods in relation to the unison. therefore the size of wave period is just 1/N because there are N of them in the same length as there are 1/1. if you see, the middle is not 1/1, it is 1/2. 1/1 corresponds to the *entire length*. 2/1 corresponds to double the length. the picture should make the answer to your question obvious. i think you think it should be reversed because you're thinking about **frequency not wavelength**; which is frequency's inverse... (or the other way around) ie: 3 times the frequency corresponds to (1/3) the wavelength. so while the frequency of the harmonics can grow to infinity without bound, the wavelength starts at some fixed size (the unison) and decreases towards 0 in the limit. think about it, if you have a string, you can section it off at an arbitrarily tiny part and pluck it to produce really high note... but the lowest note possible is the length of the entire string, aka the fundamental... the **subharmonics** correspond to theoretical *lengthening* of the string, and that will grow the string to infinite size and WILL get longer and longer as you go further away from the unison. since the relation between harmonic number and wavelength is 1/x, the relation between points is logarithmic (d/dx 1/x = logX)

  1445. musictheory 2017-07-04 18:37:04 Jongtr
    You need to think about dividing a string, not dividing the octave. The main scale divisions - the "perfect" intervals - are decided by what sounds good, and that comes from simple ratios of frequency and string length. The octave is actually the first division in the process, the second harmonic of the harmonic series: a 2:1 ratio - half string length, twice the fundamental frequency. The next division is into 3rds, and that's where the perfect 5th comes from. If we start with an A of 110 Hz, then the octave (2nd harmonic) is 220, and the 3rd harmonic is 330. That gives us the E note. To get the E between the two A's we divide by 2, giving 165 Hz (3:2 ratio with 110). In terms of fractions of an octave the E is 7/12. It's not *exactly* 7/12, but extremely close. Our system of [equal temperament] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament) fixes the divisions of the octave into exact 12ths in order to make it possible to change keys without re-tuning instruments. I.e. it's an artificial division, approximating pure intervals. The E in equal temperament is tuned 2 cents flat (1/50 of a semitone), to 329.6 Hz, or 164.8. That way, the whole circle of 5ths matches up. If we didn't retune the 5th, then a cycle of 12 5ths would not come out equal to 7 octaves, as we need it to. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation too. If you want more on math and scale history (the origins of western scales), [this] (http://www.peterfrazer.co.uk/music/tunings.html) site is great.

  1446. musictheory 2017-07-06 08:12:24 NearlyDistant
    Well, this is a rather pointless discussion. I don't think the bare-bones definition of a "composer" or a "performer" in terms of mandatory skills is very useful. The question is: do highly developed aural skills make you a better musician? If they do, why wouldn't it be in the interest of every musician to develop them? As I said, I believe that what is commonly referred to as "aural skills" is only one part in a larger skillset which could be called "listening". The more you listen, the more you hear; the more you hear, the more you understand; the more you understand, the more you can communicate. Despite what you say, aural skills can be critically important in performance. There is no proficient brass player who doesn't know the overtone series by heart and can imagine the note they are about to play, there is simply no way to even play a brass instrument otherwise. True to a lesser extent with string instruments, positions make things a lot easier but real music is often not simple, there are awkward position shifts which sometimes do not work out as intended and it is completely possible to find yourself lost on the fingerboard with only partial clues. In that case, hearing the pitch you should be playing is invaluable and can turn a complete trainwreck into a momentary hitch. On both of these types of instruments it is also necessary to always pay attention to intonation, good technique can make certain patterns nearly automatic in execution but effective playing requires diligent listening all the same. There is usually no way to tell from individual parts what the harmonic context is (even an abstract definition of "harmonic context") so players must listen for the type of sonority and tune accordingly. Speaking from experience, just listening for beats is not enough because it is totally possible for a section to be naked and for the other instruments to be nearly inaudible for one reason or another. In that case the section will probably correct the intonation internally, and when everybody is playing a pure unison there will be an illusion of stability whereas the conductor and audience know the truth. Thankfully the viola section usually hears all (I'm a very amateur violist). For this same reason I prefer to sing in mixed formation in choir and to stand next to a good bass (I'm a tenor). Just because these issues don't come up in professional ensembles doesn't mean that the sight-reading is automatic, the players are highly skilled and know how to avoid problems, it's not just that they are paid to know their parts in and out. It's possible to be an incredible sight-reader and virtuoso on your instrument but be a terrible orchestral player. This is common for guitarists, who obviously do not often play in an orchestra (read: in, not with). Composers are a special case, as they are generally concerned with a broader spatiotemporal context than performers (but not exclusively). I'm not going to claim aural skills as such are intrinsically necessary in the process of composition but I do think that in order to be able to work with large chunks you need to be confident in your ability to think formally and have good intuition for the relationship between form and material. This is where your score-study argument comes into play. I believe score study to be a type of ear-training - maybe you disagree with my semantics, it's not worth debating. At least we seem to agree on the substance of the matter. Of course, this skill being *essential* assumes that you do not use a piano or computer. I think it is very doubtful that Beethoven would have been as successful as he was in his later years if he had not been confident in his inner ear. By that I don't mean to imply that he spent a great deal of effort in taking dictation from himself. More general things like being able to imagine how different instruments' timbres interact, evaluating the space (not a physical space) the music needs, the overall gestural contours of passages. Despite deafness, you don't see Beethoven making rookie miscalculations even when he is at his most visionary. He was a pro and knew exactly what he was doing. Plus, at present I do not believe there is any way to work directly with timbre on the computer, and that is certainly impossible on the piano (for other timbres besides that of the piano). There is no way to vividly conceive Lachenmann-type timbral music without a sober musical imagination fueled by ample insight.

  1447. musictheory 2017-07-06 15:45:56 karelpsota
    The whole tone scale. (Lack of tonal center. Really effective for string runs. Conveys madness) Danny Elfman - Simpsons Opening Theme

  1448. musictheory 2017-07-06 21:10:24 Jongtr
    You can play the E on 6th string, making it "1st inversion" (C/E), or you can fret the G on 6th string to make it "2nd inversion" (C/G). Both sound more unstable than the "root position" shape (muted 6th string), so would normally be used as passing chords, between others. That's particularly the case with C/E. Try strumming it for any length of time, and that low E really sounds out of place. But listen to [this] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnhXHvRoUd0) and you hear (2nd chord of verse, around 0:33 and similar points later) a C/E as a passing chord between C and F, in order to provide the bass line C-E-F. That's a typical usage. The F chord root resolves that unstable E note. C/G, OTOH, is easier to strum without sounding like it really needs to move somewhere. I use the 3-3-2-0-1-0 probably more than x-3-2-0-1-0 because it saves having to mute the 6h string.

  1449. musictheory 2017-07-06 23:52:21 Elindil09
    I think he was just talking about the string runs in the theme being a whole tone scale.

  1450. musictheory 2017-07-07 00:01:22 karelpsota
    I'm talking about the string runs only. And yes, Simpson is lydian.

  1451. musictheory 2017-07-07 02:41:35 watteva
    As has been explained, because the root is on the 5th string. You can play the G on the 6th string, although still inverted it's not as obtrusive as C/E

  1452. musictheory 2017-07-07 07:47:23 Mr-Yellow
    > Wouldn't it be quicker to know that a major third from a Bb is a D, and then find that note on the fretboard? Without even knowing what the tonic might be I know there is a Maj3rd up a string and down a fret, and another up 2 tones on the same string. Instantly.

  1453. musictheory 2017-07-08 23:00:41 doctor-gooch
    Yes! In fact, a lot of what I didn't mention about Ed's contribution is precisely that; people think that Jonny is the massively experimental one, but when it comes down to it, I actually think Ed is just as experimental. Lots of string scratching, strumming where he shouldn't be, synthesis using his guitar (EHX Superego or E-Bow) and straight up dazzling effects work (Desert Island Disk comes to mind). Most of Jonny's experimentation is technical, not technological; Jonny experiments with techniques (composition, textural/timbral dynamics and timing) more than he does with augmenting his guitar with technology. When he did experiment with technology, he used up most of his ideas during the Bends/OKC years, such as using 4 delay pedals in a row, using the Whammy (messy octave sound on My Iron Lung and Subterranean Homesick Alien) pedal, and making the phaser cool again 20 years later. While after OKC, he switched to a more reserved approach to guitar (possibly because he could tell he was "defining" the sound of the band too much with his quite heavy handed use of such effects) and, I believe, consciously decided to let his part-writing be the voice of his contribution, not the effects. We see this on Kid A right through to In Rainbows, which led to Ed getting to shine as the "weird sound dude" on later albums starting with Kid A.

  1454. musictheory 2017-07-09 00:27:57 JoJorno
    A "basic" C triad is made of the notes C - E - G, in this order We usually say it's in root position because the lowest note is the root of the chord (a.k.a. the note that gives the name to the chord) But moving these notes around an octave up or down we can get what are called inversion For example, playing E - C - G is called first inversion and it's usually written as C/E (meaning C chord with an E on the lowest note) In this case, adding the E of the sixth string under the C aka the root of the chord would make it in first inversion. Slightly different sound and feeling (in my opinion a bit muddy), but pretty much the same role, you can experiment with it and also other inversion to try to understand when you actually like it or not Another easy inversion of the C chord is with the G of the sixth string (third fret) which is the second inversion of the chord (C/G)

  1455. musictheory 2017-07-09 04:16:16 NearlyDistant
    I think this quote is helpful in understanding Ferneyhough's aesthetic but one mustn't understand it in the wrong way, which I think is a real danger for people unfamiliar with his music. Ferneyhough's scores are pretty much impossible to play exactly and an exact interpretation of one of his pieces wouldn't be interesting just by virtue of being exact, but that doesn't mean that his scores are mutable. I recall a short documentary of him rehearsing the sixth string quartet with Arditti where he can be observed correcting the players in extremely minor errors. That's not to say he is a pedant or has unrealistic expectations though. I have a second hand account of his relationship with performers from one of the composition teachers at the Iceland Academy of the Arts, who studied with him and also performed some of his pieces as a contrabassist. He (the teacher) complained to him once that the parts were unfriendly and he was having difficulty nailing a certain leap. Ferneyhough purportedly said that the important thing was to just go for it instead of worrying that it would go wrong. That story changed how I perceived his music and after that I started to realize (correctly or incorrectly, doesn't matter) that the music was not really about the complexity itself but rather the performer's journey toward it. The music is just on the edge of impossibility and every bar is perilous, but there is a type of Zen in the chaos and the performer's perseverance and discipline in taming it. It's not just that the complexity itself is impressive, although I think the fact that the music is so intelligible despite it is a great testament to Ferneyhough's skill as a composer; nor that the virtuosity is impressive though it is certainly to be respected. To me, it is the meta-narrative of the rehearsal process and the performer's stoic resolve which makes the music so vibrant - it really shines through. It simply wouldn't be the same with virtual instruments/electronic sounds, and not just for acoustic reasons.

  1456. musictheory 2017-07-09 11:10:15 HideousRabbit
    >I know the shapes of the major minor and dominant arpeggios in the E and A root string shapes relatively well If you want to play jazz, you need to learn the arpeggios for major 7th, minor 7th, dominant 7th, and half-diminished 7th, for any given root note, all over then neck. Eventually you'll want to learn minor-major 7th and sus 7th chord arpeggios too. The CAGED system isn't well suited for jazz playing. Practice the diatonic scale in the seven different three-note-per-string 'shapes'. Practice the arpeggios that 'fit within' these three-note-per-string scale shapes (so there will be seven different arpeggio shapes for each chord-type). It's easy to think up technical exercises to familiarize yourself with these scale shapes. Then practice improvising II-V-I progressions using just arpeggio notes, in each scale shape. (If this sounds too bland, throw in the 9th on the II and I chords, and the b9 on the V chord.) This just scratches the surface of what you need to learn but it's a good start.

  1457. musictheory 2017-07-10 02:58:36 bergesque
    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/steve-reich-pulse-of-life-417348.html > When Reich formed his first ensemble in New York 40 years ago, the classical world was dominated by the followers of Arnold Schoenberg. Atonal serialism, a continuance of the arid, dissonant 12-tone scheme Schoenberg had devised, was the only kind of composition taken seriously by the conservatories. Karlheinz Stockhausen and Pierre Boulez, Luciano Berio and the serialist-influenced John Cage: these were their gods. > "It was de rigueur to write music like that," recalls Reich, "**because if you didn't you were considered a fool.** There was just that one way: no pulse, no tapping of the foot, no whistling of the tune, no harmony to grab on to." Anyone using rhythm, harmony or melody - in short, anyone who produced a piece that actually sounded like music - was derided. "They'd snigger behind your back. There was no place for the Stravinsky of The Rite of Spring or the Bartok of the string quartets. Or even John Coltrane."

  1458. musictheory 2017-07-11 21:04:13 mrclay
    > why are chords played instead of single notes Some here argue *there are no "chords"*, only lines that tend to move towards recognizable harmonies; and that boiling these lines down to a list of chords adversely affects understanding. Studying some string quartets is a great way to appreciate this dichotomy.

  1459. musictheory 2017-07-12 17:57:14 komponisto
    >we get an Ab. how would you think about the distance of Ab from Cmaj, when we are modulating to a parallel major scale that has C has tonic, and includes an Ab? The distance of Ab from C major is still 3. By using Ab in a C-major context, one is implicitly invoking the Aeolian mode (i.e. C minor). If, however, one uses Ab without all of the preceding flats (i.e. together with E♮ or B♮), then one is making use of *modal mixture* -- a phenomenon discussed by Schenker in §§38-52 of *Harmony* (where the term "mixture" is translated by Elizabeth Mann Borgese as "combination"). In particular, the use of b6 together with ♮3 and ♮7 is what Schenker labels the "second series", and is the subject of §43. Here is (part of) what he says (in Borgese's translation): >For our purposes -- i.e., for the purposes of art and the artist -- it may suffice to mention this series merely as one of the products of possible combinations. We may leave it to the particular context of a composition to clarify whether we are dealing basically with a C major with the minor sixth borrowed from C minor, or vice versa, with C minor which has adopted the major third and seventh from C major. For, as I mentioned above, the combination may move from major to minor as well as in the opposite direction, from minor to major. It is only the composition itself, whose basic mode is easily established, which can convey to use the desired information. The above passage represents my own view well enough. >The supremacy of Ionian is not universal The "supremacy of Ionian" that is meant here is not some kind of empirical preponderance (certainly across world traditions), but a *theoretical* primacy -- one which, indeed, is suggested by the evolution of Western art music, that most theoretically- and evolutionarily-preoccupied of all the world's musical traditions. >occam's razor would suggest that diatonic modulation is indeed the correct answer; were the other tonal scales and the whole "tonal complex" (like mixing diatonic/double/harmonic/melodic minor and major forms) not in the way making that untenable (unless it is and you can show me how it is applicable) Saying that modal mixture makes the theory of diatonic modulation untenable is like saying that the chemical compounds make the atomic theory of matter untenable. The former theory doesn't require that only pure forms of modes occur in music, any more than the latter theory predicts that matter only occurs in the form of pure elements. What we're talking about here is what the correct *conceptual building-blocks* are, in terms of which to understand the various complex phenomena that the world (of music, or matter) presents to us. >this is related to my question from before about judging distance in minor scales that you didn't address: which is G or G# in Amin, or are both in Amin? and why? and if both are, then Db is in C maj by your own justification. If not, i'd like to see how you would reconcile that problem. G is diatonic in A minor; G# is not. When the latter occurs in A minor, it represents mixture, i.e. a borrowing from A major. (Similarly, in C major, Db represents a borrowing from C Phrygian.) >but when it comes to audation: the way i could describe it is as having a harmonic series template in my head, which can form a frame and shift around I suspect that you are actually misdescribing something that is better described as a diatonic scale template. My guess would be that you have been prevented from considering this previously by the belief in evidence above, to the effect that diatonic scales can't shift from moment to moment (so that mixture is apparently not a thing). >Ab and G# are distinct sounds, and using the wrong one when you meant the other is what i was referring to. Yes. It is possible to use tunings in order to acoustically differentiate Ab and G#. (As is commonly known, string players and vocalists often do this in an ad-hoc fashion.) My point is that it is not *necessary* to do so; they are still conceptually distinct even when they are acoustically identical. Think of it this way: on the one hand, there is *pitch-space*, which is acoustical, and, on the other, *tone-space*, which is musical; what a *tuning* does is to establish a mapping between them. However, what our letters (A,B,C,...) refer to are the elements of tone-space (the musical construct), and not those of pitch-space (the acoustical construct). >if you haven't worked this out already, i do find alot of riemann's ideas incredibly useful They can be, provided one doesn't take them literally (and in particular, provided one already has a solid understanding of the actually correct theory). Mainly, one has to interpret the notion of "chord" or "harmony" in the abstract, Schenkerian sense (*Stufe*). In his modulation handbook, Max Reger (himself a student of Riemann) discloses the secret to making sense of "chords". A footnote to his example modulation from A minor to B major (#71) reads: >Do not forget that upon the entrance of the new major-tonic, its scale is understood. Schenker hated this book, but that piece of advice is Schenkerian in its essence. For that matter, Riemann himself opens *Harmony Simplified* (that mischievously ironic title of the English translation of his harmony book) with: >THE THEORY OF HARMONY is that of the logically rational and technically correct connection of chords...The natural laws for such connection can be indicated with certainty only if the notes of single chords be regarded not as isolated phenomena, but rather as resulting from the motion of the parts; *chord successions arise from simultaneous melodic motion of several parts*. (emphasis in original). >if it's...not a mess of noise; it's probably tonal... in way you don't understand I agree! (Except, of course, that I *do* understand it, by means of the principles I have explained.) >in my view almost the entire chromatic row bar 2 notes can be considered "in Cmaj", with various degrees of affinity *All* notes (of which there are infinitely many -- let us not confuse tone-space with pitch-space!) have *some* meaning in C major (or any other key you care to name): an assignment of a meaning to each tone is, after all, exactly what a key is. The diatonic scale of C major is used as the basis for assigning meaning (which is what it means to be in C major, as opposed to another key), which confers a certain privilege upon the notes that belong to that collection; but all other notes are still conceptually part of the system (at various degrees of "distance", as has been discussed).

  1460. musictheory 2017-07-13 20:46:40 ljse7m
    The proper term is certainly rubato and you are correct in that it does involve seemingly random meter compared to the vocal. But you ask how to notate it. So here is what I suggest. In this piece it seems that both Dusty and the conductor are using the rubato technique for expressive purposes. With both the conductor and the singer using the technique, its difficult to tell sometimes who is leading who. So what you should do, and I think you have almost done this already by your description of what you have done so far, is to isolate the orchestra part and write that out without listening to the singer. You should also write out the melody part without listening to the orchestra. This is a bit tricky but if taken separately you can hear by the phrasing where the measures are better than if you listen to them separately. When you have both the melody and accompaniment sketched out separately, look for the places where they coincide. They both, if you accurately follow each's expressive rubato episodes, have the same amount of measures. Then you lock them together and you will have where your bar lines go, but in a synced metrical written part. When you have that, you can then add a simple word "rubato" to the score and when preformed live, just as with the original conductor and singer, each and every time its played there will be a variation of who does what when. That is the nature of expression with rubato. It ebbs and flows with the feelings of the singer and conductor (accompanist) What is happening is that the conductor starts and then waits for the singer to feel where she should come in, then he follows and pauses for her and then back and forth. When reading from the metrical score, its a back and forth with the two to keep the continuity of the music but allowing for pauses as if it was a thoughtful and emotional narrative of the lyrics. In opera, this is found quite often. In fact its rather standard and happens almost all the time when there is an emotional exchange of two singers and the orchestra as well as in a 'soliloquy" by a character. Once you have done the combined sketch score of both parts, then with the terms of expression like accelerando, ritardando and fermatas and careful notation of articulation marks like breath marks and other vocal and string type articulations, you can get a pretty good recreation of what is on that particular recording but still, every performance will have at least some small variations and this is the nature of the music and is why you are having problems trying to meticulously notate something that is by designed to be somewhat random and fluid depending upon how everyone feels at that particular time on that particular day at that particular performance. I hope this helps. LJSe7m

  1461. musictheory 2017-07-15 16:59:39 mrclay
    I think of each note in the key as resistant to change, with a general preference to stay close on the circle of fifths. We start in F major, 1 flat. The G7 suggests all Bb's temporarily become B naturals. Easy! At Gm7 (or any chance to return to the key) they revert back. If the song has Ebmaj7 in C major: all Es become Eb, all Bs become Bb, so using the Bb major scale during that chord is pretty safe. A notable place this generalization breaks down is the borrowed V/ii chord. The dominant to minor expectation tends to pull that minor chord's scale into the ear, particularly the b6 of that minor scale. E.g. in G major: the ear expects E7 to lead to Am, and that pulls in the b6 of A minor: F natural. So not only would you play Gs as G#, but also F#s as Fs. This isn't a hard rule of course. If your verse is a string of secondary dominants (E7 A7 D7 G) then that expectation of E7 leading to Am won't be as strong.

  1462. musictheory 2017-07-16 10:01:58 glow100
    Could you have come up with a question more general?! Is the piece even remotely idiomatic for strings? No matter...a string quartet can convey the whole harmonic compass....Figure out what the features of good idiomatic string quartet music are (I like Ravel's work in that area), and go to it.

  1463. musictheory 2017-07-16 23:02:14 ljse7m
    Blue notes are most likely the same basic thing. What is now considered the standard blues scale is the LA pentatonic mode. La Do RE Me So La. That can also be described as the Relative minor pentatonic scale of the Major pentatonic scale Do Re Me So La Do. But that is only one more example of American Folk songs or African folk songs. Remember that its world wide that kids sing that smlsm, not just in our culture. I personally have heard this in North Africa, centeral and eastern Asia, South America and countries that I have only visited in addition to those that I lived in. But remember that our ear is tolerant. Our ear detects sound waves and our brain interprets it into musical sounds. You may not at present be able to hear and/or sing the pentatonics in their pure state, but that doesn't mean that we have lost the ability. It only means that you have not considered it before. Now that you have, you should be able to do it rather quickly. In another part of that "unanswered question" Part 1, Bernstein outlines an exerccise where you play the Root, fifth and upper root (mabee the lower Octave root, instead, that you then sing a major third between the (Fundamental C) C and the G (this would be the slot held by the 5th element the E spot, you will most likely sing the pure third. You can then check it by playing the piano's E at that same pitch and you should hear the difference quite clearly as "out of tune" with the piano's tempered E note. If your ear is more corrupted for some reason, I have an exercise that by singing it acapella will retrain you to hear the pure tones by your ear being pulled into the very overtones that your voice is singing as you do the exercise. (don't worry, when you again sing with a tempered piano, the distorted overtones of the equal temperament will 'suck" you back into their equal tempered matrix. >My teasing nowadays does not really sound pure like those kids were supposed to sound. Interesting information indeed but how do we make this into something practical and musical? If you go the later lectures of "the unanswered question" by Bernstein, you will hear more examples of how this has been used musically in the classical music genres. I don't remember the number but the one where he analyzes "Pictures at an exhibition" he isolates these "childern's pentatonic motif in great detail but he also mentions it from time to time in more than that one example. If you have heard the musical examples he uses before, you will have many "a ha" moments as they fit so smoothly into the music one does not even consider them separately but there they are, hidden in the over all picture like a single tree in the forest when seen from afar. Buy, listen to the melodies of the "oldies" rock and roll and rhythm and blues. The penatons are abundant when you learn to recognize them you will hear them all the time. Some are very obvious like "everyday People" and some are even moreso as in some of the Motown tunes. But once you listen for them, you will hear them everyday if you do an average amount of varied music on the radio. >And On top of old smokey could be seen as a tune using the major scale rather thsn pentatonics Well, its like the chicken and the egg. The Pentatonic scale is the major scale without the tritone. So is OTOOSmokey the major scale with out the F or is it the pentatonic scale without the F? Isn't both of these statements pretty much the same thing? Since the song was obviously written after the Europeans came to the US (It is not a Native American origin as far as I know) so the people that wrote this rather young folk song would have been accustomed to hearing both the European pentatonic folk music as well as the more functional harmony and scales of the Western European musical tradition. OTTOSmokey is in 3/4. A waltz is in 3/4. The accordion (the one that is standard in the northeast of the US at least) is known for polkas and Waltzes so it would be natural that your accordion teacher would say to comp it like a waltz and if the Americans played it at a Squar Dance or Saturday night gathering in the town, they would most likely have danced a waltz step to it. The way a song is played however is after the fact of what the song is in its native or original setting. Many songs have been changed in style, tempo and even meter but that does not change anything about what the song "has to be". Each arrangement of the song would have to be evaluated on its own merit. One thing I would add since I know you are starting on the Accordion. Well maybe two. One is that if you do that ear exercise I mentioned above that it is best done on a real piano and not a synthesizer or the accordion. It may work but the synth has an abbreviated synthetic set of overtones and the accordion has vibrating reeds which can vary by how hard you push the air through them and will have different volumes on each overtone that make it sound different from the piano when you hear the sounds (timbre), so that could make it more difficult than if on a more pure sound of the vibrating string with the longer fundamental built into the length of the string. A GRAND piano is the best but any piano will do although I have shown this exercise to people on the synth and it was clear enough for them to hear it. The other thing is that as I understand it, one of the alumni of myy college, Bill Evans and his brother Harry, both of which were from New Jersey, started out on the accordion before they came down here to study music theory. Bill turned out to be one of if not THE most influential Jazz pianists of all time to bring American Jazz into the 20th century and solidify its position in history as a true art form and to introduce Modality and 20th century music to the mainstream of Jazz and popular music. (That is a bit off topic, but I though I would throw in that bit of trivia) Let me know if you can find your 'lost" ability to hear pure intervals and I wil send you a copy of the "five pentaton" exercise that will help you to sing in that pure form. LJSe7m

  1464. musictheory 2017-07-17 01:01:16 broodfood
    Well for the purpose of a string quartet arrangement, I would not call them different. Have you arranged an orchestral piece before? And are you very comfortable writing within the abilities and limitations of string instruments?

  1465. musictheory 2017-07-17 03:17:19 ljse7m
    You have to be very familiar with the string instruments very well. Then you have to be very familiar with the sound of the music and just do your best to use the strings to give the same impression as the original and it is key to keep the same overall rhythmic patterns of the accompaniment even if it is just suggested. You are working with a very smaller color pallet with the string quartet than with the orchestra. This is slanted to a "transcription" that is being planned to be used for dancers to dance to the smaller ensemble. If there is a melody from a ballet that you just want to prepare for concert or general listening or playing on a background gig, then there is not really anything special. Just do the melody and the harmony and use that material in the same way that you would use a non ballet melody and its harmonization. Write the melody and reduce and voice the harmony into four parts and write it down. LJSe7m

  1466. musictheory 2017-07-17 17:01:29 gopher9
    If you preserve sharps and flats, as well as double sharps and double flats, then: - Tonnez will represend music theory correctly - It will be useful not only in equal temperament (do you sing or play string instruments?) - It will be still useful for equal temperament So I suggest you to avoid oversimplification. > Gary Garret uses a Tonnetz (he calls it the 'lattice') like that. Yes, and his Tonnetz has both sharps and flats.

  1467. musictheory 2017-07-17 19:23:52 RickDeyja
    It doesn't really matter if a melody is in C or C#. As long as all the notes have the same relationship what key you use mostly doesn't matter in our time of tempered pitch. What it does dictate though, is how idiomatic the different parts will be for the instruments you have in mind. There is a reason for a lot of guitar-driven songs being in E, A, D or G. It allows for open strings in the guitar arrangements. String instruments (violin, viola etc.) traditionally prefer sharp keys, while brass and woodwind prefer flats. There is also the actual limitations of the instruments to think about. If you want the lowest tone of the bassline to be on the tonic, D or C isn't the best choices of keys if your bass-instrument is a bass-guitar. Unless you are writing prog, metal, fusion or jazz, and the bassist have a 5-string bass. Setting is everything.

  1468. musictheory 2017-07-17 21:47:29 mrclay
    > When I go on hooktheory and transpose a few popular songs to another key, I still get a good song but it's not as great You're also hearing the limitations of a band-in-a-box type software. There are certainly keys that emphasize the edges of the range of particular instruments (e.g. riffs using the guitar's low E string), but experienced musicians should be able to re-arrange for different key without killing the song.

  1469. musictheory 2017-07-18 07:06:34 Akoustyk
    To me, you are confusing "increasing the number of permutations" with creativity. If you ask a person "write me a chord progression" they do it, and you use it. That wasn't *your* creativity, it was someone else's. Thing is, that also won't mean it will be good, even if the progression is good, the note choices have relatively little to do with the quality of the music. So, it won't even help you that much. Any individual can access any resources, get any progressions any way, and none of these will help with the individual's creativity. An individual's creativity is something proper to themselves. It is a trait they possess. It is not a measure of variety. You can string any number of words together, seek any source on grammar or source that helps build sentences, and that will perhaps increase your variety of sentences you create, but none of them will help increase your creativity as a poet. Creativity and art is a lot more variety. Making varied and different things is easy for any art form. Making them good is what is difficult. Good and original. Copying someone else is not so tough.

  1470. musictheory 2017-07-19 19:59:36 bman1394
    Most instruments in the orchestra are pitched in C. This includes all string instruments as well as Flutes/Piccolos. Several band instruments have instruments pitched in C to accommodate orchestra settings such as C trumpets and C Tubas. In band, instruments are pitched in various different keys. Flute/Piccolo are the only instruments (besides percussion) pitched in C in the band. Clarinets, Trumpets, Trombones, Euphoniums & Tubas are all pitched in Bb. French Horns pitched in F. Soprano Clarinet, Alto Clarinet, Contralto Clarinet, Alto Sax, & Bari Sax are all pitched in Eb. Because of this, simply moving the same music over without changing the key suitable for all these instruments leads to big problems and issues in terms of fingerings, playability, flexibility and range.

  1471. musictheory 2017-07-19 21:49:34 ljse7m
    Wind instruments are generally pitched in Bb no matter if they are written in Bb transposition or in C concert. The Sousaphon for example is learned with the transposed fingerings and then written as if they are concert pitched but acoustically they are in Bb. Stringed instruments have their acoustics around the open strings of perfect fifths and fourths more around A concert. So when writing for orchestra, the professional wind players either use instruments designed to be in the sharp keys as the composers write with more of the strings in mind so they tend to write in the sharp keys for better adaptation to the instruments and to have the better resonance of the string sections. On the other hand, since the Brass and Woodwinds are more resonant in the flat keys (mostly with two or three flats) because these instruments resonate more in these keys. The reason for the difference is a combination of acoustics and tradition of the two groups of instruments (strings and winds) as well as the common practice of how the various musicians were trained. Because of training of the musicians in todays world, its thus easier to write even more in the Sharps for the Strings and in the Flats for the winds as when it comes to beginning bands and non professional bands, to do other wise would be a disaster as most wind players never have to play in more than one or two sharps and string players rarely have to play in more than 2 flats until they reach a higher level of education on their instruments. Jazz wind players are more familiar with D because they usually play from the fake books and lots of songs are in Cmaj So they have to learn to transpose to learn the standards. LJSe7m

  1472. musictheory 2017-07-20 02:46:03 Jongtr
    Pythagoras worked with the easily observable *effects* of frequency, such as the ratios of length in a vibrating string or wind instrument, ratios of weight (in bells or metal bars), or ratios of tension in strings (measured by attached weights). He would have had no way of measuring frequency itself. He may have intuited that the consonance of simple ratios was something to do with vibration frequency, but it wasn't *necessary* knowledge. It was easy to construct and tune musical instruments using measures of length and calculations of ratio. Knowledge of frequency was (and is) not required. [This image] (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cf/5b/c9/cf5bc9324026cbdaed03974af5bf7438--medieval-art-musical-instruments.jpg) is a medieval woodcut, showing the Pythagorean understanding of ratio, illustrating the template for the "greater perfect system": proportions 16:12:9:8:6:4, giving tetrachords across two octaves: A-D-G-A-D-A. All other notes can be calculated using factors of 2 and 3. The top left pic is hard to work out, but relates to the legend of Pythagoras noticing that some blacksmiths' hammers rang in tune, and discovered that their weights were in simple ratios with one another. (The hammers show the same 6 figures.) T

  1473. musictheory 2017-07-20 08:28:51 DeletedAllMyAccounts
    >when frequency in music was understood. The way you ask implies that you think that this is something that you either completely understand or have no concept of. Has it occurred to you that maybe it's possible to understand some aspects of frequency and how it relates to music without understanding the concept as we do today? I'm sure that the Greeks understood to a degree that when you strike or pluck a tensioned string it vibrates, anyone with an elastic cord can observe that. And I'm sure that they also understood that as you adjust the length and tension of a cord, it vibrates faster, because again, that's very easy to observe. Did you ever play with elastic bands as a kid? But if you're asking if they understood the relationship between those vibrations, harmonics, frequency decomposition, etc, the answer is probably not well? I can't imagine they had a way to measure the rate of vibration of a string/cord. I don't even know that they put two and two together and sussed out that the vibrations of a struck/plucked, tensioned cord were making sound, but even if they did, does that mean that they understood the concept of frequency? I really don't know. **edit:** Do you mean frequency as it specifically relates to the perception of pitch?

  1474. musictheory 2017-07-20 10:32:43 Ian_Campbell
    They understood halving string length raising an octave etc and how other consonants were based on simple ratios.

  1475. musictheory 2017-07-20 11:19:54 glow100
    I asked an acoustics professor, who suggested that The French polymath Marin Mersenne (1588 – 1648), in his L'Harmonie Universelle (1636) first discussed mathematical frequency in regards to music: " containing the earliest formulation of what has become known as Mersenne's laws, which describe the frequency of oscillation of a stretched string. This frequency is: Inversely proportional to the length of the string (this was actually known to the ancients, and is usually credited to Pythagoras himself). Proportional to the square root of the stretching force, and Inversely proportional to the square root of the mass per unit length. The formula for the lowest frequency is ...... where f is the frequency, L is the length, F is the force and μ is the mass per unit length." -from Wikipedia

  1476. musictheory 2017-07-20 12:18:04 glow100
    True, I didn't word it well, and, I didn't know the answer to, what part the ancients knew, vs what part was discovered later, but I think it's clearer now. Specifically, Mersenne's law about this (1648) is "1) Inversely proportional to the length of the string (this was actually known to the ancients, and is usually credited to Pythagoras himself). 2) Proportional to the square root of the stretching force, and 3) Inversely proportional to the square root of the mass per unit length." So points 2 and 3 the ancients did not have the math to describe. I'm terrible at math, but I think the history of the discoveries is interesting. Do you think Mersenne is a quantum leap beyond Pythagoras? Mersenne should obviously be mentioned, especially since there's almost a blinding religious fervor regarding Pythagoras.

  1477. musictheory 2017-07-20 12:46:40 ljse7m
    I never said they were. I am not confused. THe flute and piccoll and the oboe are not the primary lead instruments of a band. The Oboe is a very musical instrument but very diffiult to play in tune in ANY key. BUT all the saxes, all the clarinets (yes the orchestra clarinetists will often carry an A clarinet, but that is the exception in and rearely found in the Concert band setting. The FLute and piccolo is a naturally pitch C instrument except for the Db piccolo which is sometimes specified in bands. They do not belong to either band or orchestra. All the brass and trumpets ae Bb including the Trombone and the Tuba. The French horn is in F which is one flat. Eb and Bb Saxophones. With only two choices, the flat keys of the Sharp keys, you have Bb and closely related instruments and in the orchestra you have almost al E A D G and C for the cello which still has G D A strings. The C is an extension down because of the vast range and the cello being the Heart of the string section. SO all the orchestra instruments are pitched in the sharp keys OR neutral and in the winds all the instruments are in the flat pitches like F Bb Eb or neutral. The common instrumens are the ones you matched. They are not considered better at sharps or flats but neutral to all keys. So I really don't affect the choices for the keys of the orchestra. I never did say ALL of the instruments. I thought that the fact that they are NEITHER Flat keys NOR sharp keys pitched They are pitched in Cmajor. They all can go either way. Where did I say that the flutes and oboi are pitched in anything except C? In case you need clarification, the English horn is in G I believe and that would be a Sharp key and they are usually in not in any but the large bands and most bands don't have many and most don't have any. Same for Bassoons. All of these "odd" instruments are in C for the most part. ( English horn excepted) and since they are neither sharp or flat designed they would not be the reason that the main melody and harmony makers would influence the choice of key. So I really don't see why I am confused? Flats favor the winds and sharps favor the strings and the C pitched wind instruments, percussion, harps, etc are Neutral as they are just as tuned in one as the other. So they are not considered when it comes to transpose a composition to either a flat or sharp key, that is done exactly for the reasons that I outlined. Do you have my reply confused with someone else's reply? because I never mentioned which pitch the C instruments favored because they are neutral, they don't favor either acoustically. LJSe7m

  1478. musictheory 2017-07-20 13:24:13 glow100
    I ran this by an acoustics professor and well known author on tuning, who responded "I don't know. Helmholtz clearly used frequency, but it's kind of implicit in the ancients though they thought of it as length of the string. If I had to guess, I might guess Mersenne..."

  1479. musictheory 2017-07-21 20:05:28 asphinctersayswhat
    I think as long as you can translate into a standard that most folks use, arbitrary notation is an instrument for composition. I like to think of the limitations that come with weird notation as similar to how the 6 string guitar in it's various tunings make certain chords and voicings easier to play.

  1480. musictheory 2017-07-21 20:35:30 Robert_Burton
    It's all about voice-leading. So, for example, you have the first four chords of Autumn Leaves, which in the Real Book are notated as Am7-D7-Gmaj7-Cmaj7. A possible harmonization using extensions would be something like this, chords read from the top down, the first note of each column being the bass note: >A--D--G--C >F#-F#-F#-F# >C--C--B--B >E--E--E--D (fingerings are 5x455x x5455x 3x445x x3443x) So in this example, we end up with Am6-D9-Gmaj13-Cmaj9#11 (voiced without a 3rd). Things to notice here: * There's more than a single kind of extension (you have 9th's, #11th's, 13's) and and the reason for this is... * There's hardly any movement occurring from chord to chord (bass notwithstanding), but the relationship of the upper voices to the bass changes from chord to chord: F# is the major 6th of A, the major 3rd of D, the major 7th of G, and the sharp 11th of C, all of this different colors without ever having to move. Same thing occurs with the rest of the voices, but I'll let you figure those out on your own. * Also, the chords are not voiced in their "theoretically complete" form: Cmaj9#11 is missing the 3rd and all but Am6 are missing the 5th. Which notes you're gonna leave out of a chord is up to you, but the 5th is usually the first to go, unless it's a #5 or b5. To practice this, you could take a progression (say, the rest of Autumn Leaves) and try to minimize the movement between chords, that way you end up with notes that might be guide tones in one chord and extensions in another. You don't need to have the fretboard memorized, but you'll have to be pretty comfortable with *intervals* on the guitar, and be able to tell, for example, how a random fretted note on the low E string relates to a note two frets down on the D string. Good luck! Edit: fuck formatting.

  1481. musictheory 2017-07-21 23:07:25 superodinhulkhameha
    So the mode is the template. So in Bach's Air on a G string its actually in G Ionian then? Then you can make a scale based on the mode you want to use and the tetrachords that would fit harmonically. At a base level this could could be a C Ionian piece using Lydian and whole tone tetrachords (the major scale)?

  1482. musictheory 2017-07-22 00:01:01 Jongtr
    > Could this ever be transposed to sheet-notes and played by an orchestra? Probably - there are clear pitched notes there, and there is rhythm. But why would you want to? You would necessarily lose a lot of its essence. It would be like taking - er- a Jimi Hendrix recording and transcribing it for baroque string quartet. Actually, come to think of it.... ;-) > My guess is that it's way too timbral for it to be considered 'music' at all by western theorists Well, it's obviously "music", and "western theorists" are human (allegedly...:-D) so would certainly recognise it as such. The issue is how much of it could be written down in conventional staff notation. Answer: not much. Things like timbre (assuming that element is critical) would need to be specified using text or synth parameters. BTW, it reminds me of another female composer of electronic music, from roughly the same era https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jetzY-W78gg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXnmSgaeGAI

  1483. musictheory 2017-07-22 01:00:37 4plus1
    If you can notate ['Guero' by Helmut Lachenmann](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MChTWNDAg8), I don't see why Bogner's music should pose a problem. 'Punkte' is actually not that unusual, I think. There's a clear repeating melodic pattern (an "ostinato") and a rhythm that can be easily notated and analyzed. You'd just have to come up with a system to notate the various soundeffects (and how they change throughout the piece) and rising/falling tones. As for an orchestra playing this: Why not? Not sure if you'd still call it an 'orchestra' at that point, though. Because I can imagine this piece being performed by ~ 4 people and there wouldn't be any string, brass or woodwind instruments in there. I don't know a lot about orchestras and the correct definitions, maybe someone more knowledgeable can expand on that.

  1484. musictheory 2017-07-24 18:51:22 Alljay_Everyjay
    As soon as I saw the title I was hoping you'd bring up instrumentation. What I think makes a 'fantasy' song sound like it does is the instrumentation. Think about it, you imagine those strong string sounds like the cellos and double basses and the horns and trumpets when you hear a fantasy piece. And you could even incorporate vocals, which are usually done in the form of a choir. I think a lot of fantasy type of songs sounds a bit like battle music or war chants etc. The music I think of when I think of fantasy music is the soundtrack to skyrim. You have all those drums and chants and strings. When it's not war related, you would usually notice that they use many instruments from that time period like lutes or wood winds or drums. However I think that a bunch of fantasy music written for games or movies is very modernized. I don't know much about music from the era of knights and castles and the like, but when modern composers write for games of this genre, they use techniques common to this generation - 12 tone scales, chord progressions, so on. Basically, this music sounds like fantasy music because you've always associated this particular genre with fantasy media. You'd have to really study music of the past to get a better understanding

  1485. musictheory 2017-07-24 23:27:14 Scatcycle
    Historically key has always been an important part of the structure of a song sue to instrumental ranges. For example, the contrabasses and cellos extend down to C1 and C2. If you have C as your tonic, you have a lot more sonic power on these instruments if you decide to go down there. Key also plays a role in determining open strings. Open strings are the strings on string instruments that require no fingering to play. Open strings sound louder and more full. However, you can't play vibrato on an open string. Both of these contribute to the timbre of specific keys. Low frequency notes sound immensely different despite being so close in frequency. An EDM song in the key of C is going to sound a lotttt heavier than one in G. Assuming your speaker system can properly recreate the signal, that G is going to sound incredibly weak compared to the C. As for examples of key selection being utilized for these reasons, there's Adagio for Strings (in Bb minor to utilize vibrato, as there is only 1 diatonic note that's on an open string), any Zimmer song in the C-D area utilizing the low tuning of movie theater subwoofers as well as the nice open strings. Theres a reason why Zimmer rarely Produces a song in C#, and it's because his strings won't have open strings if he does.

  1486. musictheory 2017-07-25 02:42:30 MZago1
    Can someone give me a break down on pentatic scales in the 7 modes on guitar? I've seen a few different things. For example, one of them says C Dorian is C D Eb G A and another says it's C Eb F G A. Yes, they are both correct in that they contain 5 notes in C Dorian, but I'm looking for something similar to [this](http://www.guitar-chords.org.uk/scales-images/majorpentatonicpositions.gif) if it exists for modes. EDIT: I sort of answered it myself. The different positions of the modes can correspond to 5 of the 7 modes. Using A minor pentatonic (5th fret low E string) you can play A Aeolian, C Ionian, D Dorian, E Phrygian, and G Mixolydian. The only ones not playable would be F Lydian and B Locrian. Unless of course I'm thinking about this all entirely wrong...

  1487. musictheory 2017-07-25 04:20:48 jazzcomposer
    I would argue that the minor chords in the last example you reference are not i chords. That it's not III7 i III7 i etc. but that the minor chords function as either ii-7b5 chords leading to V7, or that they function as iv chords leading to V and that it's a string of iv V chords leading to the next. I would have to listen to the music and read the score, though.

  1488. musictheory 2017-07-25 10:12:36 ljse7m
    That is one way. I prefer Transcribe to anything that I have seen but then again I don't use it too much. But that will not help the O.P. with his main problem. That problem is he can't put what is in his head to the keys of his vibraphone! A Spectrum analyzer will not help him unless he has an ingram placed inside his head that can translate his aural thoughts into digital media to either play or to write out. The Vibraphone part in that tune is not that complicated. The Organ sound is more difficult to hear because its sound is not nearly as clear as the vibraphone sound which has its own special vibrating metal sound rather than a wind generated sound or a string vibration sound but the Vibe sound is usually easier to hear the pure pitches. For some people, the sub tones may get into his way and the various metals used for the bars and the design of the resonators also make a difference. The reason I asked about his vibraphone is for that reason. If he is a fellow vibraphonist, I may be able to help him to hear his instrument better. Something is wrong if I heard the same cut that he is hearing. One is Mi La and the other is Mi La Do La with I think the addition of a blue note in the third phrase and then the Organ joins in and that might be what is throwing him. BUt in any case, a spectrum analyzer may help him to transcribe but if you have a method to efficiently learn ear training using it, please share it with us. The simple melody in the beginning of the tune should be no problem to hear. We all want our ear training to be better but this is rather basic ear training and ear training is certainly in order if you need a spectrum analyzer to hear a minor chord outline and a perfect fourth. LJSe7m

  1489. musictheory 2017-07-26 01:35:42 leona_helmsleys_dog
    Familiarize yourself with any wind/string instrument, preferably by the practical application of playing music. Problem solved.

  1490. musictheory 2017-07-28 04:41:18 Multi_Synesthete
    Could you provide an example of tertiary dominance in a song/piece? I, by coincidence, happened to think about this yesterday but the only Reddit post I found said it wasn't really a thing. I know you use something similar in Jazz alot where you simply string together a lot of dominant 7ths moving in fifths, but that's not really the same thing, is it?

  1491. musictheory 2017-07-28 13:48:06 xiipaoc
    Lyre, harp, there was no difference back then. (Besides, if he wrote the Psalms, he probably played some other instruments as well.) Here's a link about this: http://www.harpspectrum.org/historical/wheeler_short.shtml Just because the kinor and nevel referred to particular instruments in Josephus's time doesn't mean that those instruments looked the same 500 years earlier when the David stuff was written, *especially* because there's another instrument mentioned in Ps. 92, the asor, which definitely has 10 strings (eser means 10; asor means 10th), and a sh'minit which was either an 8-string instrument or something else involving the number 8 (this word is unclear, but sh'minit means "eighth" just like how "asor" means "tenth"). Today, kinor is Hebrew for violin; not sure about nevel. Nothing specifically known as a harp was mentioned in the Bible. Then again, some English guys decided to translate things oddly and decided that the instrument Dave plays is a harp. Or a psaltery. But that's just getting technical. It was a string instrument with multiple strings in a row. It's harpy enough!

  1492. musictheory 2017-07-30 09:19:25 private_static_void
    Yeah, Bromskloss is right. Looking at the violins, [on the final note](https://youtu.be/GQS3r7bnKZA?t=35), you can see their bows lift off the string before the final beat is heard. It just looks close because the beats are relatively fast.

  1493. musictheory 2017-07-30 15:33:00 musicaldonkey
    Oh, I guess I'm just old enough that I was taught to read an analogue clock as a child, so thinking in fractions of a circle is second nature to me. The circular arrangement is just so you can start from anywhere in the string of binary and continue to count forward.. so that, in the example of a locrian mode, you just start on purple (or position 11) and move clockwise. It was just a way of arranging the binary infinitely.

  1494. musictheory 2017-07-30 19:24:03 non_elitist
    > eventually I found my own style I think that's the most important thing, and a lot of famous composers went through that. Rautavaara felt pressured to write twelve-tone music earlier in his career because that's what everyone else was doing, but then abandoned it and went on to write some amazing tonal music. As much as I'd like to write a symphony or a string quartet, I don't know if I could really feel comfortable doing it. I feel most comfortable writing a melody, experimenting with different harmony, key changes and rhythm, and using exotic timbres. However I prefer to keep my form very basic, and that is what I feel most insecure about (at least when facing the art music world, because you know they like their complex forms.) And I'm entirely technology-based as well, no way I could just scribble notes onto some staff paper right now. Anyway I'm rambling now but thanks for the encouragement and glad to hear things are working out for you.

  1495. musictheory 2017-07-31 06:23:39 nokes
    I work in several different ways, but in each way I find that the sooner I create limitations/rules the better. **1st Limitation**: Sound Pallet/Instrumentation: Is this music for a video game, is it for a string quartet, etc. **2nd Limitation:** Desired emotional/musical outcome. I also consider the length of the music at this point. **3nd Limitation**: Form. I often times create the form before I do anything else. Sometimes this is genre or style specific. **4th Limitation**: Thematic and Harmonic universe: What are the main themes of the music. This is the first time I am at an instrument. A) If the final product it's going to be played by musicians I normally start at the piano and write the music out by hand. B) If the final product is an audio file (ie. film/video game) I start at the computer in a DAW, but I still use my keyboard, and sometimes times still write some sketchs by hand. C) Sometimes I will just sit in silence until I hear music in my head and then I write it down. I normally start with a melody, and work out harmony later. Composer Olivier Messiaen has a quote I can't find right now, that says something along the lines of melody is king, and despite the complexities of our harmonies they should serve the melody.

  1496. musictheory 2017-08-01 05:18:14 wingedragon
    Tubas are weird. Wind Bands typically use Tubas in Bb (lowest note is a Bb0), Symphony Orchestras use typically use ones in C (C1), and brass Quintets use mainly ones in F(F1), and ones in Eb(Eb1) exist too). To answer your questions, orchestras would normally use a C tuba (unless otherwise specified), and you should keep the tuba either as low as the string basses if not a little bit higher, as lower would enter the tuba's pedal register and be far too muddy. I would also suggest you x-post this question to r/composer. Cheers!

  1497. musictheory 2017-08-01 11:08:51 Vanilladissonance
    Sounds like F-sharp diminished (rootless V7/v) to me, with the G# just being an embellishment in the melody (it also starts a chromatically descending string of notes on every "and" offbeat). The two bars as a whole serve to modulate to G minor so having an A isn't so crazy here. Seeing it like this, the c minor can be viewed as a sort of secondary subdominant and all of bar 7 can be thought of as being in g minor already.

  1498. musictheory 2017-08-01 17:59:51 Jongtr
    I agree with 0signal0, excellent site. Just a couple of points: 1. Why not add B7 to the open dom7 chord set? 2. Maj7s are nicely explained, but the 6th-string root shape is not ideal IMO, with a 1st string root above the 4th string maj7 - creates a dissonant "avoid note". Personally I would use easy open position shapes to introduce maj7s: Cmaj7, Amaj7, Dmaj7, Fmaj7 (x-x-3-2-1-0), Gmaj7 (x-x-0-0-0-2). They can then be converted into movable shapes. The "E-form" shape is useful, but I'd use it as R-x-7-3-5-x, R-5-7-3-x-x, or R-5-7-3-5-x - maybe with thumb on 6th string. Otherwise, this is definitely one of the best guitar theory sites I've seen. I've read through most of it and have found nothing else I'd want to change (yet...). I can't remember the last time I read a site like that! (I guess the *look* of the site could be better, but that's my graphic design training talking... ;-))

  1499. musictheory 2017-08-02 01:18:43 SapphireQuartz
    What's complex about Toxic, is it just the Bollywood string sample or is it secretly harmonically advanced?

  1500. musictheory 2017-08-02 17:22:09 MiskyWilkshake
    >Regardless of staff notation literacy, what is your main instrument? I haven't really got a main instrument. Maybe drums? I'm kind of a jack of all trades; master of none, in that I'm competent with plenty of instruments, but not proficient enough to ever want to be a performer with any of them. That works nicely for me as a composer - I know enough to write idiomatically, and I hire other people to do the actual playing for me. >If you do make sense of the little black beetles on horizontal lines, what instrument did you learn to decode it on? I guess the guitar, oddly enough. It's not necessarily the instrument I would've chosen to learn notation on, but it's the one I happened to be playing the most of at the time when I was learning how to read staff notation for the first time, so it's the one I naturally started trying to apply it to. I wouldn't say that the guitar is actually the instrument I learned to 'decode' it on though - it was always a non-instrument-specific thing for me, and since I don't rigorously drill on any particular instrument, it's less a matter of using a fretboard/keyboard/whatever to decode the little black beetles so much as it is using the little black beetles to decode the fretboard/keyboard/whatever. My partner plays the piano, and I've noticed that if I ask him a theory question (for example "what chord do the notes [C Eb G Ab D] spell"), his natural response is to visualise a keyboard, and you can see him figuring out the answer with his fingers. Because I never drilled with an instrument very religiously, if you ask me the same question, I'll imagine the notes on the staff, rather than my finger-placement on any particular instrument (unless you were asking me how to play it on a particular instrument, of course). >Whether you do or don’t, what are the hangups you have with staff notation? Any parts great? Any parts not so much? I really like how traditional notation indicates pitch, both melodically and harmonically - I think it's efficient, and relates back well to how good musicians think about music. My main hangups tend to relate more to rhythm or to be quite specific. I don't like how traditional notation deals with sustained (or partially-sustained) arpeggios; I don't like how time-signatures work; I don't like how we deal with 3 or more voices in a staff; I don't like when instruments don't use key-signatures (I'm looking at you Horns, Trumpets, Bells, and Timps); I don't like the trend of modern film composers to write without a key signature even when they're doing something that's entirely tonal and functional; I don't like the older notation for harp-glissandi on conductor scores; I like how the tenor/alto clefs point direct you to C, but I don't like how easily they can be confused; I don't like how we use dots next to/above notes to signify two very different things, and how easily these can be confused for normal dots on the page from ink or photocopying errors; I don't like the way different instruments treat different expression symbols differently. >What is your knowledge of what I would deem novice to intermediate music theory—intervals, chord building and naming, circle of fifths, and the like? Pretty solid, I hope. >What do you think of tablature for fretted string instruments? I think it's an understandable pedagogical tool to help beginner musicians recreate the songs they enjoy quickly, but I think that it's ultimately detrimental to a solid understanding of music theory. >Would you be interested in learning a complementary system that also teaches music theory? Depends on the system. What did you have in mind?

  1501. musictheory 2017-08-02 23:46:38 integerdivision
    Saxes do not use the bass clef because they were invented after transposition was in widespread use. And it is not because it keeps the notes on the staff—it’s all about the placement of the fingers, leveraging existing players’ abilities to sightread on instruments tuned differently than the ones they normally play. The ever-moving C-clef was already a suitable for the task of keeping the notes on the staff. Tablature is differently useful. It *could* be modified to contain all the information of staff notation. But I am not arguing for using tablature modified in such a way. I am not arguing *for* tablature—I am using it as a foil. The point about tablature is that it’s *complementary* to staff notation, *specialized* for fretted string instruments of different tunings for the precise reason that transposing instruments became a thing.

  1502. musictheory 2017-08-03 00:25:36 kimjongbonjovi
    I take issue with you saying that transposition isn't used to keep notes on the staff. The bass transposes for *exactly that reason.* Take an easy passage [on the 5-string](http://imgur.com/QS4Fuh6) without transposing, for example.

  1503. musictheory 2017-08-03 07:15:05 Phrygiaddicted
    its just an example where it is *trivially easy* to hear even the 2 cent difference. once you know what you're looking for (by having an obvious example) its easier to hear in difficult samples; and i did mention previously that this is much less of an issue for "natural timbres" :) real world instruments have real world physics, and don't have perfect integer harmonics anyway due to string tension and such.

  1504. musictheory 2017-08-03 13:27:29 dannymusicYT
    Hi, graduated with a Master's in Composition here. Making sure to have at least one large ensemble piece, preferably orchestra, would be ideal. Other than that, I would say to submit what you feel is your best work -- chamber ensemble, choral, string quartet, electronic, whatever you feel you've done best.

  1505. musictheory 2017-08-03 17:25:31 Jongtr
    Interesting question. The Watersons were part of the UK folk revival of the 1960s (taking over from the 1950s folk revival) which evolved quickly into folk-rock. Although they retain that nasal vocal quality (and absence of vibrato) which was felt to be de rigeur in trad folk singing, the instrumentation and production shows clear folk-rock practices. I don't have anything theoretical to say about this (as yet...), but it would worth checking out other songs by the [Waterson family] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9qlI6hQYy0) - extending to the influential [Martin Carthy, with Norma and Eliza] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N66FDLxe5I&t=435) - as well as their contemporaries the [Incredible String Band] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xOR4GHskl8), who incorporated Indian and North African influences with their celtic heritage.

  1506. musictheory 2017-08-03 22:28:04 arsenalca
    The simplest answer is because it's the next integer after 1. If you have a vibrating string, the first harmonic above the fundamental is double the frequency. This essentially means that even when you play a single note, the octave is already present in the sound, so any system of notes that doesn't include the octave isn't going to sound right.

  1507. musictheory 2017-08-04 01:26:04 HorrificSexOffender
    when scales are created based on the harmonic series of resonance ratios, there is indeed a tiny difference in hz between Gb and F#. classically trained string players play these correctly, and so learn every key as though from fresh, one at a time. however, the differences are so tiny that it's possible to tune somewhere in between to serve all keys... a piano, guitar etc are tuned in this way... TL:DR google equal temperament

  1508. musictheory 2017-08-04 07:23:26 Soule-sole
    I find this statement > It's just a coincidence that enharmonic spellings usually entail a difference in function. intriguing. I see where you're coming from; there exists in the mind an abstract nomenclature of chords, such that if one plays the G♭ in your D–G♭–A 24 cents *flatter* than the F♯ (as Pythagorean tuning necessitates, which I am using for the sake of argument) then one is simply playing a D major chord out of tune. Your line of argument is fascinating, actually, because you allow for inflection to 'clarify' written/contextual function *precisely* where the music theory hinges on enharmonic equivalence (as in the diminished seventh harmony), which is a counter-intuitive but thought-provoking conclusion. But I think there is a case to make for enharmonic spellings as bearers of meaning in a way that is not tied to conventional harmonic function; whether this is brought out in the performed music is a different question altogether. For example, I'm sure Messiaen had his reasons for notating his music as he does, but I'm going to talk about tonal music because of your last statement. Let's take your comment in two directions: * Should the performer clarify harmonic function with inflection? Let's look at an example of real music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7jpSN8BDug&t=15m10s. (Sorry for the poor edition.) This famous passage follows on from a movement in B-flat minor (which, if you're familiar with your late Beethoven string quartets, you would already have known!). How would you differentiate the B♭♭ from the A, if at all? If we were to go solely from the context (and either ignore the subtleties of inflection or assume 12-ET - one and the same, really), the written function *is actually the very opposite of the contextual function*. Do we preserve this contradiction, or do we assume the supremacy of the written note? This is, of course, a historically-situated question; it depends on who's answering it! But I don't quite get how this would have been dealt with in Beethoven's time, if at at all, since the quartets that would have played this (e.g. the Schuppanzigh quartet) would have a rehearsal ethic that is frankly atrocious by modern-day standards. Going forward a few pages, at m. 69 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7jpSN8BDug&t=20m00s); why would Beethoven have written D♭ in the first violin and C♯ in the second, and later D♭ in the viola? I suppose you would argue that it's just a sequence of diminished sevenths, so the string quartet as an ensemble would launch into equal division for this passage. But I'm thinking about the actual rehearsal process *then*, where they'll be reading from parts of such size that they obscure the views of the other players and thus will have no idea what's going on in the other parts in the first run-through. Maybe securing the melodic tuning in the first violin (it's easier to imagine tuning a perfect fith than a diminished sixth) supercedes the slight clash between the two instruments, which is secondary in the textural hierarchy anyway. Something tells me that Beethoven wanted to avoid writing directly adjacent enharmonics in a single part (this is the most sensible reason to me). But if you can expect the ensemble to adjust their tuning in accordance with music sense *vertically*, why would you not expect the instrumentalist to do so *horizontally*? But then again there's the uninspiring answer that tuning would have been far from the first concern in their mind! and * Again, looking at tonal music, let's look at one where you literally can't inflect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPm_V5lJoao&t=3m25s. Look at measures 2-5 of the 3rd system. These chords are *literally nonexistent* in the same way as Schoenberg's inverted dominant ninth chord in *Verklaerte Nacht* is! And this isn't some incompetent second-rate composer that we're talking about here. So why has he spelled it like that? Tuning? Whether Chopin actually had access to 'equal-tempered' pianos as most commonly assume is a thorny question, but it's not really relevant here (since you don't get people writing harmonies out to reflect how their pianos were tuned in this era). There's the simple answer that he wanted to emphasize the G♯=dominant pedal, I guess (I've come up with a slightly more esoteric answer elsewhere, but it's hard to explain here). Gone off on a tangent there, but I just found this interesting.

  1509. musictheory 2017-08-04 09:39:31 MSCViolin
    I'm about to start grad school in composition, so just came out of the application cycle. You'll want variety in terms of the instrumentation you're writing for. An orchestra piece and chamber piece for sure. I submitted an orchestra piece, mixed chamber (percussion, cello, bassoon, flute), and trombone/piano piece for the schools that required 3. I added a string quartet for the one that allowed more. Go for your best work in those areas and try to include live recordings for as many of them as you can. It's also good to get a mix of fast and slow pieces. If your compositional style varies somewhat across pieces, be sure to capture that variety in your portfolio. For me I alternate between modal pieces and more freely chromatic ones, so I included both of those styles.

  1510. musictheory 2017-08-04 09:48:34 0signal0
    -No articulation indications -Unnecessarily simple voice leading/not making good use of the string quartet. -Voice leading errors at certain spots, particularly the end (resolving the C# to F).

  1511. musictheory 2017-08-05 00:27:49 TehIacTus
    So I'm gonna be the better guy and actually offer some constructive criticism, since clearly you don't know how to prove your point without embarassing yourself. Personally, I don't really like this genre, but I acknowledge the effort put into this song. It's not terrible and I found myself humming to it at some points. However there are also lot of problems with the song. Let me review every part individually: Melody: The melody is extravagant, but it's not catchy and sounds repetitive. However, I really like the originality of said melody, even if it's nothing special. Rythm: Fucking awful. Doesn't change at all. There's no bass or drums to support it. Very mediocre, I'm afraid Harmony: You did an amazing job on the way chords and arpeggios are played, and hats off to that, but the root notes and chords in themselves don't stand out. It feels like a half hearted backing track instead of a strong support for the melody. Arrangement and Recording: You need to improve this drastically. The only instruments are a guitar and a barebones string ensemble sound, a combination that lacks both variety and strength. I'm pretty sure those strings were just an available sound on your keyboard. On the recording side, you need to be more professional. The mixing is horrendous, unwanted frequencies aren't filtered, and the background noise is pestering. Combined with the shit arrangement, it sounds like a recording from the 1900s... Overall, your knowledge of music theory and excellent melody and harmony do a rather satisfying job, but the complete failure that is arrangement and recording makes me scream amateur. Plus the song itself doesn't stand out and makes me lump it with everything else similar. Try again with different instruments and learn to record music.

  1512. musictheory 2017-08-05 19:29:14 m3g0wnz
    Relevant to this discussion is our FAQ: [Why not write everything in C? What's the point of different keys? Do different keys evoke different emotions/moods?](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/wiki/faq/core/keys) Short Answer: Different keys feel different under the fingers of performers, which changes how easy or difficult some passages are to play. A key may also be chosen because it fits the range of the instrument or voice a composer is writing for. Keys may also sound different depending on the physical properties of the instruments involved (e.g., a piece in C lets you have a low open string on the cello be a tonic note). Another good reason is simply for the sake of variety. Some keys also have intertextual associations, i.e., a certain kind of music might be associated with a certain key. Similarly, composers might have individual and personal affective associations for certain keys. However, there is no objective emotional quality associated with any one key.

  1513. musictheory 2017-08-05 23:05:18 Jongtr
    In that case, you would be best avoiding advanced theory and starting with something more basic - laying out the ground rules of tonal harmony. Diatonic first, and then the chromatic variations common in jazz and classical alike. From a quick listen to the first six tracks, I'd say they were all accessible using that kind of theory. No need for the advanced books GermanPotatoSoup recommends - beyond the Aldwell/Schacter that is. (The "jazz embellishments" I hear are all adequately understood from standard chromatic functional harmony. Lullaby of Birdland actually is an old jazz standard, from before the advances represented by Russell and Levine at least. Russell in particular invented a totally new concept, requiring rejection of conventional theory.) For those string arrangements, it would probably also help to read a book or two on orchestration. But I agree with kimjongbonjovi, transcribing these pieces is how you will learn what you need. The theory just gives you the organising principles, the concepts that describe what you are hearing. If you want help with transcription, I recommend [Transcribe software] (https://www.seventhstring.com/), which helps you listen in closer detail.

  1514. musictheory 2017-08-06 00:36:36 adoarns
    A violin traditionally has no frets. The notes are produced by stopping the strings with the fingers. The fingers can be subtly moved by millimeters to make changes to the pitches. You can produce equal temperament notes; but there's so much freedom you can produce quarter-tones if you wish. Shift up or down by cents, up to the fatness of one's finger. One common way to test intonation is to play a note alongside an adjacent open string (ie, an unstopped string). You can adjust to get, for instance, a major sixth with the next lower open string; or a perfect fourth with the next upper open string. The same stopped note B on the A string may have to be adjusted slightly to sound as a just major sixth (5:3 ratio) against the D string versus as a just perfect fourth (4:3) with the E string. The choice of position for an F# versus a Gb on the D, A, or E strings can be made for equal temperament or for a more just temperament depending on the music. When harmonizing with a piano in chamber music or a concerto, for instance, equal temperament makes more sense.

  1515. musictheory 2017-08-07 00:33:22 kimjongbonjovi
    [wait I lied](http://i.imgur.com/wyXCTxY.jpg) The outer voices have a parallel 5th between the first two chords. If you're really strict about (((the rules))) then you could simply not play the first string.

  1516. musictheory 2017-08-07 01:30:45 m3g0wnz
    What sources are you using, specifically? See Julian Rushton's *Grove Music Online,* which is considered the most authoritative source on music terminology: >The ratio 3:2. The term was first applied to music in connection with the theory of pitch: when the string of the monochord was divided in this ratio the two lengths sounded the interval of a 5th. From the 15th century, it was used to signify the substitution of three imperfect notes for two perfect ones in tempus perfectum (mensuration with three semibreves to the breve) or prolatio maior (three minims to the semibreve). Such substitutions, which were usually notated using coloration, were widely used in 15th-century music. They were particularly prevalent in the English carol repertory, which was described by Bukofzer as ‘hemiola music pure and simple’ (ex.1). >By extension, ‘hemiola’ in the modern metrical system denotes the articulation of two units of triple metre as if they were notated as three units of duple metre: in ex.2, from Act 4 of Lully’s Le bourgeois gentilhomme (1670), the first bar contains two triple units, and the second has three duple units. This is a common feature of Baroque music, especially of the French courante, and is used for giving rhythmic variety to dances and helping to effect an allargando at the end of a longer movement; Handel made much use of it. In the 19th century it was used by Schumann and often by Brahms, and was an important feature of the Viennese waltz. Hemiola is a distinguishing feature of such folkdances as the Andalusian polo and the Central American huapango, rhythmic characteristics of which were incorporated by Bernstein into ‘America’ from West Side Story. This article in turn cites: >* M.F. Bukofzer: Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music (New York, 1950), 165 * W. Tell: ‘Die Hemiole bei Bach’, BJb, xxxix (1951–2), 47–53 * K.P. Bernet Kempers: ‘Hemiolenrhythmik bei Mozart’, Festschrift Helmut Osthoff, ed. L. Hoffmann-Erbrecht and H. Hucke (Tutzing, 1961), 155–61 * M.B. Collins: ‘The Performance of Sesquialtera and Hemiolia in the 16th Century’, JAMS, xvii (1964), 5–28 * C. Willner: ‘The Two-Length Bar Revisited: Händel and the Hemiola’, Göttinger Händel-Beiträge, iv (1991), 208–31 * H. Cinnamon: ‘New Observations on Voice Leading, Hemiola, and their Roles in Tonal and Rhythmic Structures in Chopin’s Prelude in B minor, op.28, no.6’, Intégral, vi (1992), 66–106 * V. Corrigan: ‘Hemiola in the Eighteenth Century’, Johann Sebastian: a Tercentenary Celebration, ed. S.L. Benstock (Westport, CT, 1992), 23–32 I also happen to have handy Ralph Turek, *Theory for Today's Musician*, since I'm planning my Theory III course right now: >**Hemiola:** A particular type of 3:2 rhythmic ratio involving successive or simultaneous divisions of the quantity of 6 in 2 ways—as 2 groups of 3 units and as 3 groups of 2 units. Even [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemiola) has this one right: >In music, hemiola (also hemiolia) is the ratio 3:2. The equivalent Latin term is sesquialtera. In pitch, hemiola refers to the interval of a perfect fifth. In rhythm, hemiola refers to three beats of equal value in the time normally occupied by two beats. I actually don't know of a reputable source that uses "hemiola" as a general term analogous to "grouping dissonance." The 3:2 ratio is literally in the name "hemiola".

  1517. musictheory 2017-08-07 02:13:05 kimjongbonjovi
    Hey dude, if you want a more useful application of the "harder" harmonics, I wrote out what one of my bass teachers called the "overtone" scale. It's just an arrangement of all the harmonics in a step-wise manner. [Enjoy](http://imgur.com/a/reOOv) I also recorded it [here](https://clyp.it/kl5kcjqt#) if anyone wants to listen. I play a slight variation on my five-string bass at the end.

  1518. musictheory 2017-08-07 04:24:44 broodfood
    Clarinet and trumpet are both transposing instruments. Play a "C" on each instrument and compare: they aren't the same pitches. I forget about trumpets, but most clarinets are in Bb, so a written C sounds like a Bb on the piano and any other non transposing instruments. Guitarists often talk about alternate tunings: "Drop D" for example, means tuning the lowest string to D instead of E. Besides accessing a few lower semitones, it makes certain kinds of chords and voicings more accessible /possible.

  1519. musictheory 2017-08-07 04:58:41 FadeIntoReal
    When guitars are tuned to the common tuning (E A D G B E) it's, generally speaking, easy to play in whatever key if you know certain shapes on the neck. Other, somewhat less common, tunings make a chord (or close to it) from all the strings as they're tuned, like Open G (D G D G B D) or Open D (D A D F# A D). This makes it easy to find places on the neck, on a single fret, where you can play any string and not clash with other instruments, as opposed to finding patterns on the neck where there you're playing the note of a chord.

  1520. musictheory 2017-08-07 05:25:49 4plus1
    Well, most trumpets and clarinets are built in other keys than *C*. As far as I recall, *B♭* is the most common key for both trumpets and clarinets, just like /u/broodfood said. Of course, you might have owned a *C clarinet* and a *C trumpet*, in which case the written note is the same as the note produced by the instrument. Anyway, to answer your question: When a guitarist talks about tuning their guitar to a different key, they are most likely either referring (A) to tuning all strings up or down or (B) using a capo (basically a clamp that shortens all strings to a certain fret). This is mostly done to get a different set of open strings. Regular six-string guitars are tuned to *E A D G B E*, which works great for chords like *G major*, *E minor*, *C major*, *D major* (and so on) but not so great for chords like *G♯ major* or *C♯ major* (for example). Tuning the strings down or using a capo would then make these chords easier to play. Also, you can use the same chord or scale shapes you normally use. There's also (C), alternative tunings: You can tune a guitar to other open string patterns like *D A D F♯ A D*, which results in a *D major* chord when playing all open strings. If you barre all strings, you can easily play other major chords like *D♯ major*, *E major* or *F major*. Very useful when playing with a slide. I don't know a lot of guitarists, but I'd imagine that any professional guitar player could easily play in different keys without having to "retune" their instrument, so it's not *absolutely* necessary, but it makes life a lot easier. So, to sum up: Yeah, you're going to be OK. But please don't tune your guitar up, use a capo instead.

  1521. musictheory 2017-08-07 07:23:11 LukeSniper
    I don't know what sort of guitarists you're hanging out with, but that's not something guitarists do. If a guitarist says "I'm tuned to D", they don't mean they are tuned *to the key* of D. The guitar is a chromatic instrument, so you can play in any key regardless of the tuning. What they're likely saying is that they're tuned down to D, rather than E. This might mean that they've only tuned their lowest string down, or they've tuned them all down. They may also be referring to the chord shapes they are using with a capo. Let's say you're using G C and D chord shapes, but you've got a capo on the 3rd fret. Those chords are *actually* Bb Eb and F now, but a guitarist is likely to refer to them as G C and D. It's not unlike how you, as a clarinet and trumpet player, refer to EVERY note as something other than what it really is. Transposition makes things easier. So whatever the situation, I'm quite confident you are misunderstanding these guitar players.

  1522. musictheory 2017-08-07 07:42:10 kimjongbonjovi
    There are lots of easy ways. I posted one earlier. Going from A-B7 with no first string has no parallel fifths.

  1523. musictheory 2017-08-07 11:20:49 MiskyWilkshake
    This could refer to a few different things with regards to the guitar: Tuning to D could imply tuning all the open stings of a guitar so that when no notes are fretted, a strum across all the strings will produce a D chord (usually D A D F# A D). This can make it easier to play simple rhythm parts as producing a major chord requires only that you lay a single finger across the strings in a barre chord to transpose the open D to whatever note you want to build a major chord from (eg: 2 2 2 2 2 2 would produce an E major chord). It also helps when you want to use that chord as a pedal-point and play melodies over the top, as any open string will produce a chord-tone of D major. It could mean that they will only tune down their bottom note to D (D A D G B E). This means that chord-shapes from standard tuning are largely preserved (at least, wherever the lowest string is avoided), but it's often used in rock and metal because it means that power-chords (thirdless voicings) are easily produced by simply barring across the first three strings (eg: 3 3 3 X X X produces an F5 chord). It also helps when you want to use that root-note as a pedal-point and play melodies over the top, as any the lowest open string will produce that note (you'll hear this taken full advantage of in a lot of heavy-metal and related subgenres -especially Djent-, where melodies are frequently accompanied on the same guitar with rhythms on that pedal-tone). It could mean that the guitarist is going to employ a capo to transpose their instrument so that they can play the chord-shapes they're most familiar with (typically A, Am, E, Em, G, C, D, Dm, and F) and have the chords of the song come out.

  1524. musictheory 2017-08-07 14:31:55 niftyfingers
    I was wondering about these other natural intervals, in fact it seems that there are many other ratios between the harmonics in the harmonic series that we don't use, and it's hard to experiment with them. The harmonic 7th doesn't sound bad but I think we expect it to lead to some bad dissonance because it's usually the sign of an out of tune instrument. I tried a riff with it as well: https://soundcloud.com/brad-king-1/harmonic-7th-demo/s-gTOYO, by detuning my B string to get the 7:4 ratio to whatever the tonic is in this. The riff doesn't sound bad in either case however the B string is clearly way out of tune in the first half of recording.

  1525. musictheory 2017-08-07 18:35:26 Jongtr
    I understand harmonics and the overtone scale very well, I'm just interested in your physical technique - how you pick and touch the string. If you can't post a video, could you explain it in words? How you get those upper harmonics so clear? (It doesn't actually sound like guitar, which is neat in itself.) You say it was a "cheap-as-dirt steel-stringed acoustic guitar with cheap-as-dirt strings" - but did you use compression on the recording, or any "cheat" like that? I'm not doubting anything you say, I'm genuinely interested in how you do it. (I've been playing harmonics for decades, and I can't get the the ones higher the the 5th (over 4th and 9th fret) as clear as you do, at least not on the 1st string.)

  1526. musictheory 2017-08-08 21:49:49 DanGeneratesMelody
    i was interested in phrasing for pop or comercial music. if its related then let me write shortly what i've researched (on my own, i haven't found any helpful book). when we feel the beat we're inclined to tap it with our foot, or children swing left-right. those pulses are the real beats perceived (Beethoven's ode to joy is written like every note is a beat, so ignore musical staff notation and just listen to how you perceive the beat). ok, so these beats are those points where the child swings maximum left or right. your musical sentence will have a start and a finish on these beats (could be between 2beats, or 3beats with the second beat in the middle as an "and"). every note you play between these 2beats is an "and" (8ths are hierarchically the most important, and 16th are their personal "and"s). some songs have their "thing" like this. a part (say verses, or a part of a solo, whatever) hits both start and finish but skips the "and" in between. then the chorus comes and introduces it and it sounds like a conclusion. i could talk a lot about this subject, but the problem is that while you think harmony is known, i believe we have close to 0 knowledge about it. because in a series of equal notes but with different pitches, you will see how we group our phrase depending on how tones group themselves to form a harmonic block. again ode to joy theme is the perfect example since its a string of equal notes. but we make sense out of it because we group by harmonic content not pauses. so you may arrive to some of my weird conclusions like: melodically harmonies can only be simple (simple triads, no extensions), or root intervals (a 4 or 6 will take the root position, but the 3,5 will give it back). every note has a harmonic function, minor chords -the most simple ones have 2 functions because they are not real chords to belong to a major key. anyways, if you're interested, also in researching not only listening to me, but actually trying to find how things work, then pm me.

  1527. musictheory 2017-08-08 21:54:07 PythaJI
    Well I'm actually trying to save you from this headache :) I've tried for about 5 years (maybe even 6) or so to make 5-limit and higher limit JI work. 5 years full time, I did nothing else, day in day out, dreamt about it as well most nights. Working out the math, exploring all possibilities regarding comma shifts and wolfs etc. Retuned classical pieces again and again and again, read all the books from Ramis and Zarlino and Rameau and Helmholtz /Ellis etc etc (btw they may have written good things in music theory or other subjects but they were all a bunch of amateurs when it comes to tuning, including Helmholtz). I checked the tuning of choirs (including ethnic ones), string quartets and trombone quartets with Melodyne DNA when it came out. Etc etc. I have been humiliated in that period time and time again, thinking I had the answer only to have to admit it is not a workable situation. It was a revelation to see that the simplest solution, Pythagorean, is actually correct. And only after you see this is that you can work on solid music theory (which I've been doing for the past 7 or 8 or so years). So yes, it could have been so that comma shifts are perfectly fine, but if you look at how music actually functions in reality you will find that it is not perfectly fine. Not only does it not make sense musically that held note all of a sudden comma shift in even the most simple progressions like for instance a circle progression (I-IV-ii-V-I for instance), if you tune such a progression in a well written form you'll find that 5-limit and comma shifts actually sound out of tune if you perform the test well. The Syntonic comma behaves quite differently from the Pythagorean comma. The Pythagorean comma is an actual functional interval where the Syntonic comma is not. And this is actually reflected in our notation and standard western music theory as I explained before. And no, 8 perfect fourths (or 8 perfect fifths down) give a diminished fourth, not a major third. The diminished fourth is a functionally different interval from the major third. Again we already recognize this in normal western music theory. It is further more not enough to simply tune an interval as a diminished fourth and use it in place of a major third. The context of a chord progression is stronger than the context of tuning, and one doesn't even have to tune them any differently to be heard as different intervals, this happens in 12tet for instance. With 53 fifths the concept of being in tune is every bit as meaningful. It is up to the music to indicate the intervals. One would need to modulate quite a bit to indicate intervals that remote but it can be done. General wisdom is that within one tonic one can reach 17 intervals. There are several ways to arrive at this number but the most commonly known one is that there are the 7 diatonic natural tones and all of these tones can have a leading tone up and a leading tone down. This leads to the most remote intervals being Gb and A# for C major / A minor giving a 17-tone scale with 16 stacked perfect fifths. To get to more remote intervals one has to modulate to different keys. One more thing about the 7-limit. It is not about size of a comma. The Pythagorean comma is a functionally relevant interval, not because of its size as we can temper it out and still find it is relevant (again it is the enharmonic difference we have used in our music and music theory for centuries). The 7-limit comma you talk about is however not functional at all. It is only a colouration you seem to like.

  1528. musictheory 2017-08-09 05:18:47 broodfood
    Didn't listen to the whole thing, but at least some of that was the performer mimicking the swooping string parts of the original piece.

  1529. musictheory 2017-08-10 01:25:48 Wimachtendink
    Although there are plenty of good answers here, I think a missed one is that the difference between 3's and 2's was previously more like the difference between swung and unswung beats kind of like blues. [Here] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aySwfcRaOZM) Perotin uses mostly two notes per beat with one long and one short. This type of meter became popular and even now a lot of 6/8 uses this and instead of a consistent 123-123 string of eight notes you get 12-3-12-3 sets of quarter-note eighth-note pairs. If you just had a continuous string of eight notes in sets of 3 it's actually going to be more like 3/8 which isn't really the same. I think you'll also get a lot of agreement with the idea that 6/8 is two beats and that the second beat is weaker than the first so something like **1**23 *4*56 And of course you can do whatever you like such as a sort of lilting syncopation thing where 1 and 4 are almost like grace notes which you sometimes see in 6/8 __ TLDR; 6/8 is two set of 3, but often the 3's will be split into a quarter note and an eighth note. edit: the example i gave was 12/8 really, but I think it still holds since the measures are really an editorial choice and the work conveys the asymmetric binary division of triplets about which I was writing.

  1530. musictheory 2017-08-10 12:06:52 Northprovolone
    How long have you been playing guitar, because classical music like that can have a massive learning curve. First off, you'll need to learn how to pick in the classical style, which can be a bitch to learn. Secondly, you'll need to mesmerize the neck, to make sure your not crippling yourself, by only being able to find notes one string. The guitar, because of it's strings, can also be used, in a much more versatile manner, so you should probably learn the basic theory behind bends, vibrato, and tremolo picking. Have fun!!

  1531. musictheory 2017-08-11 08:17:37 PlazaOne
    Yes, a very important observation. Throughout the '60s and '70s the drum kit was likely to be recorded with a single room mic, or possibly a stereo pair of microphones. But by the '80s there were bigger mixing desks with more channels available, which led to individual mics on each drum and cymbal, and more focus on the mix. It was an approach famously taken to extremes by engineer producers like Mutt Lange, who achieved global success for Def Leppard by even having the guitarists record each guitar string separately, then creating the chords himself by adjusting the levels on the mixing desk! That period of history was also when analogue recording was just seeing the encroachment of digital technology, and recording studios still heavily marketed their facilities as including wooden, tiled and stone rooms, for different natural reverb.

  1532. musictheory 2017-08-11 15:50:56 GoldmanT
    > Don't believe anyone who says it's derived from melodic minor! I was playing around with various alt chords/scales over a constant bass note, and the altered scale also seems to be a 'mode' of the Lydian Dominant scale, which makes much more sense to me as Lydian is something I use more and can relate to much more easily. It's actually not that difficult a scale to handle on the piano as there is a long string of whole tones and then a few sidesteps to get back to the root, and there are some nice major/minor chord shapes where your ear doesn't expect them when you build it in triads.

  1533. musictheory 2017-08-11 19:41:59 Jongtr
    It's E/A (a kind of partial Amaj9), and I think he's playing it as: -0- -9- pinky -x- (mute with ring) -9- ring -x- (mute with index or middle) -5- index The open top E could be played as 9th fret 3rd string (flattening out the ring finger), but it looks like he's doing it as above (easier). Of course, it's easier still in a few other ways, but maybe he was just warming up with a stretch! Here's some alternative ways of playing the exact same voicing (arrangement of notes): x-0-9-x-9-0 x-0-9-9-9-x x-0-x-4-5-4 5-x-x-4-5-4

  1534. musictheory 2017-08-11 22:48:59 Topscotch
    Okay, I'm talking to you as someone absolutely obsessed with theory that badly would like you to succeed. I play professional and I've taught private guitar lessons for years and at this point I've probably taught a total of thousands of lessons. I even created a sort of joke subreddit based on one little theoretical concept that had some success. I think you really need to make sure you can read your music well and play an instrument a bit more proficiently so that you get as much out of the classes as possible. Music isn't 100% like a language, but let's think of it like one as far as learning your theory. Have you ever taken foreign language classes like Spanish and ended up far from fluent? It's usually because those classes spend much more time on grammar instead of practically having you listen and engage. Now imagine taking a Spanish class like that, but you don't even have a good grasp on reading the alphabet or speaking words at all. If you took a theory class now, you could succeed at it I bet. I'm not saying you'd fail at doing it. You'd probably be able to comprehend a lot and do things right with study. What I am saying is that the information may not be as meaningful to you as it would if you had a more physical and practical connection to an instrument first and a higher ability to read music. It will be difficult to keep up with dealing with deep musical patterns if it takes you several seconds to look at a note and know whether it's a C or a B. Imagine doing your SAT when you have to stare at the letter A for a little bit to figure out whether it's an A or not. Even if you do keep up, the difficulty in dealing with this may be distracting from really getting a deep understanding out of it, since you will barely be surviving, and you may lose interest. I'll try to give an example of what I mean with a basic concept you'd learn. You may remember playing your major scales on trumpet/trombone. A major scale is a pattern people are singing when they sing solfege, Do Re Mi Fa So La Ti Do. A lot of songs can be said to come from major scales. The scales all come from a pattern that they usually teach early on in a theory course. Now, if you are rusty on your notes and haven't played much music, you still will probably be able to understand the pattern and even apply it correctly. However, if you actually know how to play all or most of your major scales well and have played a lot of music that uses them (whether you were aware or not), there is a deeper level to which learning them will be meaningful to you, because you will be making connections with the actual music you know in your fingers and head well. If you know an instrument and sheet music well first: 1. Your learning isn't inhibited by your difficulty in reading notes 2. You get to have a lot of "a-ha" moments where you realize more viscerally why a lot of music you know sounds and works the way it does. The information falls flat on people if they don't have a lot of practical connections with music made. If you've played a good bit of music, then the theory is wildly meaningful as your ears have something to relate it to profoundly. A lot of classical music majors will go straight from high school band to music school having learned no theory whatsoever, but the difference is that they are probably good at reading and playing already. One other problem you'd run into is the fact that it is helpful to be able to play what you learn proficiently. When they teach you about chords and scales in different permutations, it is helpful to be able to pick up an instrument and actually play these things so you can really hear them for yourself instead of just hearing the teacher play them a couple times on the piano. You can really play around with them and see how they work on a first hand basis. You're an engineer. What is a more meaningful understanding of fluid dynamics, an equation about it, or seeing and feeling a fluid slosh around? If you had never seen fluids much before, how meaningful would fluid equations be? The combination of those two understandings is what makes someone really potent. Like engineering, there is a craft and a science. You probably couldn't have started an engineering job with no training with only having taken notes and done written tests, right? Someone had to show you how to physically do your tasks I'm sure. Just like how you could have passed written parts of physics and engineering classes without being able to do a job, you can learn your theory without having anything you can do with it. You absolutely have potential to do this, but I want you to understand that it is more complex than just going to class if you want the information to mean more to you. I have taught a lot of adult students that want to understand theory like I do, and the biggest problem they have is not their neuroplasticity but their patience. They are my absolute least patient students, ironically, compared to children. Children don't have a concept of "I *should* be able to do this by now" so they will simply keep working if they want to get better. Adults are very conscious of how slow the process is and how bad they are that they quickly will decide that they can't do it, when all they had to do was work a little big longer. They also fish for excuses and shortcuts the most, because they can. Here's my advice: spend time playing and reading music for longer first. This is your real Theory I. It's not that you couldn't take the class, it's that you will get so much more out of it later. Guitar is notoriously hard to read music on, but it is actually one of the best instruments for theory once you get good with it, because you can actually see consistent musical patterns fleshed out on the fretboard better than even pianists get to see, but you might consider learning basic piano too since it's very accessible as far as reading sheet music. There's a lot out there on how to read music and learn songs on guitar or piano or whatever, so I won't go into too much detail, but here are some basic steps I'd take if I were you (not all in particular order): 1. On whatever instrument you're doing, make sure you start learning your notes on the staff well. On guitar there is a book called the Modern Method for Guitar by William Leavitt that I used to learn to read and learn my scales. It is a little fast-paced, but it might not be a problem if you combined it with using the internet for things you get stuck on in it. 2. Try to get to the point where you can read music in different keys well. If doing guitar, try to start learning the notes on each fret and string so you can know your fretboard(take it slow). Pop quizzing yourself is a good way to learn this kind of stuff as you get going. 3. Learn music you like. This could be tabs or sheet music depending on your ability. Doesn't matter how you learn it, just learn how to play it. You could consider learning songs that get stuck in your head, even if they aren't your favorite, just because these are really in your ear and may be useful to know practically. 4. Don't ignore learning simple melodies and perhaps chords that could go along with them. I'm talking about Mary Had A Little Lamb, Happy Birthday, Yankee Doodle, etc. These are, of course, boring and stuff you wouldn't play in your car, but they are boring and childish because from a theoretical standpoint they are very short and simple. It will be useful to know how to play short, simple music because you will probably analyze short, simple music at first when you study theory, since it's a great place to start, though they may use excerpts from Bach, Haydn, Mozart, etc at first, too. Everyone that thinks that music sounds like music knows theory deep down, so the main goal of theory, in my opinion, is to get you to learn what you already know, and put the right name to the right kind of thing, because music looks like a big mess without it. You need to dive into the mess first though so that you have something to make sense of in the first place. When my guitar teacher first taught me some theory, I had played for a while and was at a point where music seemed like one giant meaningless chaotic blob of notes and chords with no discernible overarching patterns, and the beginning of theory was the most cathartic thing ever at that point. If I had learned it before that, it probably would have seemed more weird and boring.

  1535. musictheory 2017-08-12 01:10:32 Abysswalker_8
    If it's just isolated, then yeah, it's a Bmadd9/D. But I guess if there's more harmony in the piece around this arpeggio, it could perhaps be looked at otherwise. Like if the arpeggio is only happening in a piano part, but there's also a whole string orchestra implying a clear D major tonality around it. That's why I said it's "likely".

  1536. musictheory 2017-08-12 03:08:12 coltranedis
    I think the first question you need to ask is: What do you want to learn? So, do you want enough music theory to become literate and read/write? Or do you want enough to be able to do a Shenkerian analysis of a Beethoven string quartet? Or do you want somewhere in the middle? Like, do you want to become literate, and maybe learn some functional harmony so that you can compose basic songs?

  1537. musictheory 2017-08-14 03:47:36 F1stBr34k3r
    But... C phrygian means that there are no 0s, because B (the fourth and sixth strings) isn't even on the scale. Using scalerator after you posted, that's what it showed. It showed me it's an E harmonic minor. With the key note being on the fifth fret, it sounds correct, and both the fourth fret on the E and D strings (now B), and the sixth fret on the A string (now F#) are there, and they are played. And the chorus would be B, no? Edit 2: C Phrygian dominant looks similar, but again, no B. Or am I looking at this the wrong way?

  1538. musictheory 2017-08-14 14:25:07 Xenoceratops
    Which, by the way, is more common for keyboard and string instruments. Woodwinds and brass do not do well with ottava markings because they associate staff lines with fingerings/overtone series/slide positions. (This is why some instruments have multiple standard clefs, e.g. bass and tenor clef for trombone). As a composer with decent training in engraving, I avoid 8va under all but a select few circumstances. Five or six ledger lines? No problem.

  1539. musictheory 2017-08-15 03:55:01 Xenoceratops
    I see it in guitar music sometimes (especially electric, for stuff up beyond the 12th fret on the high E string), but you're right, it is rare for orchestral string instruments. Viola and cello have different clefs for their high registers (past which ledger lines are used), and violins can read tons of ledger lines.

  1540. musictheory 2017-08-15 07:06:42 SeeSharpMiner
    What you should do is sit down with your guitar and listen to the song while trying to play along with the melody. You won't be able to do it right away, the pause button will be your friend, but practicing a bit everyday will help to hone your ear. To get started, try finding the first couple notes: start the song and try to play the 2 notes that correspond to "load up", on one string. Once you've got them, back up a couple seconds and try to play those two notes in time. Then, the next bit will feel way more natural and you'll probably be able to play the rest much more easily once you've got them. It's trial and error mostly, if you play and it doesn't sound right just slide down or up the fretboard and try again. Also, trying to hum or sing pitches is a big help. Edit: it's called transcribing

  1541. musictheory 2017-08-17 07:49:33 S1icedBread
    I feel like aside from music theory, the technical skills developed playing piano are applicable to very few other instruments. Whereas the technical aspects of guitar are applicable to almost all other fretted string instruments, such as bass guitar, banjo, mandolin, etc

  1542. musictheory 2017-08-17 11:42:33 superfunkattack
    Visualizing the guitar is kinda like visualizing six keyboards at once (one for each string). It's not colour-coded either (white/black keys). It's a very geometric instrument. It's actually kinda neat to play it with "geometric" theory, to create unusual music.

  1543. musictheory 2017-08-17 18:40:09 P3tru5hkA-Ch0rd
    I first want to acknowledge that all the other commenters are correct. Not to over-complicate your question, there are also an infinite number of keys, because the circle of fifths isn't really a circle per se. If you start at C, and keep going up a fifth, it goes: C - G - D - A - E - B - F♯ - C♯ - G♯ - D♯ - A♯ - E♯ - B♯ - F𝄪 - C𝄪 - G𝄪 - D𝄪 and so on. I don't think of it as much as a loop, but like starting at the middle of **a spring**, and tracing up if you're moving in the sharps direction, and tracing down if you move in the flats direction. If you start at C and loop up to B♯, you might think you're in exactly the same place you only think enharmonically. Just as if you might think you're in the same place if you traced up a string and looked at the spring head on, you might think you just traveled in a circle. But if you think contextually, or if you look at the spring from the side, you see that while it looks like you looped back around, you did in fact travel to a new place. Physically speaking, the pitches and the keys do loop back around, but the notes themselves, their meanings, and their contexts change. If you want, you could have F-double-flat major, or B-sharp minor, or even A-quadruple-sharp-major! But that'd be really hard to notate, so most people stick around the middle of the spring (C-natural), and only trace as far down as G-flat and as far up as F-sharp (which are enharmonics). **tl;dr**: There are 12 distinct pitches, each having major or minor, making 24 distinct sounds, but the number of *keys* is infinite, because it's all about how you choose to define it.

  1544. musictheory 2017-08-19 01:51:45 0146
    I think they're interesting, but if you're aiming for atonality I think the registration is important. The first chord is condensed towards the bottom, and the rest of the voices seeming to rise could give the impression of the cliff-car thing. Another note is that there are perfect fifths or close compound perfect fifths above the bass note of every chord, so maybe you have something resembling consecutives emphasising the D-F-E-Eb motif in the bass which could sound like a typical tense film music cue if repeated. Atonality in the tradition of Schoenberg would probably avoid this kind of emphasis, instead striving to have multiple independently clear lines where possible - but these kinds of consecutives you do see in some Messiaen pieces. This is for strings, and your Cello part for example switches between 1 note and 3 notes for the section; if this is for real musicians to play this will really emphasize that D in the 3rd chord! But you also run the risk of having one section split between 3 notes sounding comparatively weak. There's probably a simpler way to registrate all of your chords. Perhaps you have included some abrupt jumps in each part to avoid creating an accidental inner melody, to avoid it feeling like all the chords are moving the same direction at the same time, etc., with this many notes and the blending timbre of the string choir that's going to happen anyway, so I would've chosen the simpler option, or dovetailed it so that your 1st. desk cello part is higher than your 2nd desk viola part, etc. for an extra touch of tension and strangeness. Most importantly, you should finish your piece! :) nb. I would exercise caution about describing Messiaen as 'atonal'. He wrote a small number of pieces that approached serialism, certainly, but for the most part his pieces certainly have a scheme that is not so much atonal as a fragmenting and crystallisation of tonal means by way of his 'modes of limited transposition' etc. - if you are shooting for Messiaen, maybe trying some of these will get you closer! Best of luck...

  1545. musictheory 2017-08-19 03:40:47 Phrygiaddicted
    you may be interested in [just intonation](http://www.kylegann.com/tuning.html) and [general information on temperament](http://www.albany.edu/piporg-l/tmprment.html) in some sense, the base of western music and triadic harmony is really 5-JI... ET is used an approximation of that. even weirder microtonal systems like higher EDOs can be thought of approximating some rational interval... so really JI can be seen as the "fundamental" way to look at notes. almost all sounds contain harmonics, and so just intonation is essentially built into the string or horn itself. ET is only a "cage" when you look at it like it is the source of "notes"/"intervals" itself, rather than being a convenient approximation to the source of intervals that is *sound itself* pretty much all the tuning systems are basically tradeoffs you make against just intonation: because you cannot have all notes in perfectly tune with each other without getting conflicts or needing infinitely many notes.

  1546. musictheory 2017-08-19 04:22:07 lasercruster
    You're being an entitled know-nothing asshole right now and are continuing to be a waste of space on this subreddit. You know how to play some instruments? You know what chords are? Can you tap out a steady beat? Great, you can make a song. String some chords together, make a beat and then rap over it. Pirate Ableton or FL Studio if you need to, and browse YouTube for tutorials. What else, exactly, are you expecting from reddit comments, with ZERO of your own additional information provided? Do you know how much effort it would take to hold your hand through every step of songwriting and production, even at a beginner level? Are you offering to pay for this service?

  1547. musictheory 2017-08-19 11:59:03 pouffywall
    Ben Johnston writes in pure JI. His 4th and 5th string quartets are favourites of mine.

  1548. musictheory 2017-08-19 22:15:29 vornska
    I think a useful book for you would be William Caplin's *Classical Form*, which will give you a good sense of how harmony relates to melody in order to create phrases. Another valuable resource is Robert Gjerdingen's *Music in the Galant Style.* Also, a useful exercise is to practice translating back & forth from SATB texture to string quartets. Start with a Mozart (etc.) quartet that you like and use roman numerals to analyze the harmonies of its first phrase. Then use those roman numerals to compose an SATB progression that's as similar to the Mozart as possible. (For instance, pay attention to how long each harmony lasts for, and what the overall shape of the melody is like if you simplify it to one melodic tone per chord.) Then reverse the process. Think of all the stuff that differentiates the original quartet from your SATB version (rhythms, trills, etc.)--the "texture" that the quartet gives to its harmonic progression. Compose a different SATB progression of your own, and then try to apply the quartet's texture to that progression. This exercise will help you develop intuitions about the division of labor within a quartet and how the ensemble can express melody & harmony in more interesting ways than homophonic chorales can.

  1549. musictheory 2017-08-21 22:49:24 BigRonnieRon
    Modes can be kind of confusing. Think about the C (major) scale (simplifying a bit for the sake of brevity), no sharps or flats. That's our jumping off point for modes. Now start on a different note from the notes you played in that scale, like E. You have Phrygian. Here's a chart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(music)#Analysis Now where it gets tricky is people transpose this in dealing with modern modes to scales not composed of natural notes. E Phrygian is same as C major in terms of the notes in the scale (except you're starting from the E). E Phrygian is E Phrygian, though. If you play piano look at the white keys. Sometimes the chord changes are kind of confusing but about 9/10 will usually correspond to something called the "Andalusian Cadence" which is used in flamenco music. Phrygian (mostly A and E) is used in (Spanish) flamenco music for classical (nylon string) guitar. Listen to some of that, it'll make more sense. Sometimes they raise the 3rd or 7th.

  1550. musictheory 2017-08-21 23:11:14 ShatteredByDecease
    To be completely honest, I don't care if the song is gonna be publicly accepted - I release whatever I find absolutely awesome. By commercial I honestly just meant regular and boring. Vulfpecks song I attached in the post, is very happy, easy to listen to - yet savagely complex chords! I got tired of the regular C major scale, and would love to experiment with something new for my next track (excluding this one). Something new sounding, yet really upbeat and happy. Sounds cool with the guitar, but as you said it might take focus away from the piano which is the main instrument for this one. Also I use violins, cellos and a lot of other string instruments in my tracks always (not my Melodic House). I couldn't hear the bass because I didn't have any headphones when I listened, but I'll give it a go now. Also can I have your opinions on this upcoming track of mine? (It's not even close to be experimental chord wise, but the simplicity of it is gorgeous IMO): https://soundcloud.com/slinz-1/slinz-where-we-belong-ft-sofie-sleire-edward-ott/s-gLzbk NCS took it in for a serious listen, and will hopefully release it :) Already got it copyrighted and secured by my ex-manager.

  1551. musictheory 2017-08-22 19:32:34 martinborgen
    Not really, you are making it more complicated than it is. Take a guitar (or bass or any other fretted string instrument). Now play up one string until the 12th fret. This is halfway up the strings length, irrespective of instrument, and an octave containing all the notes in the western scale. Let's say the string is tuned to a C to make it easier; the first note is a C# second is a D, third is a D#, fourth is an E, fifth is an E#/F. Hang on, the distance is the same (one fret) for all the notes? Basically the only reason there's no note between E and F is because we named the notes that way. The reason we named the notes that way is because most music gets simpler. But we could name all the notes 1-12 and there would be no "missing" notes. TL;DR there are 12 notes equally spaced from each other (assuming modern equal temperament), we just didnt name anyone E#, and went stright to F because reasons. Same goes for B#

  1552. musictheory 2017-08-23 01:00:39 Jongtr
    [This] (http://www.peterfrazer.co.uk/music/tunings.html) should help understand how our scale system came into being. TL;DR. Your basic assumptions are not too far off. Simple frequency ratios tend to sound pleasing because they share overtones, so they sound naturally related to one another. Remember it starts not from dividing the *octave*, but dividing some kind of vibrating thing: a stretched string, a metal bar, a column of air in a pipe, etc. The first division is half, which makes the octave. The next is into 3rds, which gives the so-called "perfect 5th". The P5 divides the octave into *approximately* 7 and 5 12ths (very close, but not quite exact). When we divide by 4, the 1/4 length gives another octave (higher than 1/2), but 3/4 gives another new note, the "perfect 4th" - which is an inverted 5th. The octave is now split 5-2-5 in approximate 12ths. The Greek system was based on those 5/12 spaces (which they called "tetrachords", because they also thought of them as "4ths", groups of 4 notes), and various ways of dividing them up and joining them to make an octave.

  1553. musictheory 2017-08-23 01:31:10 tongmengjia
    >Remember it starts not from dividing the octave, but dividing some kind of vibrating thing: a stretched string, a metal bar, a column of air in a pipe, etc. I think that's part of the piece I'm missing. Damn wish I would have started with that website. Looks like a great resource, thanks, I'll start working my way through it.

  1554. musictheory 2017-08-23 10:04:14 view-master
    And that's exactly why 90% of guitarist don't really understand modes. Those shapes have very little do do with modes other than what note your index finger hits on the lowest string.

  1555. musictheory 2017-08-24 07:04:01 Salemosophy
    There's plenty to choose from based on your interests: * Minor scale configurations (natural, harmonic, melodic) * Arpeggios of Major and Minor Scales (based on each pitch) * Playing scales in patterns of Thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, etc (CE,DF,EG... and so on) * Exploring Chord Progressions * Exploring Chord Substitutions * Exploring Modes based on the Major Scale * Exploring Chords based on Modes of the Major Scale * Exploring Modes and Chords of Harmonic Minor * Exploring Modes and Chords of Melodic Minor * Exploring "synthetic" scales (Octatonic, Whole Tone, etc) * Exploring the Pentatonic Scale and Chords * Analyzing Augmented 6th Chords (Gr, Fr, It) for function * Applying Augmented 6th Chords to chord progressions * Neapolitan 6 Chords (both major and minor) * Composing short pieces for piano utilizing some of these aspects of diatonic music * Studying Orchestration for small ensembles (with piano?) * Studying Vocal music with and without piano * Studying Orchestration for large ensembles (band, choir, orchestra, etc) * Analyzing major works for piano that incorporate these diatonic concepts as you learn to play them * Explore Chromaticism in the works of Debussy, Wagner, and Stravinsky (depending on your taste of course) * Begin learning about Schoenberg and his use of 12 tones * Construct a 12-tone matrix, learn to play each row, learn to play each inversion (descending each 'column' of the matrix), each retrograde (playing each row from right to left), and each retrograde inversion (ascending each column). Tip: a tool to help you exists online if you search for "12 tone matrix" on google. * Watch an amazing video about composing 12-tone music by a lady named Vi Hart on YouTube. * Explore Set Theory and learn about Pitch Classes and Matrices * Study the music of composers like Phillip Glass, George Crumb, and John Coolidge Adams for varying tastes of 20th Century music * Feeling more adventurous? Dive right into some John Cage, Elliott Carter, and Karlheinz Stockhausen (wrote a string quartet to be performed in helicopters, no joke, cool guy!) * Still feeling adventurous? Check out Milton Babbitt, Mortan Feldman, and Christian Wolff Look this list over. There's just too much to cover in one bulleted list. And there's so much more beyond the scope of strictly western classicism as it pertains to the way we learn about music. Some of it may even tie in to the things I've covered here - certainly the gamelan instruments and music that influenced Debussy and others in the 1800's, for example. There's also a longstanding tradition of music in Japan called 'Noh' that you'd think was almost entirely random but is actually a highly sophisticated tradition that musicians dedicate years of study to mastering. Dig in. There's lots to learn!

  1556. musictheory 2017-08-25 08:59:27 nmitchell076
    To me, the example seems perfectly relevant. What's so out of place about it in the context of how volume can influence the choice between 3/4 and 6/8? As I said in another post, I can see both sides ("That said, from the standpoint of the 'march' topic, I could see 6/8 working because it choreographs one pass through the left-right step cycle with one pass through the measure"). I'm mostly playing devils advocate. But, since you ask... the ostinato string pattern repeats at the interval of 1 pass through the triple group. Parallelism encourages us to hear repeated groups as metrically equivalent (Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1983), thus we are encouraged hear the first note of each iteration of the ostinato as "the same," metrically speaking. To me, what this suggests is that the fundamental grouping structure of the piece is one that emphasizes a repeating cycle of "threes" as the basic unit, with some differentiation of volume helping to establish some metrical differentiation on a hypermetrical level. That's at least one way to justify the 3/4 with hypermeasures interpretation. Again, I can see both sides, and that bit of evidence is just one in a huge pot of evidence, some pointing towards 3/4, some pointing towards 6/8. But really, the deciding factor for me would have to do more with the "topical" things that were discussed earlier. I agree with the other poster that there's a "military march" type thing going on here (though, as you point out, that's not the *only* thing shaping this passage). I would like to see military marches that have a triple component to them, and if they were overwhelmingly in either 3/4 or 6/8, I'd likely assent to that interpretation. But that's mostly because my frame of reference is one where a piece's dominating topic largely determines how I interpret it metrically.

  1557. musictheory 2017-08-25 18:46:48 Jongtr
    Below are the intervals above the open string (A string harmonics given as examples). The "1st harmonic" is the fundamental (open string), frequency 55 Hz. Higher ones are simple multiples of that frequency, inverse of the string fraction. (Eg the 3rd harmonic is 3x times open frequency, and 1/3 string length.) Decimal places are given for node points between frets. The cents sharp or flat are in comparison with standard equal temperament tuning references. 2nd harmonic = fret 12 = A, 110, octave. 3rd harmonic = frets 7, 19 = E, 165, octave + perfect 5th, 165 (2 cents sharp) 4th harmonic = frets 5, 24 = A, 220, 2 octaves. 5th harmonic = frets 4, 9, 16 = C#, 275, 2 octaves plus major 3rd, C# (14 cents flat) 6th harmonic = fret 3.2 = E, 330, 2 octaves plus perfect 5th (2 cents flat) 7th harmonic = fret 2.7 = G, 385. 2 octaves plus minor 7th (32 cents flat - this is known as the "harmonic 7th") 8th harmonic = fret 2.3 = A, 440, 3 octaves. 9th harmonic = fret 2.0 = B, 495, 3 octaves plus major 2nd (4 cents sharp) There will be other node points for the 6th harmonic and above (at the specific string fraction points) but those given are the easiest to find. You may be able to get higher harmonics too: all the even ones (10, 12, 14 etc) are octaves of lower ones, but you get new notes (theoretically) from all the odd harmonics - although the 11th and 13th are even further from ET equivalents than the 7th is. (You can argue, of course, that it's the harmonics that are truly "in tune", and it's our 12-TET system that is "out of tune".)

  1558. musictheory 2017-08-25 19:46:08 Jongtr
    Here you go: INTRO |F#dim - - - |G#dim - Am Am/G|F#dim - - - |G#dim - Am Am/G| |Am - - - |Am - - - |Em(add9) - C(#4)/E - |Em(add9) - C(#4)/E - | VERSE ||:Am - - - |Am - - - |Em(add9) - C(#4)/E - |Em(add9) - C(#4)/E - | |Am - - - |Am - - - |Em(add9) - C(#4)/E - |Em(add9) - C(#4)/E - | |F#dim - - - |G#dim - Am Am/G|F#dim - - - |G#dim - Am Am/G| CHORUS |F - - - |G#dim - - - |Am - G#+ - |C/G - F#dim - | |F - - - |G#dim - - - |Am - G#+ - |C/G - F#dim - | ________________________________________________________________________ |1. | |Am(6) - - - |Am(6) - - - |Em(add9) - C(#4)/E - |Em(add9) - C(#4)/E - :|| BRIDGE ____ |2. |Dm - Bbdim - |Gm - Am - |Dm - Bbdim - |Bm - - - | |Bm7b5 - - - |Bbdim - - - | |Dm - A#dim - |Gm - Am - |Dm - A#dim - |Bm - - - | |Bm7b5 - - - |Bbdim - - - |Ddim - - - |E7#5 - - - || REPEAT CHORUS CODA |F#dim - - - |G#dim - Am Am/G|F#dim - - - |G#dim - Am Am/G| |F#dim - - - |G#dim - Am Am/G|F#dim - - - |G#dim - Am____| Interesting use of diminished triads (no 7ths on the F#dim and G#dim). The "C(#4)/E" is really just an embellishment of the Em(add9): 0-(2)-4-0-1-0 (5th string not sounded). In the chorus, the vocal phrasing begins in bar 2, and the line ends on beat 1 of bar 5. It therefore overlaps with the interlude (1st time bar) and the opening of the bridge. The "(6)" on the Am refers to the F# played by the lead guitar; the other plays a plain Am. The "Bbdim" in the first line of the bridge is really just the notes Bb and E, but he sings E and C over it, so it's a little like C7/Bb. It acts as A#dim second time, vii of Bm. In bar 6 it includes D as well (one guitar plays Bb-D-E ascending, the other plays E-Bb-E descending). TIP: this was all done fairly easily using [Transcribe] (https://www.seventhstring.com/) software. I could provide tab for a price, but the program is free for a month, and will cost you about the same to register as I'd charge, and will enable you to tab anything you like. Take control! :-)

  1559. musictheory 2017-08-26 00:55:10 Phrygiaddicted
    there is no shorthand? which do you mean. this like "E5" is just Note Name: Harmonic Number. E5 is 5th harmonic on C, and M3+2P8 is major third + 2 perfect octaves above the "open string" the Bb- and F+ the -/+ is to indicate that it is "kindof" a Bb, but its flatter than usual and not the the Bb you might think it is. Same with F+, its not really F, but a bit sharper (but not so far to be F# either) in general: harmonics that arent multiples of 2, 3 or 5 won't have an easy, direct mapping to a "note name", as the 12 chromatic ET notes only really approximate the octave/fifth/major third (2, 3, 5 harmonic) but not the 7th 11th harmonics etc... these are "new notes" so to speak that don't fit well into the conventional naming system.

  1560. musictheory 2017-08-26 04:29:39 bugeats
    There's a lot to respond to here! Not sure I can get to it all, but I can say that it starts with a claim that fully disagree with. > but it's an arbitrary set of intervals just as much as any equal temperament is. Take one string and pluck it. You will hear a fundamental tone, but you will also being hearing the harmonic partials that add to create the timbre of that tone. Take two strings. One is vibrating at 2 beats per every 3 beats of the other. This is a "perfect fifth". It is also the "octave reduced 3rd harmonic". Likewise, a 9:8 is an "octave reduced 9th harmonic". These harmonics are the foundation of acoustics, and are as fundamental as geometry itself. They are the basis of timbre itself. The 3rd and 9th harmonics will ALSO be found in the pluck of the single string. Only JI does this. Under ET, these ratios are only ever approximated (by happenstance, really). ET then generates its own system of harmony, but it does so on a foundation that is artificial. That's my main point. To say it is "just as arbitrary" is simply not true. I've given EDO tunings a try and I'm just completely unimpressed with the results. It just sounds like wanky "out music" to my ears. Total enharmonic. The only reason that 12-TET has worked at all is because it does the best job of approximating true fourths and fifths. However, when I spend time to really work at understanding the surprising qualities of JI, I discover music that locks together in really breathtaking ways. Contrary to your statement, I find the higher overtones suddenly start to converge and create new timbres and transcendent overtones. This simply can't happen with ET. ET was useful for a time, but in my opinion the new frontier is JI. It's very hard to construct non-octave-repeating systems in JI, but with the power of computers, we now have a chance to really explore some truly new territory. It's also a bonus that we will be doing so using the same physics/geometric that may actually comprise the fabric of reality (string theory). Here's a great site and visualization of a lot of what I'm talking about: http://whatmusicreallyis.com/research/harmonicomb/

  1561. musictheory 2017-08-26 05:42:47 phalp
    > There's a lot to respond to here! Not sure I can get to it all, but I can say that it starts with a claim that fully disagree with. Yeah, sorry it came out a little long. > Take one string and pluck it. You will hear a fundamental tone, but you will also being hearing the harmonic partials that add to create the timbre of that tone. Suppose I hit a pitched drum instead? Or suppose my struck string is not perfectly harmonic? JI is based on a mathematical, ideal string. If you bow a string you can force it to go harmonic, but many musical sounds are only approximately harmonic, or not harmonic at all. I think what you might call "timbre-directed intonation" is an interesting idea and JI is an approximation of it. > Take two strings. One is vibrating at 2 beats per every 3 beats of the other. This is a "perfect fifth". It is also the "octave reduced 3rd harmonic". Likewise, a 9:8 is an "octave reduced 9th harmonic". These harmonics are the foundation of acoustics, and are as fundamental as geometry itself. They are the basis of timbre itself. The 3rd and 9th harmonics will ALSO be found in the pluck of the single string. Only JI does this. The significance is supposed to be that the harmonics "line up" between the two sounds, isn't it? But it's only an assumption, or at best an opinion, that the best alignment between two harmonic sounds results when they have at least one harmonic in common. It's an opinion, so you're certainly not wrong to find it so. > Under ET, these ratios are only ever approximated (by happenstance, really). ET then generates its own system of harmony, but it does so on a foundation that is artificial. That's my main point. To say it is "just as arbitrary" is simply not true. To me, it sounds like you're insisting that the interaction between harmonic tones in a just relationship to one another is better than the interaction between tones in a not-particularly-just relationship. Therefore a tuning built on just intervals is more natural. But I think that while just relationships are perfectly fine and potentially distinctive, they don't have any kind of priority over any other intervals. Yes, they more or less recapitulate harmonic sounds. No, there's no natural reason that putting sounds at an interval based on their makeup should be better than otherwise, or a more natural basis for tuning. Any more so than the golden ratio has its claimed significance in art. > However, when I spend time to really work at understanding the surprising qualities of JI, I discover music that locks together in really breathtaking ways. Contrary to your statement, I find the higher overtones suddenly start to converge and create new timbres and transcendent overtones. I do agree. > This simply can't happen with ET. But I don't agree with that. Isn't there an ET ready to approximate any chord of interest closely enough that you yourself couldn't tell it from just? But suppose that the bar isn't whether we can tell the difference side-by-side, and only whether the effect is notable. ETs can and do exhibit the same "locking together" that JI does. With some chords in some ETs more than others, because it's not an all-or-nothing thing. I think of it as "JI buzz" and it shows up all over the place when you play your best harmonic series, even when it's noticeably out of tune and especially when it's not. And don't get me wrong, this is a great, addictive effect. But it's not the only effect you can produce with tones. JI is a perfectly fine, if crude, way to try to produce it as often as possible, but why take it as the ultimate goal of music? That's why ETs are so important. They have little baggage of their own (unlike regular temperament theory), and they give us a context where we can learn the value of intervals that JI-oriented thinking would give us little access to.

  1562. musictheory 2017-08-26 17:41:24 Telope
    Listen to what a flattened 4th and sharpened 3rd sound like in [Shostostakovich's 8th String Quartet.](https://youtu.be/-0nKJoZY64A?t=1m5s) This piece is in C minor, so the flattened 4th is F flat, and the sharpened 3rd is E natural. Remember that the Viola (3rd instrument down) is in the alto clef, which means middle C is the middle line of the stave. What happens is subjective, but to me, this piece is haunting and ethereal, in part because of the constantly diminished 4ths. (But mostly because of Shos's mastery of melody and texture. Edit: Tell me what you think I'd love to discuss this beautiful piece further, and I'm happy to try and answer any questions you have!

  1563. musictheory 2017-08-26 17:49:25 _youtubot_
    Video linked by /u/Telope: Title|Channel|Published|Duration|Likes|Total Views :----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------: [Dmitri Shostakovich - String Quartet No. 8](https://youtu.be/-0nKJoZY64A?t=1m5s)|olla-vogala|2015-12-15|0:23:03|3,533+ (98%)|392,783 > - Composer: Dmitri Dmitriyevich Shostakovich (25 September... --- [^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/youtubot/wiki/index) ^| [^/u/Telope ^can ^delete](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=_youtubot_&subject=delete\%20comment&message=dm5b4w1\%0A\%0AReason\%3A\%20\%2A\%2Aplease+help+us+improve\%2A\%2A) ^| ^v1.1.3b

  1564. musictheory 2017-08-27 20:51:29 gintokipianist
    i find that if im writing something that needs to be only a small group of instruments, ill just an experiment on those instruments, but if its more of an arranged/orchestral, layered kinda deal, normally ill just construct a musical skeleton and then think more in terms of musical lines, counterpoints, timbre and frequency content. for me i tried to get confortable writing string quartet or wind quartet type music, to try to get used to the process of writing "section" type parts to fit within a track. Music theory is helpful but mostly while your constructing your initial chord structure or also if you kinda just hummed a melody you like and want to kinda harmonise it knowing what kinda functions to use is useful, but falling back on the ear, although sometimes taking abit more time is often getting better results.

  1565. musictheory 2017-08-29 05:43:14 Jongtr
    I do something similar. My low pitch is around E2 (I can get lower, but not comfortably). I know that pitch well enough to tune a newly-strung guitar to within a semitone of concert without a tuner; sometimes dead on, sometimes a little flat (possibly because my true comfortable pitch is a little flat of E2). It also helps me guess keys, like you (using relative pitch to gauge how far away from E the keynote is). It's not a skill I use much, because I don't need to. If I need to know a key (by ear), I grab an instrument to check; it's quicker and more reliable. If I have no instrument handy - why would I need to know the key? ;-) Obviously for me, it comes from playing guitar too. I know, just from "pitch memory", how a guitar should sound when it's in concert. The fact my low pitch is the same (just about) as the 6th string is just handy.

  1566. musictheory 2017-08-31 05:29:02 DRL47
    The ranges and timbres of all of the bowed string instruments overlap. This makes it very difficult to tell which instrument is playing in certain ranges. That said, the standard string quartet is made up of two violins, viola, and cello. The cello goes down t the C two ledger lines below bass clef, so it is certainly a bass instrument.

  1567. musictheory 2017-09-01 02:51:06 niftyfingers
    If it were possible to restrict to the valid ones right away then that restriction would be the answer. It's possible to weed out some, for example the interval between a just major third and minor third is 25/24, so any time there's a major third, the minor third doesn't need to be checked. But if you check every case to see if it includes a major third and a minor third, that slows down every case, but reduces the number of cases to check, so it's not obvious that that speeds it up. And the number of cases to check comes from the size of the power set. The power set of a set with 39 elements will have 2^39 elements in it, because if you increase the size of a set by 1, you double the number of choices of subsets (you can either include an element or not, so the power set is a binary string like 100110, which would say to include the 1st element, omit the 2nd, omit the 3rd, include the 4th, and so on. It's just binary counting).

  1568. musictheory 2017-09-01 22:18:10 OMBUG
    It's arbitrary. Obviously the violin lines are interchangeable. You could argue that the G is on viola as G3 is the lowest note a violin can play, and an open string has a slightly different texture to a fingered note, but even that is iffy. What's more important is the voice leading within each line.

  1569. musictheory 2017-09-03 08:28:55 Caedro
    One thing that I didn't understand for a long time is that modes create different intervals between the tonic and the degrees of the mode. One interesting way to hear this is to take a guitar. Drone a low E and then play the E major scale starting on the A string. You will hear the Ionian intervals. Then keep droning that E and move the scale up two frets. You will hear different intervals between that low droning E and the notes in F# major. You can experiment with moving the scale to different places on the fretboard.

  1570. musictheory 2017-09-03 20:19:37 hazysonic
    I don't think any answers so far really get to the point in answering your question, even though some have good (correct information). In the original post's example of a E phrygian song with C and Dm chords, i would definitely consider the tonal center to be Em (with flat 2). The problem is in thinking that modes are all about different fingering of the same scale, when in fact the point is hearing the chord qualities created by each mode in isolation, and how each of them fit into one unchanged scale. 1st mode (ionian) : major7 2nd mode (Dorian) : minor 13 3rd : (Phrygian) : minor7b9 4th : (Lydian): major7#11 5th (Mixolydian) : Dominant 7 6th (Aeolean) : minor 7 7th (Lochrian): Half diminished So the long answer (complete one, but not how I think when i play) is that you are playing in Em tonal center with a flatted 2nd. The C is the 6th mode in your scale, which normally would normally have a #4, but since the 2nd in the Em scale is flatted, our 6th mode scale should now have a natural 4th instead of the usual #4. So you could say the C chord is the 6th mode of the 3rd mode of C major. If you start soloing over the C chord from the lowest F on a guitar, you would be using the 4th mode of a C scale (F Lydian) as an alternate position for the 6th mode of an E minor b2 scale (C major), with that minor b2 scale being itself the 3rd mode of a normal C major scale. You can see why it gets confusing quickly. There's no rule that says you have to use modes of only the major scale either.... In practice, your ear will do all of this for you instantly if you invest time into training your ear to hear scales that go with various chord types. I try to be able to put my index finger or pinky on either the E or A string and be able to play a scale that goes with any chord. This simplifies everything to become muscle memory instead of multi-step math problems.

  1571. musictheory 2017-09-03 23:28:32 Yellowie
    Actually, I think you misunderstood me, and many things you have written are actually dubious. First of all, the origin of music doesn't begin with some “illumination” dawning on a primitive man, and creating some form of music. Since neanderthals clashed objects one against another to create tools and/or fire, they began repeating those sounds as rhythmic rituals by means of hitting objects with sticks, etc. Music is just frequencies, so inevitably, as happens with most discoveries, our ancestors started noticing that some actions they realized, created pitched sound (strings, stretched thin skin being hit, etc.) and from then on started to create primal instruments which derived into the drums, greek string instruments, etc. From then on, as occured with speech before writing, it was a matter of time until the first attemps to preserve music through notation were done (Seikilos epitaph), and evolved until the current notation we use today. I do not deny that the theory comes from the music (as Debussy said, works of art make rules, rules don't make works of art), however it has evolved through slow changes in history, and discoveries in polyphony, harmony, etc. Now back to my original post, when I said study music, I didn't mean to suggest just buying a Schoenberg theory book and reading it, I meant studying music in the ample meaning of the term, that is; Listening to music, reading scores, analyzing them, impregnating yourself with ideas, which later inspire your compositions. In the end, the melodies we write are just structures in our mind created from all the music present in our head, from our long experience of listening. I'll try to explain in another way: a man who hasn't heard a single sound in his mind, won't have any idea of what are sounds like, and it would be physically impossible for him to think of a melody, because the tools required for it don't exist in his brain. If you extrapolate, in the end music has evolved through people copying other music, always slightly changed (because each mind processes music differently), and then played, and so on, until such a vast range of styles has been created in the world we live in now today. That is why divine inspiration is bullshit. You only need to listen to other music, and you will have more ideas. If you only listen to Mozart, how are you ever going to devise a dodecaphonic system？No, music has to go through many different minds to reach such vast differences. I hope I explained myself.

  1572. musictheory 2017-09-04 02:06:16 JMF9x
    I think each subsequent instrument is easier to learn. I started with the trumpet, then guitar, then piano. It only took me about a month to be somewhat decent on keys. I would definitely give it a go. If you've been playing for ten years you should be able to pick it up pretty fast. It's like one really big guitar string that you fret with two hands.

  1573. musictheory 2017-09-04 02:44:40 hazysonic
    Ah yeah then it makes more sense to just call it C major (ionian). You're playing in the 3rd position of the scale (E phrygian) so your fingers are referencing the phrygian shape but in your head it still sounds like C major, which is still the real point of reference. Don't get hung up on identifying the various positions of the scale with modes, since any one of them can be played to emphasize other modes were the root isn't the highest or lowest note you can finger. For instance... Playing in C major, it makes sense to use E phrygian as a fingering position of C major. If you want to play the melody higher and use similar fingering an octave higher on the A string, you could explain this as using a B Lochrian mode. Or..... You just think of the whole thing in C and using two positions of the scale. I know this might sound like splitting hairs but i think the distinction might help relax your thinking about modes. Don't work harder than you need to..,. If it were E phrygian, i would expect a melody that solidly outlines E minor with the root, 3rd 5th and b2 and felt like it wanted to resolve to E minor. If it were "modal", i would expect the song to stay in one scale for the entire tune (not too unusual), and frequently superimpose other diatonic chords in that scale over the top or in place of songs chords (floating feel), solos or melodies that emphasize other modes of the key you're in, etc. I think of it as creating chord-melodies.

  1574. musictheory 2017-09-04 03:14:35 Jongtr
    [Here's] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SINl5JY7LhI) my usual go-to demo of lydian mode. Mostly C lydian (notice the passing D chord played over the C vamp, to give the #4). When the chords change he goes to other lydian chords: Ab, G and F. I.e., he plays a melody with a #4 over each of them. So he doesn't use other chords from C lydian mode. This is a common modal jazz technique - not to harmonize one mode with different chords, but to string different modes together. Each chord is its own mode.

  1575. musictheory 2017-09-04 04:33:35 vornska
    Sure--I think of Stravinsky, like [the first of his Three Pieces for String Quartet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUepDjGgUnc), which often projects a strong sense of stratification & whose individual strata very much live in their own tonal environments. Or, for that matter, other stuff like Lendvai's tonal axis system in Bartók, Bailey's "double-tonic complex" in Wagner, and so on. Do I know of examples of guitar music where half the band is in C major and half the band is in E phrygian? No. (If it does exist, I wouldn't know because that's not the kind of stuff I listen to. But it's the sort of thing I could imagine some band trying to do because they think it'd be cool.)

  1576. musictheory 2017-09-04 09:05:56 gintokipianist
    high pitched with uneven timbre (nails on chalk board,smashing glass, high pitch string bowing) we find alarming due to similarity to babies crying. this is all "psychoacoustics" the perception of auditory phenomena even things such as melodys generally following sentence like structure (phrasing) could be seen as an analogue to human conversation

  1577. musictheory 2017-09-04 17:19:32 Jongtr
    Jargon breakdown... A diminished chord is named after its diminished 5th (b5, 1 semitone smaller than a "perfect" 5th) - and also has a minor 3rd - so B diminished is B-D-F. A "diminished 7th" chord (dim7, often known as dim for short, because the plain dim triad is so rare) is a dim triad with a *diminished 7th* interval added. From B, that's Ab (semitone less than the minor 7th B-A). B-D-F-Ab is the vii chord in C minor (harmonic minor scale), and resolves naturally to Cm, and sometimes to C major. "Dominant" is the name for the V degree of a scale. A "dominant 7th" chord is a 7th chord built on the V step of the major (or harmonic minor) scale. Staying with key of C (major or minor), the dominant chord is G (major triad, G-B-D). Add a 7th from the same scale, and you get a "dominant 7th" chord, G-B-D-F. That's a major chord with a minor 7th interval (G-F), a combination you only find on the V step of a scale. G7 resolves to both C and Cm. You'll notice that Bdim (B-D-F) is G7 without the G! In C minor, you might even get Bdim7 with a G bass, which is G7b9. So the *functional* relationship between a dom7 and a dim7 is that a dim (or dim7) can be built from the *3rd* of the dom7; i.e., you get it by omitting the root of the dom7. B7 is the dominant 7th chord in E major or E minor. Spelled B-D#-F#-A. The top 3 notes are D#-F#-A (=D#dim), and if you add a 7th on top from E *minor*, that's D#-F#-A#-C = D#dim7. Complicating matters (!) is the vii7 chord in a *major* key. If you're in C major and add the 7th to Bdim, you get B-D-F-A. This is known as B "half-diminished" (because it only has one dim interval, the b5), or Bm7b5. Technically it will also resolve to C major (it's like a rootless G9), but it's rarely used that way; more often it's the ii chord in A minor, resolving via E7 to Am. For guitar shapes, try the following: x-2-3-2-3-x = Bm7b5 0-2-2-1-3-0 = E7 x-0-2-2-1-0 = Am Now compare this: x-2-3-2-3-x = Bm7b5 x-2-3-1-3-x = G#dim7 x-0-2-2-1-0 = Am Those first two are almost the same chord, but the 3rd string move makes all the difference. Even though B is the bass on the 2nd chord, I'm calling G#dim7 (not Bdim7) because that's how it makes sense in the key. ("Bdim7", strictly speaking, is B-D-F-Ab, from C minor. They sound exactly the same, so it doesn't matter too much what you call it, but the right name helps make sense of where it comes from.) G#-B-D-F is the vii7 chord from A harmonic minor, and it doesn't matter much what order you play the notes in. Add an E bass to that chord and you have E7b9.

  1578. musictheory 2017-09-05 02:59:11 MashGyver
    That's a good point--it's a bit more tonally ambiguous because of the power chords. But they do like to play fully voiced D and G chords a lot, and sometimes E's and A's. And they'll also add layers of triads (For Those About To Rock, Shoot To Thrill) or Mixolydian melody lines (Thunderstruck). Some stuff is more Dorian (Hell's Bells) and some is more Ionian (You Shook Me All Night Long), but they definitely liked their full, six string major chords.

  1579. musictheory 2017-09-05 14:22:32 Xenoceratops
    >A#/Bb minor, F minor, C major, A minor >I read it like this when in the key of C major/A minor >bvii, iv, I, vi F: iv i V iii >When i researched the function/name of this chord, it was nowhere to be listed. >When i asked people, they either threw the idea away or had no idea what i was talking about. >Im very familiar with music theory, and i need to confer with other pioneers, is this in your opinion the minor version of the neapolitan? It's a minor Neapolitan, nothing too special. It functions the same way as any other Neapolitan. Why wouldn't it? They are pretty rare in the literature, but not unheard of. There is a minor Neapolitan in Schubert's [String Quintet, D.956, II](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ-vroCJvzo&t=28m21s).

  1580. musictheory 2017-09-05 16:05:07 Jongtr
    It seems to be switching modes all the time to me. The first two chords could be in Bb major, perhaps heading for Gm, but then the G bass has an Em chord (with B natural); G sounds like a potential tonal centre at that point. Then suddenly it's back to Bb, then equally suddenly up a half-step to B major (although the D# bass is a nice nod back to the opening chord). The B major transforms subtly into D#dim7, which then resolves (in classic tonal fashion to Em). The best overall sense I can make of it is you're playing between Eb and E keynotes, with the latter finally dominating. (B major could be Cb, bVI of Eb minor, as well as V of Em.) It certainly isn't one overall mode or key, and neither is it what I'd call mode mixture (which depends on a shared tonal centre AFAIK). I can't see how it could be described as locrian. The Eb/A is arguably a locrian chord, but the very fact it sounds unstable, not like any kind of tonal centre, means it makes no sense to describe the piece as a whole as locrian. If locrian has any other note as bass, then the modal centre becomes that bass note, because locrian is the least stable of all the modes; unless its root is maintained throughout (and sometimes even then), the ear won't accept it as a keynote. But those are only problems of definition! It's common in post-modal jazz to have a string of chords with no clear inter-relationships, instead being held together by some kind of unorthodox voice-leading (in chord tones or melody) - this sounds like it could be that sort of thing. If you want to ascribe a governing tonal centre to the piece, I'd say E minor, but obviously with some playing around in a mode a semitone down.

  1581. musictheory 2017-09-05 16:25:51 Jongtr
    > This has been a very useful tool to explore harmonic progressions, and I'd like to apply it to modes. Why? > How does this work for modes Basically it doesn't. > how would one use such harmonic progressions to highlight which mode the progression is in? You wouldn't. Or rather, you don't have to, and if you did you risk not highlighting the mode at all. If you want an analogy, it's like being confronted with the first motor car and asking "OK how do I attach the bridle and saddle? Where do I feed the hay in?" :-) The functional harmony you're describing is directly related to - and depends on, derives from - the specific characteristics of Ionian mode. Traditional tertian chords have a way of pointing to the root of Ionian as the overall keynote. (How do minor keys work? By being altered to act like Ionian at cadences, given major V chords and leading tones.) IOW, without Ionian mode, we would not have had the whole edifice of the major-minor key system, functional harmony, tonality, classical music, etc. That resolution of the tritone to root and 3rd of Ionian determined the whole direction of European harmony, in the post-modal era - much like (to switch the analogy) the science of internal combustion determined the development of the motor car. To apply harmony to the other modes, therefore, requires a whole new way of thinking. The modal jazz pioneers realised that, which is why they used quartal harmony, and carefully avoided any hint of functionality or "progression" in their sequences. But of course I'm exaggerating.... ;-) > One of the few modal progressions I know so far is bVII-IV-I (for mixolydian), but I can't quite pinpoint what exactly makes this progression work. It's a double plagal cadence: bVII is IV of IV (a "secondary subdominant"). It works via voice-leading (as all chord changes work). The "I" should (of course) *sound* like the key. If it sounds like IV-I-V then you're doing it wrong. That's why the "I" needs to have been previously established as the key centre, or needs to continue for some time after that sequence. It simply has to be played for longer than the other chords to establish itself. The same is true for the other modes - in fact is even more true, except for dorian, which can work fine as a i-IV 2-chord vamp. To our ears, accustomed to major-minor key tonalities, mixolydian and dorian can work pretty well as "intermediate" keys, operating in that appealingly blurred region between pure major and pure minor: mixolydian = "major with b7", dorian = "minor with raised 6th, and major IV". Lydian and phrygian, OTOH, are outside those "middle 4" modes, and are tonally the weakest modes (if we ignore locrian, as we probably should), and are easily disrupted by the use of any more than one other chord for any length of time. Lydian can use a major II as a secondary, but you have to make sure it really is secondary, or it risks sounding like a mixolydian I, with your "lydian I" becoming its bVII. Similarly, phrygian can use a major bII as secondary chord - this is rather more successful and flexible, because the only alternative relationship between those two is vii-I in lydian, and lydian is weak. (If Em and F are used with equal weight, then Em will probably win out as a phrygian "tonic".) > Vamping between I/i and one characteristic chord seems to work well, but I'm interested in richer progressions that progress through other diatonic chords instead. I doubt very much you'll get any further on that diatonic route. The way to go with modal harmony - if you want to introduce more chords into a tune - is to move to other modes. E.g., you could have a string of lydian chords (as Joe Satriani does in Flying in a Blue Dream, which I seem to be posting weekly here as an example of lydian mode). That gives you a "totally lydian" piece of music, without the unhelpful restriction of staying diatonic to one scale.

  1582. musictheory 2017-09-05 17:17:53 Jongtr
    I'd say the first essential is reading notation. If it's jazz they're playing, they might just give you a chord chart (no "dots"), but the symbols will be written on manuscript, and there will likely be rhythmic indications - syncopations or beat patterns, using note symbols. You don't really need to know much theory, IMO, as long as you understand chord symbols, of course. That's where your rock/metal background may let you down. How many 7th chord forms do you know? Do you know how to play a Bb7? How about Bb7b9, or Bb7#11? Can you play a Dm7b5? What about G#dim7? Ebmaj7? These are all really common chords in jazz, and there is more than one shape option for all of them. (In jazz, you can usually get away with just playing the 3rd and 7th of each chord, and sometimes that's all that's needed.) If it's any kind of classical music (anything non/jazz or rock, basically), you will certainly need to read dots, and read them *fast.* I suggest starting [here] (http://www.musictheory.net/lessons) - that gives you the lowdown on how notation works, with sound samples too (check the speaker symbol at the bottom of the page). It's not guitar friendly, however, and the main thing you need to know is that guitar notation is written in a different octave. I.e., a G note is still G, but the G it shows you as first note in treble clef is a "concert G", the sound of your 1st string fret 3. If you saw that note on a piece of guitar music, you would play it as open 3rd string - octave lower. At least for guitar you don't need to read bass clef! (you would if you were applying for the bass job), so you can skip the bits on bass clef and the grand staff. I would strongly suggest you try to get hold of some sample parts from the pad the orchestra uses - what did the last guitarist use? Contact the pianist if you can. But theory? I doubt you will have to sit some kind of theory exam before joining. I also doubt you'll be asked theoretical questions. They just want to you to *play the chart in front of you - without spending hours working it out*. And to understand various cues. Of course, if you're lucky enough to be asked to play a solo, then you need to know how to work from the given chords. That's not hard if you *really know your chords* - if you can play any chord in any position on the neck, arpeggiate it all over. Then your solo material is there under your fingers. I also suggest not using any kind of distortion, btw, unless specifically asked to.

  1583. musictheory 2017-09-05 21:30:27 algiz37
    This varies hugely depending on the department, and honestly in a lot of smaller schools that department tends to be a single professor. I'd recommend checking out the department websites, looking up the composition prof and checking out their stuff. Stylistically it can range widely from super avant-garde modernist to very traditional and everything in between. A good teacher will encourage you to find your own voice while also pushing your limits, still it can help to know what you're getting into. General tips that will apply everywhere: 1) Notational Craft, by this I just mean complete, correct, economical, and neat notation. Show you know how to use the software you're using. Keep spacing consistent. Use space well/efficiently. Don't include superfluous information. Don't omit necessary information. No collisions, neatness. 2) Good Orchestration/Idiomatic Writing: Show that you know how different instruments work. Don't write stuff outside of range, but also make sure to utilize the range that is available. Write practical, playable parts. Use notation conventions that will be familiar to instrumentalists. Utilize instruments characteristic timbres and textures well. Write music with parts that will be heard (eg. don't put a nylon string playing a lead over a brass band...). That kind of stuff. This basic craft stuff is really the foundation you need to start exploring style and that's what they will look for. As far as style goes. Aim for economy of means, say the most with the least generative material possible. Don't write scatterbrained music that jumps from idea to idea or introduces too much material. Start with simple core components or ideas and explore them thoroughly. A 2-3 minute piece really doesn't require much generative material and it provides you with very little time to explore it. Internal cohesiveness basically. This advice applies to most or all styles.

  1584. musictheory 2017-09-05 22:29:25 jaykzo
    In Thunderstruck for example, its a pretty clear cut and dry example of pure mixolydian in the rhythm section. B ringing out in the bass while the E major scale is played on the 2nd string. A lot of other sections I don't have a problem with calling a mixolydian progression. For example, in Shoot to thrill, when you're blasting away at the major chords A G and D, I think it's perfectly fine to describe that as a mixolydian chord progression. It would be a lead players choice as to use that scale or not, but regardless, the progression can clearly be described as A Mixolydian and I think it's more informative and descriptive than just saying its mixture of major chords.

  1585. musictheory 2017-09-06 22:15:04 catpelican
    natural harmonics on a string to find notes, fiddling to find scales, in particular some version of the minor scale (natural/harmonic/melodic or one of their modes) managed to pop up in most cultures naturally, spooky!

  1586. musictheory 2017-09-06 23:11:08 Windsor811
    I'm not an expert, but as a general rule, whenever we ask questions about "why is music ____" we have to look at neuroscience. Music isn't simply waves of air pressure hitting our ears, music is how our brains REACT to said sound waves. Music is based on pitch - the rate of frequency at which these sound waves move. When these frequencies are played together, they create harmony. Why these harmonies sound 'consonant' (pleasing to the ear) or 'dissonant' (displeasing to the ear) is not something I'm not an expert on. From my understanding, our basic fundamental understanding of what 'sounds good' is based on our brain's reaction to the overtone series (a musical tone that is a part of the harmonic series above a fundamental note and may be heard with it). So when you play one note, there are actually many others that are resonating with it, but at a much much lower amplitude, mostly inaudible to the normal human ear. Despite your inability to register each individual overtone, it is these added notes that create a 'richness' to a sound, such as the human voice, and the differences in what overtones are pronounced is what defines the timbre of different instuments - the oboe and the violin, the cello and the flute all have different overtone series. If you take a string and hold it down in the middle (1/2), you double the frequency and create a pitch that is an octave above the first note. You can do this for all possible fractions, however certain fractions create certain notes from this overtone series - and it is these fractional notes that are the most pleasing to the ear. These five notes (1:1, 8:9, 3:4, 2:3, 9:16) form the pentatonic scale. There's a better explanation of that here. http://voluntocracy.org/Music/Overtones.html Anywho, we've found bone flutes dating back 40,000 years using the pentatonic scale so THAT'S PRETTY COOL. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/feb/15/ice-age-flute

  1587. musictheory 2017-09-07 05:08:31 vornska
    Like a lot of fluency issues in music, it's mostly just a matter of practice. When you do something enough, you stop having to think through the middle steps: I've seen the pair of notes C E♭ that I've just memorized that it's a minor third, just like I've memorized what 3+4 is. I *could* count it out to 7 but in practice I don't. The same goes for identifying chords. For example, I'm used to the fact that C E G go together for chords rooted on C. So any jumble of C's E's and G's that I see looks immediately like a C chord, even if it's E E G C. Or if it's G C E♭ C, I still (with practice) can see that it's C's E's and G's. So it's a C chord, and I've already said that E♭ is a minor third from C. So it's a minor triad. So basically it's just practice. Lots & lots of practice. (As a string player, you actually have an advantage for intervals. Think about how they feel to play. If you can play a pair of notes as a barred finger across two strings, like E & B, that's a perfect fifth. So perfect fifths kinda have a physical feel to them: instead of counting up the interval, imagine playing E and B, which I imagine you can do automatically, and associate that with the feeling of the perfect fifth. Likewise a minor third is usually the feeling of 1 and low 3, like for example B and D on the A string.)

  1588. musictheory 2017-09-08 03:31:00 vornska
    Yes, sorry, "part writing" and "voice leading" are basically the same thing. "Voice leading" is the way one harmony flows into another (like "electricity" is the way energy flows from a power station through appliances). "Part writing" is the thing you do when you compose an SATB harmony exercise. On the difference between free composition (i.e. actual pieces of music) and simple voice leading exercises, try to imagine how you get from an SATB chorale to a piece like [Beethoven's String Quartet in F major, Op. 18 No. 1](http://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usimg/7/7f/IMSLP04755-Beethoven_-_String_Quartet_No.1_Dover.pdf). Why does it start with parallel octaves? Where are the chords at the beginning? How does the violin 1 part in mm. 5-8 compare to what a soprano voice should do in a part writing exercise? Do I spot contrary fifths between viola & violin 1 in m. 7?

  1589. musictheory 2017-09-08 07:57:28 anoldp
    I would love to remember the difference between a decending major and minor third. I have no idea why that interval causes so much of a problem. I have had lots of stumbling blocks with ear training, but always feel that I am slowly getting better. But these bastard decending major and minor thirds, I can go 10 questions on my ear training program at 90% followed a string of 90% mistakes. Been doing a lot better at memorising my full guitar scales recently (never really bothered with much more than the first box of the pentatonic minors when I was young!). Also pretty good at navigating between them on the e and B string. Working on getting around the fret board moving on the G and D. Also thinking more about chord notes and arpeggios during improvisation. Also ways something new to learn now that I'm trying to be a better guitarist rather than just mess around struming chords.

  1590. musictheory 2017-09-08 16:18:52 amoeba3
    To a string player like you, it is what you are. You are concert pitch. Some other instruments deviate from you, and their C does not sound the same as your C.

  1591. musictheory 2017-09-08 21:12:52 olusso
    You are not loosing you are winning! Art is highly dependent on perception. I remember the dictation classes I have taken. Since I have an untrained and stubborn earn they were basically two hours of hell. But after the lessons listening to a song was an enlightening experience. I could even hear the finger movements of the players because my attention/perception was at the highest level. Of course only for a little time. And medium is a fundamental element in performance arts. Have you heard of Helicopter String Quartet of Karlheinz Stockhausen? One of the main points of the piece is changing the medium, the air itself; because when it's higher the air is thinner and it conducts differently. In the end the song can be a data chain, set of notes, a record that is not changing; but our perception of it is a constant flux. This makes art a multidimensional thing; and hell of a job for someone like me trying to make a little science of it.

  1592. musictheory 2017-09-09 00:51:49 Phrygiaddicted
    >I suppose it ultimately doesn't matter where you 'rank' these pretty much, just go by ear. your listeners will. >fundamentals, overtones, and undertones ill try (and probably fail) to eli5. the harmonic series consists of multiples of your note frequency. if you play an A440 on a string, as part of the A440 will be some energy at A880, E1320, C#2200 etc... important to take from this is, basically, the first 5 harmonics look like this: 1, 2, 4 are all octaves. 3 is the perfect fifth and 5 is the major third (yeah its swapped, kinda makes it easy to remember tho XD) so when you play a note, essentially you get a power chord an octave above it, and a major chord an octave above that as part of the "timbre" decreasing in volume as you go up. if you just remember that the start of the harmonic series looks like an octave, a power chord then a major triad it's not too bad to remember. the subharmonic series inverts this, so for C's subharmonic series, instead of looking what C's major triad contains, you look at which major triads CONTAIN C. so, you have F (C is F's fifth), and Ab (C is Ab's maj third). they are the 3rd and 5th SUBHARMONICS. so to recap: bright notes that will harmonise well ABOVE something are in the note's major triad. darker notes that will harmonise well BELOW something are in the minor triad a fifth BELOW the note. so for C we have Cmaj, and Fmin. So while C is happy and strong when you're playing C,D,E,G,B above it... the moment you play an F or an Ab, they subvert C into their little bitch and it gets all sad and there is a power struggle (*exaggerated for effect*) this gives a "harmonic directionality", in that Ab is harmonically beneath C. If you go up a minor sixth you are going up melodically, but also somehow going "down" harmonically. despite the fact that the keyboard looks like 1 dimensional line, the relationships between the notes is far more complex than "above or below" in absolute pitch. E is right next to F, yet moving that tiny semitone from E to F is a huge harmonic distance. it's miles away in one sense, and next door in another. so for that F melodic major example: there are equal number of notes harmonically "above" and "below" F... and they sort of balance each other out... yes? but say, for major you have far more "above notes" (CDEGB) than "below notes" (FA). Lydian has no below notes, and Locrian has no above notes. hope that didn't just confuse you more. >one final remark i think also percieved "darkness" needs to take into account the intervals in the scale aswell if we're comparing between scales aswell not just modes of the same scale. Phrygian has b2 b3 b6 and b7: Double harmonic major has only b2 and b6, BUT it has two augmented seconds, a diminished third and several tritones WITHIN the scale and these contribute to a weird/strained sound... that sounds ironically "darker" than phrygian despite essentially being phrygian with a raised 3rd and 7th... because phrygian like all diatonic modes has only one augmented/diminished interval: the one diatonic tritone. so while many of the notes in phrygian are "darker" in comparison to the home note, there is nothing quite so "strained" in phrygian as the 3-b6 diminished fourth you get in D/H major. whether that counts as "darkness" or just "tension/weirdness" is an entirely different question though.

  1593. musictheory 2017-09-09 05:14:15 jbradleybush
    I think this version is pulling out all the "epic" stops: * Driving string counterpoint arpeggios that underly the melody * Melody doubled in both brass and high strings (maybe even high woodwinds) * Cymbal swells in addition to the standard GoT drums * Continual pushing of the beat which the other versions don't have (especially in the low strings and drums) * A more active low strings part

  1594. musictheory 2017-09-09 12:16:12 the_emerald_phoenix
    Related, but not directly. I was never great at music theory but I feel that Djwadi has a very distinct way he uses string instruments. You can hear bits of GoT, Person of Interest, and Westworld in each other's scores. Just thought it was interesting.

  1595. musictheory 2017-09-09 20:15:05 Jongtr
    There's a useful distinction here between "why" and "how". "Why" is what is unanswerable by music theory, because it's about cultural familiarity, personal taste, desired effect, etc. Essentially, "why" a particular chord change or sequence sounds good is because you like it! There is also not a lot of useful theory addressing the "mood" of chords, because the mood of a piece of music is much more dependent on things like tempo, dynamics, timbre, rhythm, orchestration, effects, etc, than it is on scales or chords (or keys or modes). "How" is more accessible, because it's about *mechanisms*. There are two systems of linkage between chords that give changes and sequences a sense of aural "logic" - if we perceive these kinds of connections between chords, we recognise they are planned and not random. It's like words in a sentence, compared to a bunch of random words in no particular order. 1. Shared scale, aka "diatonicism". If the chords are (or could be) harmonized from the same scale, they will have an affinity. Again, this comes down to familiarity with hearing diatonic harmony. We hear chords put together in this way all the time. If chords share a scale, it doesn't matter too much what order they go in. However... 2. Voice-leading, and shared tones. This is the link that governs how sequences appear to "move forward", and also allows chord changes to work when they go out of key (breaking the diatonic link). To understand this, just look at any chord sequence you know. Voice your chords as close to another as you can (in the same position on your instrument) - ie use inversions where necessary - and look at how (usually) one or more notes are shared from chord to chord, and other notes move up or down by tone or semitone. (If you're on guitar, you can see each string as a separate "voice".) In general, semitone moves are stronger "tendencies", and descending moves have a special appeal, tending to release tension. Leading tones can resolve upward, but are normally balanced by other voice moves downward. The other move that is not so smooth, but still exerts a forward momentum through a perceived logic, is if the bass moves in perfect 5ths down, or perfect 4ths up. This is the classic "circle progression" you find in jazz and other popular standards, as well as classical music. (Its less common in rock music.)

  1596. musictheory 2017-09-09 22:09:44 trainercase
    This is something I'm super familiar with because I do a lot of remixing as a hobby. There's a few skills that really help. The most important are critical listening and transcription. You need to be able to listen to the song you want to cover and accurately play/sing the original melody, chords, etc. You need to be able to listen to the style you want to imitate and break it down and work out why it sounds the way it does. A lot of that is "big picture" stuff like tempo and orchestration but the more specific the thing you are imitating, the more precise you will need to be. For example, if I want to cover a song in a "rock" style that means a couple guitars, bass, and drums playing in 4/4 with a steady backbeat. If I want to imitate the Beatles style specifically, now I'm looking for certain guitar tones that sound like the Beatles and using specific vocal harmonies, chord voicings, etc that helped make the Beatles sound like themselves as opposed to any other rock band. Maybe I'll change the harmony of the song I'm covering slightly to work in a IV - iv or something. And if I want to imitate the specific song "Yesterday" instead of the Beatles generally, then you better expect this cover to start off with a single voice over an acoustic guitar playing arpeggios then a string section joining with slow chords after the intro. Ear training will be vital in picking apart both the songs you want to cover and imitate to get down to what makes them unique and how you can immediately make the listener think of them, and it always varies by song. Sometimes it will be vocal or performance style things, sometimes it will be more advanced music theory concepts, sometimes it's production and sound design - the more you learn about *all* these topics the better, and it will be a constant journey to keep improving. Music theory will also help when you want to do things that require more elaborate rewriting or alteration of the source material, from basic stuff like changing key to converting major songs to minor and vice versa to more advanced reharmonizations. You can get started relying just on your ear, but the more you learn the more your results will be better and more convincing. If you don't already have a basic level of music theory literacy then getting there is an important first step. That gives you the language to listen to and talk about all the elements that make one song different from another and the tools to understand them. The subreddit sidebar has a bunch of resources for beginners to get you started.

  1597. musictheory 2017-09-10 19:02:42 pooispoois
    Also not an expert, but I've played some Celtic tunes on the violin and here are some elements I think characterise the style: - Use of the Dorian mode (not exclusively) - Timbre of bowed string instruments, flute and other folk wind instruments such as the whistle, and bright acoustic guitars (or folk equivalent) - Chord voicings starting with a fourth or fifth from the lowest note (creating a more "open" kind of sound) - Usually simple harmonies (diminished chords are hardly used) - Scarce bass content - Time signature (mostly dance oriented signatures such as 3/4 and 6/8)

  1598. musictheory 2017-09-11 19:11:31 Jongtr
    "Winning" is a very specific association. The tracks sound "bright", "upbeat", "happy", but "winning" is something you bring to it personally (or perhaps from the lyrics of the songs). The elements I'd suggest that communicate that sense of *positivity* are: 1. tempo. Anything 120 or more is likely to be energizing. 2. high register melody (vocal or not). How do we express ourselves when happy and excited? Raised voices! (Of course that can mean anger too, or even fear, but given the other elements here it connotes excitement.) 3. major key - major *pentatonic* specifically. The major pentatonic is the strongest, brightest elements of the major scale, omitting the tensions of 4 and 7. Major pent is easy to sing, so encourages joining in - adding to the sense of positivity. 4. persistent 4-beat rhythm. Anything that makes you want to dance is likely to make you feel good. 5. orchestration/arrangement/production. The overall sound is dense, filled with smooth string-like textures, again largely high register. This is a less important factor in its details, but the important thing is for the song to sound *loud*, "big", not restrained or held back in any way. The fuller the sound, the more you feel involved in it, swept up in it. Reverb and compression are both important here in producing a "big, loud" sound, even when heard at low volume. An additional element would be contrast with darker or low key preceding sections, so the chorus sounds like a "breaking out", "moving up". (It's traditionally quite common for popular songs to use minor key verses, moving to relative or parallel major key choruses. E.g., if you start in A minor, the chorus could be in C major or A major.) For "winning" I guess you just need to write lyrics about winning!

  1599. musictheory 2017-09-12 01:45:14 gustavflowbert
    Assuming these are all triads, then your Fsus2 F-G-E♭ chord outlines an F dominant ninth chord. I wouldn't identify F-A♭-C-D as Fmin, but rather as Dø, thus being an altered dominant of G. Fsus4 C-B♭-F can also be seen as a dominant 11 chord. F Major is fairly self-explanatory. That being said, the function of this progression is then: Doublesubdominant, Dominant, Doublesubdominant in G or, Subdominant, Doubledominant, Subdominant in C. If the whole piece is written in this way, without establishing a tonic, then you are writing atonally. However, if this is just the bridge of a piece in either Cmin or Gmin, then this is just creating uncertainty in the tonality, allowing for modulation. Moreover, the lack of an F♯ places it pretty firmly in Cmin. Basically, what I hear in this progression is a subdominant function leading to a dominant of G. You may hear it differently. Edit: Sorry I didn't even answer your question. If you are referring to unsettling the key of a piece, you will find a lot of this kind of thing in any Schubert modulation, often referred to adorably as his "Modulationswunder." What springs to mind for me is early in the first movement of his 14th String Quartet "Death and the Maiden." For actual bitonality, in western music you'd be looking far further, I think you'll only start seeing prolonged bitonality in the postmodern. If I remember correctly, some of Berio's Sequenzas exhibit prolonged bitonality. You'll find some examples in the early modern, I know Bartok played around with it some, Stravinsky may have as well. Otherwise, a quick google seems to point to certain Indian music being bitonal, but I'm not familiar with it. I hope this helps

  1600. musictheory 2017-09-12 19:36:58 r201501
    Someone said: "You should strike strongly a second string of your guitar, and then bend two tones and agressively use vibrato"... So, I think that a music is emotional when you translate your feelings to that song... It's complicated! But that is the truth... There's no formula. There's no 'play minor chords', etc;

  1601. musictheory 2017-09-15 00:53:53 Jongtr
    Bdim is vii of Cm, so that explains the last move. If you were to see Bdim as a rootless G7, then Cdim/Gb could be seen as a rootless D7b9, V/V, or just as vii/V. So maybe you can say Cdim is vii/vii? But really the chromatic voice-leading - and shared tones - is enough to explain it, IMO. More complicated interpretations are possible, but IMO the best explanations are the simplest. (There may be another view I'm missing ;-)) If you string together dom7 chords where the roots descend in 5ths (ascend in 4ths), that's a normal functional sequence of secondary V chords: eg, D7 - G7 - C7 - F7, etc (could end up in any key). You'll see that the 3rds and 7ths descend by semitone each time. Add a b9 to each chord, and see how that descends by semitone to the 5th, and then to the b9 of the next chord. Then remove the roots and you have chromatically descending dim7 chords. All you've really done is replace the string of V7 chords with a string of vii7 chords; but because vii7s are symmetrical, their root identity disappears; you could call it F#dim7 - Bdim7 - Edim7 etc, but really the Bdim7 might as well be Fdim7. C - C#dim would be common where the next chord is Dm or D, again because C#dim is the leading tone chord in D minor (vii/ii in C major). Relative to C, of course, it works via shared tones and chromatic moves, as usual, but where it goes next might offer differing interpretations of the C#dim.

  1602. musictheory 2017-09-15 14:21:23 LukeSniper
    E A Ab Db Just a string of dominants (with one tritone substitution) Simple enough, sounds cool, has all the chords mentioned When writing, just do what sounds good. You shouldn't qualify your musical ideas by whether or not they "make sense". If you're throwing away good material because it doesn't "follow the rules", you're missing the point of creative expression.

  1603. musictheory 2017-09-15 23:05:45 Octangula
    Very cool program idea. I noticed a bunch of things... Some issues recognising a six-nine chord. "69" gives extensions all the way up to the far end of the piano. "6/9" (how it's most usually written) ignores the 9. "6-9" ignores the 9 and gives a minor third. "6add9" works, but feels clumsy. "7#11" and "9#11" return the same chord, where they should be different; 7#11 should not include the ninth. "sus9" isn't recognised. It's technically not correct, but I've seen it occasionally used to mean sus2. "sus" by itself also isn't recognised, which is often used to mean sus4. Poking further, "sus" followed by any number that isn't 2 or 4 just results in a power chord (without the root being doubled an octave higher). Speaking of power chords, they're usually notated as C5, but "5" is interpreted as a major chord. Not commonly used notation, but "M7no5" doesn't remove the 5, and more generally, it feels like your parser doesn't know how to handle notes being removed from a chord like that. I like how "M7" is recognised as well as "maj7". It feels like Δ was recognised (it was hard to tell, since the default is a major chord), and ø definitely was (altough interestingly, "hdim" wasn't), but it appeared not to recognise ♯ or ♭. "o" being recognised as well as "dim" and "°" is also nice. You didn't ask about interface issues, but here's two that I noticed: Firstly, the way that you have to select the root note in separate dropdowns feels like it disrupts the input flow. A single dropdown with all root notes (combining in the accidental) would be easier for the user. Better still would be just recognising the root note from the input string. Secondly, pressing enter in the text box doesn't activate the parse button, making it harder to test multiple inputs quickly.

  1604. musictheory 2017-09-16 01:20:52 AtActionPark-
    Awesome, thanks a lot! so, about those issues: - Slash chords are not yet recognized, thats on my todo list for sure. - "7#11" and "9#11". So there's my problem: I thought that when you wrote add#11, you only added the 11th. But if you wrote #11, you added the 7th, 9th and then a #11. Thats not the case then? IF I understand correctly, the only note that you add even if its not specified is always the 7th? Not sure if I'm very clear, sorry :) - yep, noticed it also. sus24 is also not recognized, I'll have to get back to that - I had never heard of the no notation, but it should be too hard to add - Ill add hdim (didnt know that was a notation). For the sharps and flats, thats also something I should have thought about ,will add it asap :) - About the interface, I completely agree. I made something very quickly to allow you guys helping test, but so far I was only building a library. I will allow recognizing the root note from the string for sure, and I'll keep that in mind for if I decide to make it into a fully fledged app. As usual, I start with a simple idea, with a single well defined purpose (just needed intervals for an ear training app initially), but I dont know how to stop :) Anyway, thanks a lot again for your time, that was really helpful!

  1605. musictheory 2017-09-16 08:06:14 Ian_Campbell
    That's not true, if you play an instrument where you can subtly adjust the pitch, which is every brass instrument, all unfretted string instruments, and the voice, that information provides harmonic context about the line you are playing and helps to tune chords better. Not only that but for instruments like piano it is just more coherent and helps demonstrate function to help phrasing.

  1606. musictheory 2017-09-17 09:08:56 kimjongbonjovi
    Bro, come on! Think about it for a minute: it has notes on the 15th and 14th frets *on the same string.* That's not pentatonic!

  1607. musictheory 2017-09-17 18:18:23 Jongtr
    > realistic within the context of a genre There's the criterion. The decision should be based on what is conventional in that genre. The better you know the genre, the better you should be able to decide if a slight deviation (like nylon-string guitar instead of steel-string) is either acceptable (sounds "interesting" or "fresh") or wrong (sounds "off" or "weird"). I suspect in almost all cases, the former would apply. (I know nothing about anime, but for the genres I know where steel-string is standard, the choice of nylon-string as a variation would be more positive than negative. More would applaud than object. In genres where the reverse applies, it might be different. More might object to steel-string being used for classical or flamenco music.) Of course, if you care more for your personal taste than the conventions of the genre, that's also OK! (and probably a better criterion :-) )

  1608. musictheory 2017-09-18 06:17:31 Korrun
    He initially was taught by his older brother (who was a student of Pachelbel's), but much of his learning came from studying music directly. He spent a lot of time studying Buxtehude and other german composed. I also read somewhere that early on he found some of Vivaldi's string music that he arranged for organ. I've never heard anyone crap on him for it. How else would you learn composition? What do jazzers recommend to learn improvisation? Transcribe transcribe transcribe. Every great musician became great by copying others whether Bach, Beethoven, Clapton or Coltrane.

  1609. musictheory 2017-09-18 10:42:42 The_uneffected
    Manuvering your way from the G string, across the B string and to the E string on the guitar.

  1610. musictheory 2017-09-19 10:55:25 catpelican
    There are so many instruments and bands it's actually impossible to make a list, and even the same instrument can sound totally different with a different setup! for the sake of posting something helpful i can suggest going through this playlist to get an idea of what classes of instruments have in common, and then going case by case when something curious pops up https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqR22EoucCyccs5J639SCefaM7mD9dMSz if he hears a sound of an unfamiliar instrument he should be able to tell which category it belongs to: Strings Brass Woodwinds Keyboard Percussion Once a class is established he can listen for hints on how it's played, when the performer messes up, what happens? is it a flute-like whistle? is the note inaccurate? then it has no frets! and so on Being able to name the instrument with precision can sometimes be very tricky, mistaking a cello for a viola da gamba is completely fine so i'll post 2 examples of things that took me for a wild ride https://youtu.be/W6H8WcTPnWM?t=40 the thing in the background that sounds like a whale was played in live versions too, so it wasn't a literal sampled whale attached to a midi keyboard, it sounds bowed but doesn't sound like a string, it can make glissing sounds on any register so it has no frets all the way through, my best guess was a fretless electric guitar played with an e-bow https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBow I was wrong! it was a musical saw, which i thought was only used to make spooky sounds in films https://youtu.be/Kmft674XPC0?t=14 and then there's this thing, that sounds like a brass but misbehaves like a woodwind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDz8A0LsiMk matching timbre with instrument class is all that a person can hope to achieve, in particular with electronic sounds, distinguishing a synth from an electric piano is enough, and even for effects these should be the extent -distortion -wah -flanger -phaser -vocoder good luck!

  1611. musictheory 2017-09-19 16:58:32 Jongtr
    Descending sequences tend to have a satisfying effect, probably because they emulate the natural force of gravity. The relaxation of tension is felt as a "lowering". There is a concept known as "tonal gravity", which describes the way the key chord in a sequence seems to draw the progression towards it, as the point of rest or stability. The word "cadence" itself derives from the Latin for "fall". In the V-I cadence, the leading tone (7th scale degree) ascends a semitone to the tonic, but the root falls by a perfect 5th. It can ascend by a 4th, but it fees more natural, more "final" if it descends by a 5th. Meanwhile the 7th of V7 descends by semitone to M3 of I (or by tone to m3 of i). If you string together a sequence of 7th chords where the roots all descend in 5ths (or ascend in 4ths) then the 3rd of each chord descends to the 7th of the next, and vice versa. This has a very appealing, relentless but gentle descent. It works with all kinds of 7ths: Em7 A7 Dmaj7 Dm7b5 G7 Cm7 F7 Bbmaj7 Bbm7 Eb7 Abm7 Db7 Gbmaj7 F#m7 B7 Emaj7 etc D > C# = C# = C = B = Bb > A = A > Ab > G > Gb > F = F > E > D# = D# G = G > F# > F = F > Eb = Eb > D > Db = Db > C > Cb > Bb > A = A > G# ">" = descent by tone or semitone. The roots go through the whole cycle of 5ths, and I've varied the 7ths at random between min7, (dom)7, maj7 and m7b5. As long as the roots always move in P5s down or P4s up (or stay the same while other chord tones descend), then you get that gentle descent between the guide tones (3rds and 7ths). The fact the chord types vary means the descents are staggered - some notes staying the same, some going down a semitone, some a tone - which keeps it interesting. If you were to string together dom7s alone, then the guide tones would step down semitone each time, which makes the relentless descent too even, and less appealing (although it works for 3 or 4 in a row). Try E7-A7-D7-G7-C7 etc and see how long it takes for it to get boring! Probably the first time you do it it will sound cool (go all the way round the 12-chord circle to end up where you began!), but you'll probably feel there's a limit to how many of those would sound in a song. Dave Brubeck's "In Your Own Sweet Way" managed to get the whole way round the circle. The roots in the A section managed 11 out of the 12 notes, saving the last one (E) for the bridge, which had a more varied sequence: [A] ||:Am7b5 D7 Gm7 C7 Cm7 F7 Bb7 Ebmaj7 Abm7 Db7 Gbmaj7 B7 F7 B7 Bb7 Eb6 :|| [B] Em7 A7 Dmaj7 - Em7 A7 Dmaj7 - Dm7 G7 Em7 A7 Dm7b5 Ab7 G7 Cm7 BTW, notice how Eb6 and Cm7 both go back to Am7b5 (to repeat the A section), by a simple descent of one chord tone: Bb > A. The other 3 chord tones are the same (Eb, C, G). Most jazz standards feature these kind of extended descending sequences, but I don't know any other one that took it to this extreme.

  1612. musictheory 2017-09-21 03:37:00 broodfood
    You can run it by a string player (or lacking that, /r/violinist) for their input. Context and speed will determine how playable it really is.

  1613. musictheory 2017-09-21 13:11:54 r_301_f
    I think you're on the right track! Here are some questions you might ask yourself - there aren't any right or wrong answers, just points to think about 1. Why is everyone playing the entire time? Does it have to be that way? 2. Do the string parts seem like they would be fun, engaging, or stimulating for the performer? 3. The measures leading up to 19 with the accel/rit seem the most interesting - what about them is "cool"? Just something technical - at measure 9, I'm not sure what you're going for with the mixed down bows and up bows, but it probably won't produce a result as effective as you might be imagining. If you want "sharp and accented" just use all down bows.

  1614. musictheory 2017-09-21 21:01:24 jesusofnazers
    The piano right hand is too random. The greatest music is made with only one or two motives or ideas that are expanded, not 50 ideas that you never hear again. Secondly, the string parts are much too boring. Consider each part as an actual musician's responsibility. Imagine performing one of the string parts by itself from start to finish. Block chords in string parts are not interesting to the listener or the musicians. Edit: Just to add a few things to help. In the strings, be inventive with rhythm and lines. You can take the first few notes of the piano part and simply use rhythmic or harmonic movement to turn block chords into something that truly "plays" or interacts with the other musical things going on. Each string part can be interactive in a different way, or divided into groups that change throughout. As for the right hand of the piano, think of every single note as an important event that has significance of some kind and a specific reason for being there. Don't just fill in space.

  1615. musictheory 2017-09-22 02:11:01 xiipaoc
    > When people invent things they usually start out creating relatively simple things then as the knowledge accumulates they move onto creating bigger and more complex things. Why do people still write limericks despite them being somewhat poetically simpler than, say, Homer's epics? Simplicity is part of the function of the work, not the technological advancement of the work. The thing is, pop music is *much* more complex than classical music. Classical music uses acoustic instruments, for example. Pop music uses some of those too, but it mostly uses electronic instruments. Any reasonably smart person can understand how a wind or string instrument works -- you make stuff vibrate, easy. But an electronic instrument requires basically a computer! It can still be analog, but circuits are complex, while shortening the effective length of a string with your finger is pretty damn simple. Pop music also depends on a method of distribution that's far more complex than classical music. Classical music would be published as scores for people to play or, well, played at concerts. Simple. Sheet music is actually less simple, which is probably why it took centuries to be developed. But then, audio recording was invented. Record players were invented. Better types of audio records were developed, to the point where you can store audio in a computer file; you don't even need a wax cylinder or a disc or a tape or anything! Well, there's an electronic disk somewhere (even if it's solid-state and doesn't actually spin, but anyway). So any idiot now can easily listen to a piece of music. There's infrastructure that allows this to happen. And said idiot *does* listen to music, which means that people who write music that the idiot can enjoy can make money selling it to the idiot. The economics are complex too! So while before only elites really had the chance to consume classical music (non-elites had their music too, though -- folk music, church music, bards, stuff like that), now non-elites have wide access to music and there's therefore a large contingent of people who will pay for simpler music, not more complex music. (I'm definitely not saying that people who like pop music are idiots! But people who are not smart, not "cultured", etc. still help drive the music industry, and they participate heavily in their own musical culture.) So yeah, it's not clear that classical music is more complex than pop music, except maybe in terms of compositional technique. In everything else, pop music is more complex.

  1616. musictheory 2017-09-22 11:02:43 Fransuez
    E string on the guitar, guitar has two E strings. On guitar you don’t play all the strings all the time becuase of fingering issues mostly.

  1617. musictheory 2017-09-22 14:21:55 rad_egg
    He means the string - he's referring to F#

  1618. musictheory 2017-09-23 01:07:12 Mushroom_Guru
    This is analogous to those who believe that string theory is the only thing being done in modern physics. Many still do traditional realism and are pushing the boundaries. One person I can think of is Graydon Parrish. As for the actual content of your comment, depends who you are talking to. We don't all have the same views. Here is an excellent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmxIK9p0SNM

  1619. musictheory 2017-09-23 02:44:23 tristong
    Within a year of learning guitar, I had developed enough technique to play in my schools jazz band, my problem was I couldn't read sheet music and was lacking knowledge. I tried to come up with a hybrid sheet music-guitar tab notation to help me get a better grasp. It helped for a little while but then I just learned some tricks and quit spending time with my odd-tab system. I would take grid paper, marked thick lines on each beat (leaving room for the appropriate amount of 16th notes), and use a column of six squares representing each string. Considering you are looking for notation for voice, this may not work for you. You could potentially adapt this method and ease yourself into sheet music. Good luck on your endeavours.

  1620. musictheory 2017-09-23 11:45:47 Amish_Pancake
    Scales.. Gotta be scales they help alot. I use backing tracks from Youtube, throw on some headphones turning it to a low/medium volume and play along. Use any backing in any key you want major or minor. The pentatonic scale is a great way to start in my opinion. After time working on scales you will improve alot. I can't begin to describe how essential listening to music while playing has helped me for it helps to stay in key, obtain a good tempo and become farmiliar with the notes. When you get good with the minor pentatonic you can go into the blues-minor pentatonic which just has one extra note and gives your solos alot more color. Then theres the full major scale, full minor scale, harmonic minor, major pentatonic and many more. But listen to backing tracks or have a buddy play a 2-4 chord progression. After playing scales for a while your speed improves, finger-movement and muscle memory become second nature you'll be able to play without looking at the fret board at times. Then it becomes a feel which is something only music can describe better than words. One way I approached this too was I stayed in one key for a few months only playing in the key of B minor. Staying in one key for that few months period of time allowed me to find the same patterns in other keys. D major is the same notes of B minor so if you get good with the B minor for example you can do the backing track in D major and already know where all the notes are, giving it a whole different sound. Couple tips. -**Stay** in key for a while, till you feel comfortable to do key changes/and or note changes. -**Practice** the scales ascending and descending. -**Vibratos**, bends can have alot of influence on a solo and add alot. Bend speed is important, how long you sustain that bend and how far you bend that string. -**Hammer-on, pull-off** can make your solos/improvisations sound faster and give it a different sound. -**All** notes in a scale pattern form different chords in that key. You'll start noticing the chords in those scale patterns. This goes for the piano as well. -**Playing slow** when learning a new song or scale playing it very slowly starting out is one of the best ways to learn in my opinion. Tempo can really make the same notes sound completely different Hope that helps, Best regards -Pancake

  1621. musictheory 2017-09-23 22:35:35 HammerAndSickled
    As someone who started with guitar and never learned to play piano well at all, here's how I visualize things: I always know where the tonic is in any key and I know intervals in relation to that. I know that a major third is either four frets up on the same string or one fret back on the next string, for example. The relative symmetry of keys on guitar is something of an advantage here, no matter what altered scale on what root I can figure it out by knowing the intervals from the root, and it means that borrowing non-diatonic notes is a lot easier for me than for a piano player (we're in G# and I want to add a b7, I just know where all the b7s are relative to G). I learned this from learning chord/scale/arpeggio patterns and after a while it just clicked and now I know what every interval is. What I DIDNT learn especially well from this method was note names. If you ask me what the 4th scale degree in F# major is it takes me a second to mentally translate it to "B" (that came from studying theory long after I learned my instrument) but on my instrument I could find every B in a heartbeat before I could tell you the name of the note. So I imagine there's advantages to both approaches.

  1622. musictheory 2017-09-24 00:09:19 Jongtr
    To add to mrclay's (correct) chords: The verse chords are (again in closest concert key): |G - C6 - |G/B - D5 - |G - C6 - |G/B - D5 - | |Cadd9/E - G/D - |Cadd9/E - G/D - |G/D - A/C# - |C - G - | That's as far as I've got. The "Cadd9/E" is the 4 notes E-C-G-D, so you could see it as one beat each of C and G. The "A/C#" has a D on top as last 8th note, but only because he's leaving the 2nd string open while changing to the next chord. The D5 has A bass on first beat. It's all key of G major apart from the A/C# of course, which acts (IMO) as a chromatic passing chord, rather than the secondary dominant function it would usually have.

  1623. musictheory 2017-09-24 04:59:38 [deleted]
    Different people learn in different ways, but *most* guitarists learn shapes before they learn note names (if they learn note names at all). I think what's happening is that because you started on keyboard, you're not thinking like the average guitarist (which is a good thing IMO :-) ). I'm trying like mad to learn to think in terms of notes, but still, I generally think in shapes. In your example, if I'm playing in E major, I can figure out where an E is on say the 5th string (usually we anchor on the 5th or 6th) and then I play the major scale shape around that not thinking too much about the note names. And to be totally honest, it's quite common to not even consciously know what key I'm playing in. I'll often find the root note by ear and just work from there by patterns. Back to your example, I know what a major third shape looks like and don't necessarily think about it being a G#. This is possible because you can play the same shapes in different keys, which is completely different than on the piano (different shape for every key!). It sounds like you need to embrace the guitarist mentality at least a little bit because it's so well suited to the instrument. Meaning, you should learn your interval and scale shapes and think of them as movable patterns rooted by a key. But you should also learn where all the notes are on the guitar so you can take advantage of your general music understanding. Unfortunately, this is a *much* more difficult task than on a piano, which is one of the major reasons guitarists tend to be less note name oriented. To give you an idea how big the challenge is, I've been playing guitar for over fifteen years and only occasionally dink around on keyboards, yet I can figure out note names on a piano just as fast if not faster than on a guitar...

  1624. musictheory 2017-09-25 07:30:20 JSW2K7
    Before I studied music at uni, I would write the band parts then throw some generic string/brass patches on top. Part of why I went to uni was so that I could write better symphonic 'popular' music. Now I would write the two at the same time, using the band as an element of orchestration just as much as the orchestra is. Saying that, I tend to write from the piano which makes the visualisation of parts clearer. For more riffy things, the guitar has to come out. It then gets transcribed to Sibelius or Guitar Pro, depending on how guitar based the music is. I would recommend 'Gateways' by Dimmu Borgir as listening, I love the use of tuned percussion on that track.

  1625. musictheory 2017-09-25 21:05:36 Jongtr
    Keyboard definitely. You need an instrument capable of chords, so guitar is OK, but piano (or even a cheap synth) is much better. You need no technique to play the notes - knowing which note is which is all you need. It's simply the ideal workbench for studying music theory. However, something like violin or (especially) a wind instrument like sax or flute - getting you out of your technical comfort zone - would be hugely useful for *other* reasons. It would force you to think about melody, timbre and expression far more than guitar needs you to. Personally, I'm also a self-taught guitarist, and taught myself piano along with violin, mandolin, banjo, ukulele, etc too as a teenager. Other string instruments are not much of a challenge to a guitarist (although bowing a violin is tough, as is learning to intonate correctly without frets...), and neither is piano - unless you want to play two-handed (not really necessary for study of theory). But I once tried saxophone (my gf played) and could barely get a note out of it. IOW, learn a wind instrument by all means, but don't expect it to help much with music theory (guitar is better).

  1626. musictheory 2017-09-26 14:03:47 nostra_damnus
    Just listened to his String Quartet No. 1; It's an incredible piece of music. It had a flowing quality that I really enjoyed. I'll definitely have to listen to more Hindemith.

  1627. musictheory 2017-09-26 22:25:24 bisectional
    Ok let's go through an example. Start on the low e string and play a "C" on the 8th fret (standard tuning, of course). Then play the 3rd fret to play a "G". Then the 10th to play a "D", then 5th fret for A. 12th for E, 7th fret for B, 2nd fret for F#, 9th for C#. Ok. Now play an Ionic major scale starting from the same notes and cycle through the process. One octave. If you write out what you play, the C has no sharps, g has 1, D has 2, A has 3, E has 4, B has 5, F# has 6, and C# has 7. Now go in the opposite way around the circle. This time you will move in 4ths. C, F, Bb, Eb, Ab, Db, Gb, Cb. Again, the number of flat notes increases by 1 each time you move a fourth. This is a very clean way to organise your practice. Want to play arpeggios? Learn modes? Now you can cycle them in 4ths or 5ths and realise which notes are flattened, or sharped. Hope this helps

  1628. musictheory 2017-09-26 23:02:06 wigglesnbass
    Will learning this stop making my fret board make my brain freeze and misfire every time I change tunings and have to understand where each note now exists. By each string? Because it gets overwhelming and I have to feel my way through it every single time to get my bearings and if I could just streamline the way my fretboard changes by tuning in an easier way without having to play the notes that would make me happy and feel so much more comfortable.

  1629. musictheory 2017-09-27 03:29:38 wigglesnbass
    Yes. I understand a piano better. Starting my open string in C feels more natural less confusing and its the way I think of the bass anyway. Like little keyboards stacked on top of eachother where I can change the positon of the keys? Only there are no obvious black keys to tell me where my sharps and flats are and I know where they are best pattern wise in the key of C. The circle, from what I understand, could potentially make me be able to visualize a way to look at my fretboard so identifying how my notes shift from tuning to tuning would make it less overwhelming. I am self taught. I am trying to relearn concepts and things I stopped caring about when I stopped playing music in school and dance took over my life as my focus. I play where I am comfortable playing. C1 sounds good to me on the bass, too. I'm not a classical musician. But I would love to read sheet music faster than I currently can or not be restricted by not understanding music theory. I am simply playing rock and roll on the bass and trying to improve. Most of us use tabs or our ear and don't see a point in learning theory to play our bass. Mostly because people tell us things like this that don't make practical sense. I need to play in the tuning that makes playing the song easier and more natural. Sometimes, playing a song composed in CFBbEb is near to impossible to play in EADG without it sounding funny. Most of the time you wind up playing C2 instead of C1 and there is an audible difference between the first C you play on the 8th fret because that's your octave 12th fret when you are tuned to C I use to accent the open note. vs the open string you play in C tuning that would be the meat of the bassline. Not beating the "Supa Scoopa" Kyuss issue but you hear that 12th fret octave used in the key of F to accent the open F you play in the bassline. That song played in standard on an A string would never sound "right". Trust me. Even when tuned to standard I play it in standard and it sounds like a joke. 000000000000000000 (F) 121212121212121212 (F2) 33333333333333 (Ab) 555555555555 (Bb) 2222222222 (F#) It took me way too long to figure out the second fret was a F#/Gb and Ab was my 3 and my Bb was my 5th fret, although I its silly because I already know my next string open is a Bb. But for some reason I can't lay it out in my head *fast enough* without referencing piano keys....and I have to look at a piano to figure it out. Sometimes when I change tunings where I have to do this my brain seems to just get overwhelmed x4. I always assumed it would get better with time. Forget the circle. I'm tired of trying to explain it to other people I am just going to make a flashcard game in my head or repetitively punish myself by spending all afternoon writing which note is on which fret by tuning until I can't forget it like I put myself in music detention. I can fix it on my own. I appreciate you trying to help me. Sorry I am an ungraceful neanderthal who didn't learn music theory before I played rock and roll.

  1630. musictheory 2017-09-27 14:11:38 gotthattrans
    I always heard (calling 6th string "E" even though it's tuned down a half step) F and C♯ as key centers. Also the "E5" isn't really E5, it's all open strings (typically EAD it seems, maybe EADG or just EA at times).

  1631. musictheory 2017-09-27 16:52:11 Jongtr
    > Starting my open string in C feels more natural less confusing and its the way I think of the bass anyway. Your tuning shouldn't make any difference to how you understand theory, you just need to know which note is which. The patterns up one string are fixed - like a keyboard, as you say, except the "white and black" notes are all equal. It's only the patterns from string to string that change according to the tuning. That's why you should stick to one tuning, or you just confuse yourself. The only issue with choosing an unorthodox tuning would be understanding any theory text aimed at guitarists or bassists that assumes standard tuning and uses tab. > I need to play in the tuning that makes playing the song easier and more natural. No you don't. Do you really think most bass players change their tuning from song to song? (Guitarists do sometimes - although rarely - but that's because they need certain chord shapes unavailable in other tunings. And these tend to be solo folk guitarists anyway, not rock players.) You don't play chords on the bass. Or do you?? > playing a song composed in CFBbEb is near to impossible to play in EADG without it sounding funny. Well yes, in that you won't get those low notes below E. (No reason for it to "sound funny", it's just about having all the notes you need available.) So why not stay in C F Bb Eb? Any song where the bass was in EADG just means you'd play everything 4 frets higher than the original. And you could use a capo if that meant too many fretted notes. > Not beating the "Supa Scoopa" Kyuss issue but you hear that 12th fret octave used in the key of F to accent the open F you play in the bassline. That song played in standard on an A string would never sound "right". Trust me. Even when tuned to standard I play it in standard and it sounds like a joke. Well, in EADG you'd have to play it with the F on fret 1 of the E and fret 3 of the D. I can see that would be *tougher*, especially at a fast speed. If it sounds "like a joke", though, that's a reflection on your technical skill, not the tuning. I'm not saying tuning to C F Bb Eb to make it easier is a "cheat". I might do the same if I was playing that tune - *and if I had to play it in the original key.* (The key the song is performed in is the choice of whoever is singing it or playing it; the original key is not sacred.) Or - if the bass notes didn't go below F - I might just stay in EADG and use a capo on fret 1 to get F as the open 4th string. > It took me way too long to figure out the second fret was a F#/Gb Except it isn't. If the open string is F, then fret 2 is G. F#/Gb is fret 1. You just need to learn your notes, simple as that. No harm in referring to piano if it helps, but eventually you just need to know the notes directly on the fretboard. It will come with practice - or it will if you stop changing your tuning all the time! ;-) Seriously, stay in C F Bb Eb, if you like that sound and it suits most of the songs you play. Learn the notes on each fret in that tuning. If you ever have to play a tabbed bass part in EADG, just put a capo on fret 4 and count 4 as 0. The better you know the notes in one tuning, the easier it will be to adjust if you use a different tuning. Especially if the other tuning is also in 4ths, because then the patterns across the strings will be the same, everything just moves up or down the fretboard.

  1632. musictheory 2017-09-28 04:40:24 Ian_Campbell
    Hopefully you have the Mann book on fugues, that is a good resource. I also have found pdfs of Schenker counterpoint, Salzer counterpoint, Jeppeson 16th century counterpoint which is actually public domain on archive.org, Fux Gradus ad Parnassum, some for analyzing the WTC, and some others. I have yet to get far through them but I think they'll have many insights. Also if really interested in fugues that make it work while doing very exploratory things, I would recommend looking at Beethoven string quartet 14 movement 1. Often when I hear more modern fugues they'll break apart at a certain point in a way that seems like a transparent abandonment of the exposition but Beethoven here is a great example of someone integrating the fugal process adaptably imo. For instance at 6:30 the music is just pure drama as if a more free style and yet the subject is in augmentation in the bottom voice. https://youtu.be/WlFYC1U5viw

  1633. musictheory 2017-09-28 08:00:57 The_String_Vibrates
    Thank you, I was sitting around few years ago messing around with one string scales. Started with an open E and found this exotic scale I really liked the sound of. later discovered it was a Harmonic Minor. Ever since then it has really expanded alot of my playing. I play quite a bit and usually find out cool sounds I like then come to find out they have already been discovered, which figures since music has been around since the dawn of time 😊

  1634. musictheory 2017-09-28 10:37:24 KyleStevins
    I highly doubt that the ability to pluck a string and read tabs make someone a great songwriter. The ability to pick out harmonies and realize exactly what makes them tick and how it affects the listener makes a good songwriter. It seems you won't give me an actual answer but instead tell me to get good at doing something flawed (which is play under "inspiration" and come up with chord progressions out of improv). I asked r/musictheory because I know there is more to music than just a bunch of idiots woefully plucking strings and hoping that they have "talent". but what you're telling me is exactly that. that music can't be understood and it's best to leave it to the "talented".

  1635. musictheory 2017-09-28 11:13:12 Amish_Pancake
    I believe it comes from the feeling of it. You mentioned you played Jazz and listen to Nirvana and David Gilmour which is awesome both are unique in their style of music. Metal is great too. One thing that has helped me is switching tunings to get some unique sounds. Classical music has helped immensely as well. I'll make up my own chords although i'm sure 99% of them have been discovered already. Most people play in key too which is great but when i'm coming up with stuff I won't even worry if i'm in key or not. If my ear likes the sound of it i'll keep it memorizing these chords then put them together with the ones I like. Listen to metal one day, rock on another, classical the next day. Country, Flamenco, Jazzy blues. Vitamin string quartet's improvisations of pop songs are great. There honestly isn't no song I don't like execpt for main stream repeatative rap/hip-hop. Maybe even try switching to the exotic scales. And listening to music from other countries. These things has helped me improve. Notice when watching many musicians playing live they will close their eyes and open their mouths at times when doing instrumentals that shows that they are feeling the music and getting into it, this is the **key**

  1636. musictheory 2017-09-30 16:21:33 MiskyWilkshake
    The Bbb is achieved by screaming at the instrument so loudly and for so long that the wood warps and the string is slackened slightly. You have to be sure to scream at exactly the right pitch so as not to detune any of the other strings.

  1637. musictheory 2017-09-30 18:23:22 ts73737
    This is the right answer. It's used a lot even in modern music too. On guitar it's very common, e.g. in metal doing it with a low note on the E string.

  1638. musictheory 2017-09-30 22:30:49 fizzd
    nice! the open string violin tunings of GDAE is another handy reference that is burned into me heh.

  1639. musictheory 2017-10-01 09:17:35 Tykenolm
    I'm just curious, how come string players tune with an A but woodwind and brass tune with a Bb?

  1640. musictheory 2017-10-01 11:11:31 cutethaboot
    With the capo what chords are being used here :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXwE1G7_U9M Also can someone help me with the strumming pattern the G string keeps confusing me

  1641. musictheory 2017-10-01 13:39:05 no_di
    This might be of use! https://youtu.be/ETGhduIhGIE Another way to learn would be simply by analyzing the string parts you like and see what they do and how they do it. Transcribe them! MuseScore2 is a fantastic program for transcription.

  1642. musictheory 2017-10-01 14:57:38 IdiotII
    We had a guy fill in as a bassist for my ska band a few years back. He had great pitch memory, and got there by memorizing a song in each key, and was always spot on when it was quiet. I had to let him know between songs during a gig that his e string was almost a third flat, lol. Granted, we were a very loud band, and the sound at this particular club was horrible.

  1643. musictheory 2017-10-01 15:09:51 mladjiraf
    You should know ranges, what is playable and what is not playable, idiomatic writing, techniques. I don't want to discourage you, but learning this takes years unless you have photographic memory (so you can just read all this and remember it) and natural composing talent. Here you are some options for learning. http://www.alexanderpublishing.com/Products/Writing-For-Strings-Course--Complete-Edition-With-Text-and-More__AU-WFS-Home-spc-Study-Complete.aspx http://books.wwnorton.com/books/webad.aspx?id=4294990314 https://www.askvideo.com/course/orchestration-the-string-section

  1644. musictheory 2017-10-02 01:43:15 theoriemeister
    There are already some good points on here. My one recommendation: after you've finished your arrangement, take it to an actual string player and ask him/her to look it over. They'll be quick to point out awkward spots in your chart and can offer alternatives.

  1645. musictheory 2017-10-02 17:48:10 Jongtr
    If you really play it like that, in 3/4, tapping your foot 3 times per bar, that's your personal take on it. Most other people hear it as 6/8, two beats in each bar. IOW, this is *precisely* about "all the quarter note eighth note stuff", because that's how the way we feel it is notated. We (most of us IME) feel the beat at around 80 bpm - two beat per bar (per chord), and hear that the beats divide into 3 (triplets). The way we notate that is 6/8, i.e.., two pairs of 3/8 in each bar. The tempo (speed) is a different matter. But let's say you're playing it in 3/4 at 123 bpm, that will sound the same as 6/8 played at at 82 (to be precise, not 81). The same speed in terms of *notes* per minute, that is. But the accent pattern will be different. In the first bar, you would be accenting (or feeling the beats as) the low A and the two Cs (2nd string). The rest of us would feel the beats as the A and the top E. And in the notation the notes would be grouped in two sets: the first 4 all beamed together and the last 3 beamed together. Have you listened to the [Animals' original] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sB3Fjw3Uvc) (I mean the original source of the guitar pattern not the song itself)? That ought to make it clear how the beat works. Personally I find that very hard to hear in 3/4. It's 6/8 at around 80-81. This doesn't mean you can't change the rhythm and play it as 3/4 if you want - it's an interesting alternative approach.

  1646. musictheory 2017-10-03 06:36:16 Jongtr
    The modal mixture means it's not one mode. The chord roots suggest aeolian, but of course the major I casts a whole other light on it. "Plagal motion" means roots descending in 4ths. IV-I is a plagal cadence, or "amen cadence", very common in rock music, and the double plagal cadence (bVII-bVI-I, such as D-A-E in key of E) is a rock staple. So in terms of chords, this tune has a standard heavy rock chord progression! The "ethereal" quality is therefore nothing (or very little) to do with the chord sequence. It's all down to the string arrangement, and the extreme reverb on the vocal. The main repeated I-bVI alternation is distinctive - *not* a conventional rock thing - and that does lend it a useful ambiguity or drama. A similar I-bVI alternation is in the opening of the [Goldfinger theme] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D1nK7q2i8I) (E and C major chords), and - to show how little this chord change governs the mood of a tune - E and C major also alternate in Carl Perkins' rockabilly tune [Honey Don't] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVnSb2drVJw&t=7) (covered by the Beatles). Jimi Hendrix also like the switch from tonic major to bVI - [Voodoo Chile] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZBlqcbpmxY&t=101). I-bVI certainly has dramatic power, but *mood* is governed much more by other factors.

  1647. musictheory 2017-10-03 07:38:01 gustavflowbert
    Edit: Joshua beat me to the punch, please ignore. I think what you heard about adding notes to the end of chords is probably referring to 7th chords. You will probably learn these later. In a G minor chord you are only playing G B♭ D, even on the guitar. The difference is only that when you voice it on a six string instrument you triple the G and double the D, voicing them in different octaves. This does not change the chord at all. The same is true for all chords, you can add as many octaves as you want and it will remain the same chord. For example C - E - G is C major. C4-E4-G4-C5-G5-E6-G7 would still be C major.

  1648. musictheory 2017-10-03 08:14:59 PlazaOne
    This is about how the same *chord* can be built using different *voicings*. So while G minor requires all three notes: G (root), Bb (minor third) and D (fifth), it will always still be G minor with just those three notes. Unisons and octaves won't change it to another chord, only the adding of another different tone, or deleting one, or swapping out one would change the chord *name*. You could just play the top three adjacent strings at the third fret, and that is a G minor, but might sound a bit thin so you could add more body and weight by playing a barre form of E minor shape. Or, as one of many alternatives, you could play an A minor shape with a barre at the 10th fret, but learning shapes beyond the 5th fret is sometimes harder to find online. Try thinking of your D Major and D minor shapes for open chords, then move those up and down the neck while just picking or strumming those three strings. Be aware which is the root note (the middle one, on the 2nd string) the Major or minor third (the top string) and the fifth (the 4th string). Then swap shapes, so you can go D Major, E minor, F# minor, G Major, A Major, B minor. A great way of adding lighter passages into songs. You can do the same manoeuvre with other sets of three strings, once you figure out the fingerings.

  1649. musictheory 2017-10-04 02:41:44 the-postminimalist
    On the topic of ideas, and just expanding your horizons: If you're interested in taking what you like and bringing some original style to it, I'd suggest listening to modern composers who compose around the styles you enjoy. You mentioned being a Bach enthusiast, so a composer that popped into mind is Alfred Schnittke. I believe he was a string player (not sure which one). His main thing is morphing baroque music with a more modern style. He'll often mix multiple scales together in a thing called polytonality. Here's one of my favourites by him (I timestamped it to start at the 5th movement): https://youtu.be/yaaRk0c-780?t=18m40s I've timestamped it to right before the fifth movement, since the main theme actually starts at the end of the previous movement. You can see how he mixes the baroque style into his own thing. He also liked making his music a little humerous at times. If you want any help on actually getting started in writing, I could help you out. I'm aiming to go towards a professorship so I'm always down to listen to others' works and give them new things to think about. Or even just simple "what do I do now?" things, if that's what you're looking for.

  1650. musictheory 2017-10-04 06:21:34 Vulguero
    Actually listen. A lot of people get hung up on technique. I've literally seen people who can sweep pick, but can't tune a guitar by ear. Think about that. While you're tuning, using a tuner, actually listen to the pitches of each string when it's in tune. It will burn into your brain. Then listen to the songs you learn. Actually listen. Then go on YouTube, or get an app to learn about intervals. Some folks are born gifted, and some like me take forever. I was literally told I was tone deaf as a child. I'm not. It just took longer. Your ear will get better.

  1651. musictheory 2017-10-06 03:26:28 MiskyWilkshake
    Well, it depends what you want them to do. You often see string quartets which are entirely polyphonic, with everybody playing melodies of equal importance, and you also often see the violins playing the main melody and a countermelody while the viola and cello support. It's entirely up to you, and that's the beauty of such a balanced ensemble. Likely you'll want to change it up mid piece and explore multiple different textures and roles.

  1652. musictheory 2017-10-06 03:32:04 Zac_TheDude
    One more thing, I don't play any string instruments except violin. Is there anything I should know about the difficulty of stuff on instruments? I know range but I don't want to write something unplayable

  1653. musictheory 2017-10-06 04:07:12 octatonic_formula
    Why limit the bass to oom pah oom pah? Your question is more a matter of musical texture. String quartet can obviously do all types. It's at your service...Know how to write for strings in general (phrasing, bowing, harmonics, double stops, etc, ), and know their ranges and fingerings.

  1654. musictheory 2017-10-06 04:47:50 65TwinReverbRI
    Assuming you're able to read music, have a look at Haydn's String Quartets - he's really the father of the genre. But you can also look at early Haydn Symphonies or even other earlier "Sinfonia". Early on, many of these pieces have a pretty simple distribution - Violin1 takes the melody, Violin 2 and Viola take the harmony (inner voices) and Cello takes the bass. But as they go on, you see a wonderful diversity in approaches. For example sometimes a melody is accompanied by just a single line (like 2 part counterpoint) and the Violins will take the melody together and the Cello and Viola will double the lower part (in 8ves a lot of times). So variations are endless - I suggest the Haydn because it starts kind of simple (but like Vivaldi Concerti are also instructive). If you start with Mozart or Beethoven Quartets, they're already sort of highly virtuosic. So I think it will be easier to get some "starter ideas" and "jumping off points" from the earlier and simpler forms.

  1655. musictheory 2017-10-06 05:20:56 65TwinReverbRI
    Wow, OK let me see if I can tackle this. 1. Back when I was a kid, when I walked barefoot to school and all that, we didn't "plan to learn an instrument" then go somewhere asking a lot of questions about it. We just jumped in feet first!!! 2. Yes, "A Major" or "A minor" describe, among other things, a scale (they also describe a chord, and a key). Think of a scale as a set of letters - like you might draw in Scrabble - that you can make "words" from (melodies, chords, etc.). That's a gross oversimplification but since you're sort of putting the cart before the horse here, just trust me when I say that it will become clear as you learn. 3. Guitar has 6 strings. Each string can be tuned wherever you like, though there is a standard. But you could tune 1 string to E and another string to the exact same E and each string would have E in the same place. It's no different then if two guitars are playing. But usually, in standard tuning, the 2nd E is on a different string in a different place because it's tuned to a different starting note. Some notes are simply available on more than one string on the guitar. It gives you an additional way to play it. While learning this might at first seem confusing, but it's actually a good thing because it opens up options for playing the same thing multiple ways. 4. The number of times per second a string vibrates determines its frequency. Really, they're infinite, but we've assigned letter names to certain frequencies. So "A-440" which is a tuning standard, means that an A note is tuned to 440 cycles per second (or "Hertz", Hz). A scale is a COLLECTION OF NOTES. So an E scale contains 7 notes, and an A scale contains 7 notes as well. They share between them 6 notes and they are exactly the same notes (in standard tuning schemes). So the note B appears both in the E scale and A scale (I'm talking Major scales here) and it's the same exact note in both scales. It would be tuned to the same exact frequency. However - this goes back to the previous one - there are also "octave equivalents" of notes. "octa-" for 8 because there are 7 notes in a scale and they repeat at the 8th note: A-B-C-D-E-F-G-A - so the last A in that series is typically assumed to be an Octave above the first A. It is DOUBLE the frequency now. So if the first A was 110, then the last one would be 220. We use the same NAME for these two notes but we way they're "in different octaves" and they are written differently on the musical staff (side note, many people try to learn guitar without being able to read music and this is a HUGE reason why they don't "get" a lot of stuff that reading music actually helps answer). My previous example used two of the EXACT SAME PITCH (frequency) on two different strings. But your brother may have shown you something that was an octave lower. For example, the lowest string on a guitar is tuned to E, and so is the highest string. But the highest E is two octaves higher than the lower one. And, you can play the same E as the high E on the 2nd string 5th fret. It all sounds very confusing but again, once you start playing it can make more sense (but sometimes you still may need help understanding it so don't be afraid to ask when you start getting a handle on it). 5. Huge can of worms here, deserving of its own post. Simply put, Chords are different notes sounding together at the same time. They did originate because people felt certain combinations of notes "sounded good together". There are all kinds of reasons, and many people fall prey to pseudo-science here, and you see huge arguments online with people who don't actually understand it arguing like they do on Facebook. If you're looking to learn to play guitar, just learn the chords, and worry about the "why" later! The real answer is that essentially they "discovered" what notes sounded good together by trial and error, but once they figured them out, could then predict what would sound good together. However, what "sounds good" actually changed over time - for people in the year 1300, some collections of notes "sounded good" to them, but they no longer got used in the 1700s. There were chords used in the 1900s that people in the 1700s would have just said were completely wrong. So it's kind of like "Googled". Can a made up word that is really a noun be used as a verb? Too late, wrong or right, we did it! Guitar players often focus on chords - it's the bread and butter of what we play. And you're just playing multiple different notes together (though there are things you can do like pick notes of a chord individually, spread out over time). Again these things will become clearer the more you play (but it is a common question so don't feel bad or anything). 6. Harmonics on guitar typically mean a note (pitch) that is played by forcing the string to divide into smaller segments. This happens when you touch a "harmonic node". For example, if you touch a string at 1/2 its length, it divides the string in half, which causes a "harmonic" to be produced which is twice the frequency (an octave higher) than the original note. However, the "textbook" definition of "harmonic(s)" in relation to soundwaves are overtones in compound waves that are specifically integer (whole number) ratios of the fundamental (the original string length). This is a complex subject that gets into acoustics which is fascinating but is more about how *sound* is produced rather than how *music* is produced (although again, there are those who firmly hold that the two are far more closely related than they really are). 7. But again I want to remind you, you don't need to be in any ballpark to jump in. Just jump in. I didn't know ANY of this stuff before starting (I take that back, I knew a little because I had taken piano - but I didn't know it before piano, and didn't know what harmonics were before I took guitar). In essence, you're over-thinking it. 8. DO NOT READ ANY BOOKS. DO NOT READ ANYTHING ON THE INTERNET!!!! You can't even trust my answers, correct though they may be - because I can't possibly give you exhaustive answers. But do do exactly what you're doing here - asking others for information. GET A TEACHER. Go take guitar lessons. There are only a very few specific types of people who are successful learning an instrument by asking a bunch of questions first, worrying too much about stuff not really relevant to *playing* guitar, and who learn from books and videos. Most people are not that type of person. They do much better with one on one interaction (though I'll admit some videos are very good, but they're still no substitute for a real person you can ask questions of). Go get a guitar, get a teacher and take lessons. If your brother knows some stuff, get him to help you as well. Good Luck, and I hope that helped to answer some of your questions - but as I said, some of them are really huge topics - you can google a lot of it and learn about it but honestly, if you want to play guitar, PLAY GUITAR! The other nitty gritty details can come later. You gotta get your fingers on it and make some sounds long before you start worrying about what kind of waveform it's making!!!

  1656. musictheory 2017-10-06 05:22:46 SobbryK
    Yo man. So yeah, a scale is basically a set of notes. They have specific relationships with each other, a predefined set of 'gaps' in between them. The letter tells you the note the scale starts on, then major or minor tells you what set of gaps you play. That's it in a nutshell, but look up some scales and practice them to get your ear around them, the most important thing is to hear the stuff. Major has a happy sound, minor has a sad sound, though there's a lot more complexity to it than that really! You have multiples of the same note because you can have a note in any 'octave', so called for the eight notes in most scales. If you think of doh a deer, that song goes through a major scale, doh rey mi fa so la ti doh. You might notice it begins and ends on doh, that's the same note but in a different octave, it's higher, but it's still a C or a D, etc. If you want a practical example, think about the song 'Lounge Act' by Nirvana. The last verse and chorus are higher in pitch, but they're the same notes, it's the same melody, just up an octave. A chord is three or more notes played together. Why it is what it is is actually a lot more complicated than you might expect, and goes back to ancient Greece, involves mathematical operations on a length of wire, a lot of figuring out ratios and in the Western world, fudging the numbers a little. But really we hear these things similarly regardless of how we get to them. To say it's based in theory is a bit of a red herring, the theory is the language that built up around what we've been doing with our ears and voices long before we could formualte any theory. Theory is description really. You wouldn't say the motion of planets was based in the math that describes their motion. Yes, you do eventually know what chords sound like before you play them etc. and can figure out that they do based on theory. Frequencies matching up is correct in a way, but again it's complex. It's more about how the frequencies match up relationally, how the frequency of one note relates to the frequency of the other note, it is super complex to be honest, just get to playing chords and listening to them, an understanding will come. The short answer is that there are reasons why chords are what they are, yes, and if you needed to figure out what chords would work, what notes work together, you could do it with maths and not listening to a thing if you wanted. But that'd be missing the point, right? With harmonics, I can only talk for stringed instruments. Strings vibrate with particular patterns and shapes depending on the note played. When a note is played on a stringed instrument, technically, you're hearing a lot of different frequencies together. At different points on the string, you can dampen it with your finger and stop it from vibrating a particular way, so you isolate particular frequencies and get a very high pitched sound.

  1657. musictheory 2017-10-06 05:23:53 tbaldwin94
    The YouTube Channel OrchestrationOnline with Thomas Goss has a pretty wonderful overview of writing for Strings. His method involves developing an idea of what each instrument does by itself, and then building on that. He begins by challenging a student to study works of and then write for solo violin, moving later on into cello, violin and cello, etc, slowly working up to the string quartet. The method is much slower than diving into quartet writing right away, but it gives one time to understand the character, role, and limitations of each instrument, and how they work together. https://youtu.be/xc5p6Ad2WUE

  1658. musictheory 2017-10-06 05:25:28 tbaldwin94
    Here is the string quartet lesson for reference. https://youtu.be/2MzmbX8FBiI

  1659. musictheory 2017-10-06 08:03:04 bookworm25
    Exactly! The Haydn formula (melody/harmony/harmony*/bass) is probably the "plain vanilla" of string writing, but there are SO MANY possible textures. *I would say viola typically defines the energy with rhythmic texture as well, which is what makes its parts more of a bridge between the violins and the cello.

  1660. musictheory 2017-10-06 09:09:10 lusterwill
    Find some scores to string quartets you like and study them, they will tell you more than words will about how to write for that instrumentation.

  1661. musictheory 2017-10-06 10:10:34 wrigh003
    Scales are just intervallic separations of tones. Western music divides, usually, into 12 possible tones to make up the scale, of which a scale usually takes/uses 8 (one **oct**ave). Multiples of the same notes, especially on a guitar, could be either the same note expressed on a different string, or the "same" note one to several octaves up or down. Notes- think of A (the note, A) being 440hz. One octave up is 880hz, two up is 1760hz. One down is 220, another down is 110. Below that you're not likely hearing. So- yes. The same note is just a multiple of the frequency. Chords are specific arrangements of intervals, and yeah- at first they were probably just notes that sounded good together. Over time, as music became more sophisticated, the degree of complexity increased. The same chord (maj7, #7b9, min13, etc) can be expressed in every scale, as it's the same arrangement of notes. Basically. Later you'll learn about inversions- the same notes but then moved around/ flipped over. Hope all that helps. For guitar, I really liked Ted Green's "Chord Chemistry" as a resource. It's an old one, but it's good at showing you through about a zillion different chords, talking about how they fit together, etc. It's dense as hell, but there's a LOT of info i it. I should probably take another run at it nowadays with the added power of the internet and all the associated forums, etc., that exist now. Source: musician for 25 years. Mostly guitar, but my early music learning was in the school band.

  1662. musictheory 2017-10-06 11:19:20 theoriemeister
    As to your first point, you usually won't find the N6 resolve directly to I at a cadence because it lacks a leading tone and has no common tone with the tonic chord, as would be the case in a plagal cadence. In Mozart's Piano sonata, K. 310/I (mm. 107-10) the N6 acts as a neighbor chord to i6. The progression is: i^6 - N^6 - i^6 - ii^7 - V^7 - i. As some of the other comments have pointed out, you can find a Gr+6 chord with b2 as the bass note, which the resolves directly to I. Most authors treat this use as a type of +6 that resolves to a scale degree other than the typical dominant pitch. The very final chords of Schubert's C major string quintet (D. ?) does this.

  1663. musictheory 2017-10-06 13:01:59 -fd-
    String quartets are often conversations between two players, with the other two playing either chordal rhythms or harmonies. The conversation can be between any two players, but often the cello does play the bass and the viola or second violin often add a more rhythmic aspect to the chords. Like rhythm guitar would.

  1664. musictheory 2017-10-06 23:12:15 foo_foo_the_snoo
    Sounds like your tonic is D major. But see how you've got notes on that B string at the 9, 10,11, and 12th frets? No scale has all those notes in a row but the chromatic scale. My suggestion is leave the third out of the chords altogether, making them power chords. Now you've got an implied D major, E minor and F# minor, all squarely in the key of D. There are no wrong notes though, if you like the way they sound. Theory just helps us explain what's going on. The notes on the 9th and 11th fret of the B string are outside of the D major scale, but it doesn't really matter. It's your riff.

  1665. musictheory 2017-10-07 03:50:04 DRL47
    Frets on a guitar (one on each string, x for nothing on that string).

  1666. musictheory 2017-10-07 06:33:35 knowledgelover94
    Intervals that are 3,4, and 5 frets away sound good! (Both directions, up and down). That's really all you need to know. Stack different combinations of these three intervals. The interval between a note on one fret and a note on the same fret the string below is equivalent to 5 frets (or 5 semi tones). The exception is between the G and B string which is equivalent to 4 frets/semitones.

  1667. musictheory 2017-10-08 21:27:21 TrebleStrings
    If you learn to play another instrument, it should be one you want to play, not one you think will be good for learning theory. You won't be motivated to play something that does not interest you. You can study music theory on any instrument because all you really need is application for concepts you are studying away from the instrument, and once you have the basics of theory, you can then apply that to guitar. If you learn another instrument, take lessons. Especially with violin, given the subtle technique issues that can creep up on you and the higher risk of injury because of the awkward way that you hold it, a teacher is absolutely necessary, whether or not you can learn to scratch out a few tunes without one. Sax, flute, and other wind instruments don't really have any connection to string instruments, so your existing knowledge won't transfer, and that might be a good thing. However, you need to learn how to breathe and how to shape your mouth, and again, that is best going to be done in person with an instructor rather than from books and videos. Another option is to stick with guitar and take a music theory class. Sometimes, paying for a class is a greater motivator to learn than trying to figure things out on your own.

  1668. musictheory 2017-10-09 13:50:27 spoonopoulos
    There isn’t really anything there rhythmically that I would call “college level”, and I *love* meshuggah. The rhythmic content is generally pretty straightforward - I played through a lot of their stuff as an angsty 8-string-wielding teenager years before college. I think the really interesting things about meshuggah have to do with phrasing, timbre, structure, etc.

  1669. musictheory 2017-10-09 23:46:19 65TwinReverbRI
    Two things: Temperment is, if you like, the "fine tuning" of notes to make them "in tune" with various, er, things. Those things are really the preferences of the time. Many people see the Overtone Series as some sort of "natural law" because it is based on physics. Over the centuries there have been attempts to "reconcile" tuning with our scale. The problem is, the scale actually didn't evolve from any physics (or if it did, it was very indirectly) and was more a matter of "artistic choice" and "taste" over the eons. So we have these 12 chromatic notes, and we want to "close" it at the octave because that's a doubling of frequency (or 2:1 ratio, which the Greeks really liked since it was so mathematically loveable). But we have other notes in there we also want to adhere to various things - for the followers of Pythagoras, it was "perfect ratios" (which do happen to line up with the overtone series). But in attempting to "ratio out" all the notes, and close the system, a discrepancy occurs (the Pythagorean Comma) and over the centuries different temperaments have been developed to try to accommodate this discrepancy. Mean tone temperament, "Well-Tempered", to what we use now - 12 Tone Equal Temperament. We simply tune the octave into 12 equal half steps and damn the torpedoes if they're not "in tune" with the overtone series. So some people say 12TET is "mathematically incorrect" because it does not adhere to the tuning derived from the overtone series. However, the reason we devised this tuning was an *artistic* one - we wanted to be able to play in all keys. As tonal music evolved, the need to play in more keys overrode the need for any one key to be "in tune" with what is essentially as far as *art* is concerned, and abstract concept. Now, a piano is also not even really tuned to 12TET! Piano tuners use "stretch" tuning. This is because of *inharmonicity*. The nodes of a string - which occupy physcial space, subtract length from the overtones making each one a little bit higher in pitch of what they "should" be in a perfect mathematical situation. So a piano tuner doesn't tune the octave above to exactly double the frequency. They instead (a good one anyway) tune the octave to the OVERTONE of the lower note, which means it's a bit sharp and thus the octave is "stretched". So over the course of tuning the piano, the lower notes are flatter than they should be, and the higher notes are sharper than they should be in sort of an exponential curve with only the center being "in tune" (and that is not "in tune" with the overtone series to begin with because it's 12TET rather than Pythagorean tuning!). Our piano tuner (the person) at our university has a piano tuner (a device) that can actually read the inharmonicity of each note. It actually turns out this varies from instrument to instrument and he's able to store different pianos in the device so when he goes to Piano Teacher X's house to tune their piano, he can quickly recall the "preset" for theirs and tune. As to your last point, you're not stupid. I think we as humans have a natural tendency to want to explain things in ways that make sense and mean things to us. And you are right, there are absolutely well-defined elements that can be directly described mathematically. There are two Whole Tone Scales - C-D-E-F#-G#-A# and Db-Eb-F-G-A-B - any other whole tone scale is simply a repeat of one of those. There are 12 chromatic notes. And there is actually a mathematical formula that can be use to generate two equally spaced 6 note groupings from 12 notes, or describe it. But most musicians don't think that way unless they are way into math! But "likes" are subjective. It's harder to understand for people because we like to think we have free will, but very often your likes and dislikes are formed very early in your life. There's also something known as "the mere exposure effect" where simply being exposed to something in a certain context will cause you to like it, or think more highly of it, etc. There's many a person who's been told that X is the greatest piece of music ever, and they listen to it with that "prejudice" going into it, and either agree it's the greatest as well, or they hate it just to be contrarian! Maybe on some very remote level we can break that down into mathematical formulas but the reality - or at least maybe, the more practical side of it is that "we like what we like because we've been conditioned to like it by forces we may not even be aware of". Not all the time of course, but a lot. If anything, "scientific method" should tell us that going in with a hypothesis like "The Major Scale sounds good because it is mathematically perfect" usually leads to a person finding evidence that supports that theory. If you look at how the Major Scale evolved (as an example), its history is pretty clear and trying to "reverse engineer" it to explain it another way - while seemingly convincing - is not necessarily based in fact.

  1670. musictheory 2017-10-10 03:17:33 octatonic_formula
    > musical pitches don't exist in nature There's the sound of the big bang, http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/BigBang/Planck_2013/BBSnd100.wav which does seem to have pitch. To make a sound wave have musical pitch, as we discuss here, requires 1) a constricted vibrating body (a stopped string, a pocket to capitate air, etc), so that 2) the vibration passes back and forth between the two held ends, with the interference pattern of the interesting waves being 3) the mathematically special harmonic series. I would say this happens fairly often. I don't understand the physics behind the big bang tone, or how they constructed that, but it seems like it has pitch. Wind howling over mountains, and trees, often produces pitch. And, as you mention, their are the harmonic partials of tones, which can form chord-like sounds. This might be a little bit like how intelligence in the animal and plant kingdom is more prevalent than we believe. Our environment, and the universe, could be more musical than we believe! http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/BigBang/Planck_2013/BBSnd100.wav

  1671. musictheory 2017-10-10 08:12:06 Korrun
    Correct, for example the 3rd 'la' in the post chorus is C#, the third note in the descending triplets in the guitar solo is a C#. You can add a C# into the D chords (on fret 2 of string 2 on guitar) which makes it a lovely Dmaj9 (you can also add the F# on string 1 fret 2 to the Em chord making it Emadd9).

  1672. musictheory 2017-10-10 10:55:11 Robert_Burton
    >Too bad. This matter is too important to ignore. This is silly. -A nylon string guitarist

  1673. musictheory 2017-10-10 11:42:01 Hansderfiedler
    It's kinda funny that you think a pressure sensor that sends an electronic signal which is interepreted, deconfigured and reconfigured by a synthesizer is the same thing as the direct mechanical pressure transferred from finger to key to hammer to string.

  1674. musictheory 2017-10-10 12:07:36 Hansderfiedler
    Oh, the process by which human animation occurs, and its origin, are indeed mysteries. And you make my point for me. The synthesized sound originates in the oscillator and can only be manipulated indirectly through triggers. On a piano, the sound is actually produced in part by the mechanical human pressure. And even on a harpsichord, there is action between the finger and the plucking of the string.

  1675. musictheory 2017-10-10 14:18:23 octatonic_formula
    >It's kinda funny that you think a pressure sensor that sends an electronic signal which is interepreted, deconfigured and reconfigured by a synthesizer is the same thing as the direct mechanical pressure transferred from finger to key to hammer to string. It is the same thing (air being pushed, much more often electronically now in recorded music here on Reddit, in your car, and everywhere, than by the source musicians, to the listener's ear) if you were thinking about music and technology instead of trying to show off misplaced erudition irrelevant to music. Why are you intruding? Go back to your dusty old study which is probably full of the stale farts from your obscure and bizarre mental movements. Fine disciplines, but you use them to try to offend a great majority of what music making has to deal with now. How can you be so smart about philosophy, but so dumb about music?

  1676. musictheory 2017-10-10 15:31:53 mladjiraf
    Well, the partials of an ideal string will be something like f, 2f, 3f, 4f, 5f, 6f etc. (f = frequency) The partials of an ideal metal bar will be something like f, 2.76f, 5.4f, 8.93f. It's obvious that if you try to play complex timbres, stretched octaves etc using the western tuning and major/minor and related modes , they won't sound nice. Gamelan scales and tuning work the best for metal and bell type sound. https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Musical-Instruments-Neville-Fletcher/dp/1441931201 https://www.amazon.com/Tuning-Timbre-Spectrum-William-Sethares/dp/1852337974/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1507620632&sr=1-1&keywords=tuning+timbre+spectrum http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/html/soundexamples.html

  1677. musictheory 2017-10-10 16:32:23 exocortex
    Wow! first of all thank you very much for your long answer! I think I somehow understand a lot more about the turning of a piano. I somehow got a suspicion about the over tones. > This is because of *inharmonicity*. The nodes of a string - which occupy physcial space, subtract length from the overtones making each one a little bit higher in pitch of what they "should" be in a perfect mathematical situation. I am only confused about what you mean with 'nodes'. Do you mean "modes" as in the vibration-modes? Because that would make a lot of sense for me. Physics students always have to learn differential equations. For certain systems sometimes there exist several solutions which then can be scaled and combined to create all possible solutions. Two vectors x and y can be scaled (multiplied with 2 numbers) and added together to access all possible positions on a sheet of paper - or an infinite sheet of paper in space... Two solutions of a certain systems can as well be combined arbitrarily to form all possible solutions of that system. In the case of a vibrating string there exist an infinite amount of solutions. Each solution would be a vibration mode. And in physics we find out that in our 1-dimensional string-problem the vibration frequencies are all whole multiples of the ground mode frequency. For a long time I have wondered if this would be true for a more realistic system - like strings that have an actual thickness - and therefor a resistance to bending it. (not to mention the actual structure of a piano string being a composite of different materials). A long while ago I stumbled upon a paper about modeling the sound of a guitar and I was stunned about the difficult models - they were just extremely more complicated. So to use physical terms: the individual solution af the vibrating string - are actually influencing each other. The only thing I don't understand is why they make the string shorter - or do you mean that a vibrating string is having a higher tension on average and therefor creating a basis for higher overtones? - well I gotta read on about this :-) So to come back to piano tuning: The idea is to not make the base tones in harmony, but (probably) to make the *average* frequency of the overtones of two notes in tune. For example but since different pianos have different distributions of amplitudes of the overtones the average is different for each piano (what you said about the presets). As a side note: if I could pick piano strings with my fingers would I havevto tune the string differently depending on the position of my picking? Since the position of where one picks a piano string is controlling which vibrational modes are louder and which are quieter, the average frequency is changing (since the harmonic over tones associated with each mode are not perfect whole multiples). I know this is ridiculous, I am just asking if the principle is right. Does that mean that for example a trumpet has overtones closer to being whole multiples? Or are the pressure differences created by lower modes actually high enough to change the speed of sounds in them? That's damn interesting! Does that mean that the overtones of a string actually make some micro-vibratos over the course of one lower-mode oscillation? Maybe I'll come back with some questions later :-)

  1678. musictheory 2017-10-10 20:06:15 xiipaoc
    > But I'm a science and math lay person / musician, so you can summarize your position more simply? Short and low sounds => uncertain pitch. It makes it sound like a percussive whump rather than a clean tone, and it means, in very practical terms, that a string bass player play pizzicato doesn't have to be very accurate with his pitch while a piccolo player has to be right on or it will be bad. Again, this is just the basic physics of how sound waves work. It's not some abstract mathematical tuning -- I know what you're talking about with the tuning, where people go all into the number theory of the ratios or whatever when our ears just don't care, but this isn't that. I should remind you of why I gave a proof. *You* complained that the Uncertainty Principle is bullshit because h is too small, remember? So I explained why the principle continues to apply to sound waves. Also, I think it's a bit silly to complain that this is too abstract when it's, like, a basic fact of life for audio engineers and people who play synths, or really anyone who works with the sound spectrum. And bassists and timpanists, of course (timpani have the added issue of having inharmonic spectra due to the round drumheads *and* a nonlinear pitch response to hitting it harder or softer). We like to think about music theory as this neat study of pitch classes where octave doesn't matter, where a C is a C is a C, but OP's very question shows how this breaks down as you go up or down just a few octaves. > the latter having research proof that such fine differences in tuning are not significant since we perceive intervals as categories That's very nice, but I think the part you missed is that these differences are *not* fine. They're, like, plus or minus a minor third. Look at the example of the Bb1 at 60 Hz. If you play it for an eighth note at quarter = 150, you can only tell that the note is somewhere from A1 to B1, but not that it's a Bb1. Play it for a sixteenth note at that tempo, and you can only tell that it's somewhere between a G1 and a Db2! I'm glad that we perceive intervals as categories, but low-frequency short-duration murkiness means that the categories become unclear and the sound becomes percussive. There's a reason why we put the string bass in the rhythm section of the jazz band. And actually, this percussiveness *helps* with the categorization of intervals, because if the bass is out of tune (in the lower octave; above that the peak widening becomes less significant) you won't hear it as a different interval with the rest of the ensemble. > It always half irks / half amuses me how math types try to make their field more musical and sexy by pretending that it's music. Yeah, I'm gonna have to WTF that. WTF? I don't even know what you're trying to say here. > Or read research by your fellow science types who study acoustics / hearing / music cognition I think you're the one who should read up on acoustics, no offense. While you're at it, go read up on digital audio as well, because it's really cool. I know that right now you think this math stuff is really abstract, but understanding the Fourier transform (which is how you break down a sound into its component frequencies -- your ears do basically this) is the foundation for these disciplines. Once you understand a little acoustics, you'll be able to understand my proof, if your acoustics textbook doesn't prove it first!

  1679. musictheory 2017-10-10 20:27:00 Lumen_Co
    >Oh, the process by which human animation occurs, and its origin, are indeed mysteries. No, they really aren't. >And you make my point for me. The synthesized sound originates in the oscillator and can only be manipulated indirectly through triggers. On a piano, the sound is actually produced in part by the mechanical human pressure. But, again, why does that matter? And in synths, the sound is indeed "produced in part by the mechanical human pressure". >And even on a harpsichord, there is action between the finger and the plucking of the string. I suppose, but if the fashon in which the key is struck has zero impact on the resulting timbre, why does that matter?

  1680. musictheory 2017-10-11 01:26:21 theredwoodcurtain
    Is the style a piano ballad, or neosoul/r&b, or pop/EDM hybrid, or a trap / rap tune, or acoustic singer songwriter, or something else? Is the instrument guitar, or piano, or electric keyboard, or synthesizer, or a string ensemble, or a choir, or something else? What is the arrangement like? Is the chordal instrument the only instrument, or is there a separate bass instrument? Are there backing vocals also singing chords? Is the lead vocal also harmonized? Do you want your chordal instrument playing long chords, or short, rhythmic ideas? Does the bass follow the harmony of the song or stay on a pedal tone? Is the harmonic rhythm fast or slow compared to the vocals?

  1681. musictheory 2017-10-11 08:54:33 65TwinReverbRI
    Node and Antinode - the points of greatest and least deflection of the string. A "harmonic node" is the point where the string divides in 1/2 (or thirds, quarters, etc.) and it takes up some physical length (based on the physical diameter of the string) that doesn't move and is thus not vibrating, and thus not part of the vibrating length = overtone that's on a shorter string of the same tension as the fundamental, so it's a little sharp. I know this - most instruments exhibit varying degrees of inharmonicity. I'm not sure if it's *where* the string is driven, but maybe *how* it's driven. For example, bowed string instruments are "more harmonic" because of the bow - if you pluck them (pizzicato) they become more inharmonic. I also know that a guitar string vibrates most effectively (and more harmonically) when it has a higher tension per unit of mass than not. So for example, strings sound "boingy" when loose, because there's more inharmonicity. It's why we don't use really thin or really thick strings for the first string of a guitar - they're all within a general range of thickness (and this has to do with scale length and things like that - I'm no physicist or mathematician so it's a little beyond my grasp). Additionally, the reason instruments evolved the way they did with various bores (conical bore for example) and materials etc. were partly not only to be able to tune them, but to make them "more in tune with themselves" - that is less inharmonic and more harmonic. Inharmonicity is really obvious in things like bells (or iron that just "clangs") and there's this whole big deal with bell makers (like those that cast the Liberty Bell) about secret formulas and methods for casting bells that produce a "more pure tone" which is essentially a more harmonic tone - they're trying to eliminate inharmonicity (or reduce it as much as possible). 12TET tuning on any instrument is a *conscious decision* made to allow an instrument to play *equally* in any key. Some use the words "equally out of tune" to say it's "out of tune" with the overtones (which theoretically would be integers) and that's a "compromise" we made to allow us to play "more in tune" in more keys. The "art" (and science I suppose) of Piano Tuning specifically - and specifically for Stretch Tuning is to make that one instrument sound "more in tune with itself" - this is important on Piano because you're far more likely to play chords and multiple instances of the same note. As an interesting aside, I've read that James Taylor tunes his guitar a specific way to play "more in tune". There are a bunch of guys out there using "fanned frets" and "micro frets" and "Just Tuning Frets" and stuff so they can play "more in tune" (i.e. closer to the overtone series). Some people do this by bending notes. But I noticed I always had preferred to tune my higher strings a touch high and didn't mind if my intonation was a little high as I went up the fretboard on the first two strings - once I found out about stretch tuning that made sense - I probably want to hear the note on the first string in tune with an *overtone* of the low string, not the fundamental pitch. So stretch tuning doesn't work on guitar, but because it's a chordal instrument we may feel like we need it. And you can "fake it" a little by "mis-tuning" some of the strings - and though I haven't checked the specific frequencies, this might be what James Taylor is doing as well (though he tends to play more in open position so it's not as big a deal, and he might be going more for Just Intonation).

  1682. musictheory 2017-10-11 20:33:52 m3g0wnz
    The main instrument is a clarinet. At 1:38 it's a cello. It's just something that takes practice. There are subtle differences in timbre when an instrument plays at the top or bottom of its range. Yes, the viola can play those notes, but it would be the absolute bottom of its range. For the cello this is a comfortable middle range; that's what it sounds like to me. The differences between string instruments can be particularly subtle, though—viola often sneaks by me too.

  1683. musictheory 2017-10-12 07:55:40 xiipaoc
    > I don't see how either of these contribute to 'low note murkiness,' which is known to be caused by critical band roughness, and (at wider intervals) inharmonicity. This isn't about pitch *perception*; it's about the *actual pitch*. It's not that humans have a hearing apparatus that isn't great at handling low and short sounds; it's that these sounds simply *don't have* well-defined pitch. It's just not there for you to perceive it, at least for short sounds, but that also means that there's a significant peak broadening effect for sounds that change fairly quickly over time. Peak broadening means that what you *hear* is murkiness and percussiveness rather than a definite pitch. A low pizzicato string bass ends up not being very different from a bass drum. Inharmonicity is also not as big an effect as one might think, because while acoustic instruments may behave inharmonically at low frequencies, digital synthesizers don't have that limitation, and you get murkiness just the same.

  1684. musictheory 2017-10-12 22:35:56 blaxicrish
    Hey I'm someone else, but how would you recommend doing so? I've been trying to apply theory to my guitar playing, since I had played for a long time without. I learned how to play the major scale up and down the fretboard as well as the different modes. So I can figure out what note something is in a few seconds by going trough the major scale and knowing the notes on the E and A string. And also knowing where some of the octaves are. However, should I be trying to memorize every notes like the E and A strings?

  1685. musictheory 2017-10-12 22:52:52 powerfulCollin
    If you can figure out what any given note is on the fretboard quickly by counting up from the open position or referencing a memorized note, then it is not really necessary(although it wouldn't hurt to play each string chromatically and say the note out loud for familiarization's sake). When playing, you are not really thinking about the name of the note, but it's scale degree and the relationship to the chord/key.

  1686. musictheory 2017-10-14 02:03:04 65TwinReverbRI
    I'm not sure I hear what you're talking about. An "ornament" is an "embellishment" of a "primary" note and the ornament itself is seen as somewhat less important, and even able to be "swapped out" with other ornaments to no ill effect in certain styles. So much so that many ornaments are written in as smaller notes (like a grace note which is an ornament) or even a symbol with not notes specified (like mordents, or turns, etc.). Wikipedia's article is pretty exhaustive and includes notated and audio examples, so would be a great place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_(music) I would say, that there do exist less common or modern ornaments without specific names - for example, a "Trill" that's larger than a whole step is not called a "Trill". If it goes on long enough, it's considered a "Tremolo (a Tremolo written between two different notes in string music, sometimes called a Tremolando specifically) but if it just happens once or twice, we don't really have a "Western" name for it. However some ornaments like that are common in other cultures and there might be names for them (and for example, there are things in like Irish Fiddle Music that have a name there, but it's the same thing as something else in Baroque Keyboard music, etc.) Very often, if we don't have a specific term for it, and it's quick enough that it doesn't "deserve" a written out duration, we just go with "Grace Note(s)" as a general catch-all term. HTH

  1687. musictheory 2017-10-15 00:31:43 donniebell
    PunkJackal, "Splinter" is amazing; you guys are really talented! The 10-string is ridiculous. I just don't even know how I would begin to play something like that and you play it so flawless/elegantly!

  1688. musictheory 2017-10-17 17:19:05 aotus_trivirgatus
    Actually, we can hear the numerical ratios in music. We may not name them at 3:2, 5:4, etc., but they are obvious when they occur in a musical context. This was an issue that was discussed in a psychoacoustics class I took many years ago. There was an experiment performed with two groups of listeners, trained musicians and non-musicians; and two collections of sounds: sine waves, and more complex timbres with overtones, separated by various intervals. Listeners were asked to identify "consonant" or "dissonant" intervals, first with the sine waves. Non-musicians came up pretty empty, identifying dissonance only around the minor second, inside the "critical band", but not close enough to fuse the perception of two tones into one. Trained musicians did only sightly better with sine waves, sometimes able to pick out consonance at perfect fifths, perfect fourths, major and minor thirds and sixths. But if the sounds were changed to more musical timbres -- suddenly everyone, even untrained musicians, had no trouble identifying the consonant intervals that I listed in the previous paragraph. The number of beat frequency combinations between various harmonics was much larger, and whether any two of these harmonics were inside a critical band was a good measure of the perception of dissonance. On plucked/hammered chordophones like the piano, the overtones of a string are slightly sharp of what you would expect. They are not at 2.000, 3.000, 4.000 times the frequency of the fundamental. This is called inharmonicity. If you tune the octaves on a piano at exactly 2:1 ratios, it sounds out of tune! You have to "stretch tune" a piano to eliminate dissonances. There was a follow-up psychoacoustic experiment to the one I described above in which strongly inharmonic timbres were used (for example, a carillon bell). The intervals that were perceived to be consonant were no longer at the expected perfect fifth, major third, etc. The consonant intervals moved to where the overtones did not clash with each other inside a critical band. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_band http://www.personal.psu.edu/meb26/INART50/psychoacoustics.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inharmonicity https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10645573_The_design_of_bells_with_harmonic_overtones

  1689. musictheory 2017-10-18 14:31:14 niftyfingers
    > However, I feel like you're trying to reinvent the wheel. That is sort of the goal. I don't intend to build a new piano or guitar. Fret position or string length/tension all have tolerances. The difference between 16/9 and 9/5 might not even be audible unless in very controlled circumstances. So I'm essentially trying to find another way to understand the harmony/dissonance of the notes in 12ET. If I were to do a song, maybe the [bohemian rhapsody solo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptgWiqYDlyo) is a good example... clearly it stars out using notes from this set {1/1, 9/8, 5/4, 3/2}. Then, 5/3 is the pitch of the 3rd measure 1st beast, and that's partially dissonant with that set, which I am supposing explains the shift in context. Even if the bass note stayed on Eb instead of Cm, something still would sound different with that 5/3=C note. So, I think it went from a subset of 127, to 253 (via retonicizing at the tonic itself, I think I briefly explained that idea), then from 253, retonicizing at 5/3 gives exactly ONE option with {6/5, 1/1, 9/8} being included, namely 119. And 119 doesn't contain 4/3, so at measure 4 we have a shift again, which I suppose would be a retonicizing at the tonic to 206, since 206={1/1, 6/5, 4/3, 3/2, 8/5, 2/1} has all the notes of the first 2.75 beats of measure 4. The 4th beat of measure 4, the 18th fret is a Bb, or a 9/5 or something relative to C as a tonic, so that's the next dissonant note, which changes the context again. Then for the fast part it seems like 169 at tonic Eb, but obviously when the 15/8 pitch comes in at the upbeat of beat 2, that is dissonant with 169 so it changes context. I think that's as far as I'll go in attempting to find it. Basically 127 at Eb, choose new tonic 1/1 and go to 253, choose new tonic 5/3 and go to 119, choose new tonic 1/1 and go to 206, then ambiguously end up in 169 with tonic Eb, and then choose new tonic 1/1 and go to something with 15/8 in it. That's my attempt. ____ I'm hoping that there will be "maximal" ways to do it so you only get one transition. For example, if you are in the 253 context, those notes are C, E, G, A, B, C. If you *play an F*, that's dissonant with all of that, namely it's dissonant with the B, so if we remove the B, we get CEGAF = {1, 5/4, 3/2, 5/3, 4/3}, and if we find the maximal element greater than that, then that is set 127, and that's the only one that fits that. And as an aside, if you play around with CEGABC notes, then throw an F in, it feels natural to be around the FEGAC (and even Eb) notes, and that feels like a different space (to me at least, it feels like a shift in context). Then, if you throw in a B note (like, 1.41 times as much as F roughly), then if you *choose 3/2 as the tonic of 127*, then you go to 169 and you don't even need to omit anything; 169 is then C, D# E, F, G,A, and you can hang around that context without much dissonance. So the whole transition was basically a C to F to C chords and that was the unique choice given the choices that I wrote in italics. And what makes that even more compelling is that the fractions I input into my program in the first place are the nicest fractions for the piano keys, which is easy to check, just start listing the fractions between 1 and 2 on the real number line. Granted, I did put 7/6 and 7/4 there, those are pretty far from piano key pitches, but I feel like these get enough use to consider them as part of the system. So basically I'm saying anyone else who independently had the idea I had would have arrived at this same conclusion I did now about the C to F to C transition if they made the italicized choices. >I'm guessing you mean that a given interval or intervals in your musical construction are objectively better than those which have already been established? So I think of it as, 12ET, since it just evenly divides the octave up with 2^(1/12) being the smallest division of frequency, hides a lot of information. You can't look at the math and ask what the gcd of the frequencies of the notes of a chord is unless you look at *rationally* related periods of notes. Right, like sin(x) and sin(pi\*x) when you add them together do not produce a periodic signal, nor is sin(2^(4/12)x)+ sin(2^(7/12)) a periodic signal. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, let's go back to the ratios that we are approximating (because we adopted 12ET and forgot why we did it), and see what we can learn by looking at music as a signal consisting of sums of notes with periods, where the music signal itself is periodic because the note periods are [multiples of some fundamental frequency](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_pdpbu8bgA). ____ I'm not sure how to answer the rest of your questions I apologize.

  1690. musictheory 2017-10-18 16:55:15 Indeeeeed
    Okay I think I follow more clearly now, but please correct me if I'm wrong. To me, it seems like you are approaching several established methodologies from the mathematics side of harmonics which have already been established from people working from the music theory side. I think what you're getting at with your sets closely resembles the already established musical set theory, but instead of using base 12 you're using frequency ratios based on the perceived tonic. How is your system better than the set theory we already use? If you haven't looked ito it, I would suggest researching set theory, specifically: prime forms, forte numbers, and interval-class vectors. I could be wrong, but this to me seems like a more refined version of what you're working towards and better yet, there is already established norms for typical use. I understand that the pitches in 12ET are an approximation, but with the exception of piano, harp, mallet instruments, and most other idiophones, the pitches are adjustable. As an example, any good string quartet does not play in 12ET. Instead the musicians will adjust to play just (intonation) intervals. They will still reference 12ET as a baseline for where the notes lie melodically, but harmonically they will adjust. I'm assuming that your enhanced temperament system is in order to eliminate acoustic beating between intervals such as major thirds which are bad in 12ET (but can be far far worse in other temperaments). Or is it for a different reason? Would this system be used for melodic intonation as well or just purely harmonic? If you are looking into different temperaments, I would suggest you research Pythagorean tuning as well as the different types of mean tone. Some of the specific things to research would be wolf intervals, which is where certain intervals are excessively out of tune (25+ cents) because of the temperament of each note. Unfortunately with the established keyboard, I cannot imagine there being any way to create a better alternative to 12ET because with the old temperaments, some intervals are more in tune while others are wildly out. If you get a chance, listen to some of Bach's pieces from the Well-tempered Clavier on a non-well-tempered clavier. Additionally look into Pythagorean commas which come about due to the style of temperament which was used in early music. Essentially this equates to octaves which are no longer octaves. To take it to an extreme, you can justly tune chords, and keep a common tone to the next chord. If this common tone is kept, then the rest of the notes need to be adjusted to be justly intonated with the common tone. Eventually, this creates a "comma pump" which raises the pitch slowly until you end up a semitone or more away from the original tonic. So is this more of a means for analysis or do you believe this could change performance practice as well? As in do you think it is better for musicians to think of a perfect fifth as a relationship of two frequencies vibrating at a ratio of 3:2 instead of just a perfect fifth, or is this more of a tool to explain why music uses the intervals that it does? Lastly, does your methodologies account for the overtones present (especially in acoustic instruments) to create the timbre? If so, how do these fit into your system? If you haven't looked into it already I would suggest researching composers who already write in different temperaments such as 16ET or 19ET and the effect it has on the timbres they choose.

  1691. musictheory 2017-10-18 22:19:54 Zac_TheDude
    One other thing while I mostly agree cello was a lot harder than violin and viola but that might just be me. I also feel weird playing a string instrument sitting down

  1692. musictheory 2017-10-19 03:33:20 smk4813
    Throw away that tuning approach if your goal is to obtain an open A minor tuning with D as the lowest string. That result will net you a D minor extension as u/Jongtr pointed out. It's the D, F & double A in that DFAEAC tuning that nails it. Lowering that F to an E may soften that blow. How about DACECE (open Am/D) or DACGCE (open Am7/D)? For a true open A minor tuning you can try EAEACE or EACEAE.

  1693. musictheory 2017-10-19 05:07:03 RightfulFallen
    Actually the idea was to get the different open string vocabulary that a lot of indie rock and math rock uses. Having those chordal open strings make it really easy to have some neat extended chords.

  1694. musictheory 2017-10-20 13:40:03 Indeeeeed
    I promise you, look into set theory because from what I'm gathering from our discussion, that's basically what you're on trajectory to create. You can easily implement your theories about ratios into established theories like that. When you talk about your sets of notes, that is exactly set notation using a different means of naming the notes, which I understand is what you're after, but as someone who has studied a lot of music I see 0 and 7 and immediately see perfect fifth. I can hear a perfect fifth, and now I can understand that it is a 3:2 ratio of vibrations. I'm not trying to argue that you shouldn't implement your ideas about ratios into theory, but you would gain more traction if you used established ideas that have already been extensively researched and studied. For example you could easily look at existing set theory analyses and say "oh okay this set uses these sorts of notes and these intervals because they are this ratio" as opposed to trying to create something from the ground up. [Here is a random video about why we use equal temperament.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUBkbrvCmGA) [Here is a demonstration of multiple temperament systems as demonstrated on a piano.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBt6APk21tU) Some of the alternate temperaments sound great for some pieces! Other pieces not so much. [Here is a harpsichordist demonstrating a couple of temperaments on the harpsichord and the effect on what it sounds like.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aUt00beZX8) [Syntonic comma.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntonic_comma) This is basically what happens when you use a tuning system based largely on tuning to harmonics. It also goes into detail about what comma pumping is, how it happens, and what it sounds like. >unless you specifically bend your instrument in tune That is exactly what every decent musician who plays an instrument with adjustable intonation does though. Any member of the orchestral string family, the entire brass family, flutes, clarinets, oboes, bassoon, saxophone, even timpani all adjust to play something close to just intonation. Additionally, almost no instrument that has easily adjustable intonation is going to naturally play every note in 12ET. For example, a fourth line D on saxophone naturally sits about 20ish cents sharp of a 12ET concert F. Additionally, two saxophones playing a 12ET major third is a really out of tune major third. If they are worth their weight in salt, they will adjust to something resembling a just intonation major third. The reason we don't base our music education on ratios is simply because I don't see how knowing this would improve my playing. I think it's cool to know what's going on with the frequencies, but it isn't all that helpful to performance, which is what most music education is based on if we're honest with ourselves. Composing? Sure, you can make that argument. Analysis? Sure. But with performance, I can't think of a situation when knowing about ratios that would help me personally. I would highly suggest before you continue to check out [this wiki](http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/) which is a wiki entirely about musical tuning. Tons of articles about what is/was used and why. There are plenty of good reasons to use a tuning other than 12ET but in general 12ET is the best thing we've got for an all-purpose tuning. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I can't see much unique about what you're looking to accomplish. A quick google search will show you that many people already study this stuff. When I'm talking about Pythagorean tuning, we're talking literally the same Pythagoras that came up with the Pythagorean theorum. That's literally around 2500 years of research on ratios in music. I'm positive that if you did some sort of database search on something like JSTOR or RILM you would find loads of dissertations and research papers on exactly what you're discussing. I read in another post that music is your hobby, but you have to understand, people have literally dedicated their lives to researching music theory and have done a very very thorough job of it. If you want to go down this rabbit hole for your own personal satisfaction, more power to you! (And I mean that sincerely. It can be super satisfying to figure something out on your own.) But if you want to do any unique research on this and you value your time, then I implore you to read up on some of the work which has already been done.

  1695. musictheory 2017-10-21 06:46:19 Jongtr
    Simple frequency ratios, which make the notes blend smoothly. Octave = 2:1 Perfect 5th = 3:2 Perfect 4th = 4:3 (inverted 5th) A guitar string makes an excellent illustration. Halve the string, that gives you 12th fret (octave). Fret 7 (p5) is 2/3 string length; fret 5 (p4) is 3/4 string length.

  1696. musictheory 2017-10-21 07:24:03 Phrygiaddicted
    >This is highly unusual and certainly news to me you are trying to generate a ratio that is smaller than 2 cents (the deviation of 2^(7/12) from 3/2) >It's capable of representing both that's a matter of opinion. melodically, yes. harmonically, it is at best as convincing as a drag queen; who isnt trying; for comedic relief. i once read a somewhat tongue-in-cheek description of 12ET thirds as "acid whining" and it made me giggle. they're almost as bad if not worse than pythagorean thirds in a major triad. *on the other hand*, the 12ET minor third is *also only 2 cents away* from the 19th harmonic; and sounds really pleasing with distortion, something i cannot say for 5-JI minor thirds. although this results in an o/utonality reversal of the major and minor third if you consider them to be much closer to 19-limit. >This sort of ambiguity is what, to me, gives 12tet some of its inherent beauty i would say "charm" rather than beauty. it's really quite ugly; but is a laugh and comes with some really witty puns. also, the 2 cents-from-an-overtone distance creates phasing slow enough that when applies over nonlinear distortion effects; the beating pattern is slow enough to create more of a "tempo-scale" effect pattern, rather than something so fast as to become noise and can create rather pleasing effects. still.. for a pure, **strong**, stable sound, ET just does not cut it with thirds. fifths are great and "powerful" (see also: power chord), but the thirds in triads destabilise the harmony enough to not have the power an open fifth has. a 5-JI major triad or a 7-JI harmonic seventh both have this "fifth power" AND more; the major third "cries" like subharmonics voiced above do, and the minor third is strong like harmonics should be. it is very odd once you know what to listen for. actually, i couldnt tell fifths and fourths apart in training until i learned what the "subharmonic wobble" sounds like. then i got confused by thirds until i noticed this too xD my gripe with ET harmony is it is not "powerful". it otherwise has some really fun, cool and pleasing aspects that make me thankful such a decent and "fun" harmony approximation is avaliable with a relatively low number of keys. i can tell you switching tuning to 5-JI over 12ET in a track i can sometimes get away with as much as 2-3dB reduction of a voice and retain its clarity in the mix that 12ET cannot maintain due to the phase instability. this is obviously far more important with synths than real instruments which inherently suffer from the fact that the probability of hitting a rational point on a string is precisely zero. it'd be interesting to find the lowest intervals that 12-ET approximates globally within 2 cents; like it approximates 3:2 fifth within 2 cents, and 19:16 minor third within 2 cents...

  1697. musictheory 2017-10-21 09:44:00 brutalproduct
    Can't forget the classic: I broke a G string fingering a minor. You asked, lol.

  1698. musictheory 2017-10-21 09:52:28 s_elendur
    I once tried to convince a harpist friend of mine to name her album "Playing with my G string" She didn't go for that... Maybe you could use my suggestion as inspiration for something G string related.

  1699. musictheory 2017-10-23 12:04:28 KGD18
    I'm fluent in jazz piano improv, I also play brass and fretted string instruments. Shoot me a message, I'd be glad to help!

  1700. musictheory 2017-10-24 17:03:44 tomatoswoop
    Multi-instrumentalist here, happy to be a part of your piece. You should factor in that counting a "number" of instruments is always going to be a loose way to measure the actual diversity of instruments played by someone: instruments within the same family can be variations on a theme to a greater or lesser extent. I might counsel you make your number a bit flexible, based on what the different instruments actually *are*. Someone who plays violin, guitar, saxophone and trumpet is far more of a multi-instrumentalist than someone who sings, plays guitar, ukulele, cuatro, laúd, Guitarrón mexicano, bass, and cavaquinho for example. Not to denigrate the second (imaginary!) person, who would certainly also be an interesting musician worth interviewing, but to discount the first imaginary person because they "only play 4 instruments" would be crazy when the instruments are so fundamentally different. The semi-arbitrary nature of what counts as "a different instrument" can be demonstrated by language. As an example, in Portuguese, my second second language, acoustic guitar (*violão*) and electric guitar (*guitarra*) are 2 considered 2 different instruments. On the other hand, the diatonic harmonica and the chromatic harmonica are 2 different instruments with **completely** different playing techniques (I play 1 well and the other hardly at all), and yet in the minds of many people they might be considered the same instrument (harmonica). On the other hand, with certain instrument families, the technique in the second instrument is almost *identical* to the first: flute and piccolo, viola and violin, euphonium and baritone horn, trumpet and cornet, to the extent that any player who can already play one instrument well would be able to play the other one pretty well in a couple of weeks, even days. If anything they are more similar than a nylon string guitar and a stratocaster! This is particularly true of brass instruments, and folk string instruments: brass teachers often will play a million and 4 instruments, but that's possible because the fingering patterns are the same on all of them (excepting of course the trombone), all that changes is the embouchure. Obviously, there's still a huge difference between the trumpet and the tuba, but for instruments that are a similar size, the technique doesn't change that much. Anyway, just a tip. I play somewhere between 5 and 10 instruments. Some of these would be completely different (guitar and harmonica for example), but some are more "cheating": flute and piccolo; guitar and ukulele; piano and melodica.

  1701. musictheory 2017-10-25 01:45:33 MostExperienced
    He was every bit as polite as you, not a dick at apl. YOU used the string words and brought attention to a problem that didn’t exist

  1702. musictheory 2017-10-25 11:42:07 Korrun
    Yes. Definitely learn your triad shapes and inversions on each string set.

  1703. musictheory 2017-10-26 03:13:30 _youtubot_
    Video linked by /u/Atheia: Title|Channel|Published|Duration|Likes|Total Views :----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------: [Béla Bartók - String Quartet No. 5](https://youtu.be/Du07qCXkNa8?t=8m57s)|olla-vogala|2015-09-18|0:31:21|508+ (97%)|78,529 > - Composer: Béla Viktor János Bartók (25 March 1881 -- 26... --- [^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/youtubot/wiki/index) ^| [^/u/Atheia ^can ^delete](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=_youtubot_&subject=delete\%20comment&message=dovpuwt\%0A\%0AReason\%3A\%20\%2A\%2Aplease+help+us+improve\%2A\%2A) ^| ^v2.0.0

  1704. musictheory 2017-10-26 13:13:58 outofthrowaways7
    It really depends on the level of the group. For a young group of string players (which I would consider to be high school aged), I would more strongly consider changing it to F, as F would certainly be the less challenging to play of the two keys. For a more advanced group (think an average college ensemble), it should be doable with practice. For a truly professional ensemble (people you or someone else is paying to perform the music), the key won't matter, as they will say nothing and learn the piece. Also, if you're unsure as to the difficulty of the string parts, feel free to PM me them and I'd be happy to look them over for you and give you a general idea of how difficult they might be!

  1705. musictheory 2017-10-26 15:45:38 mladjiraf
    Dissonant ≠ atonal. You are throwing concepts around without understanding the meaning behind them. "I'm saying they didn't have the same potential that we have now for making music that isn't based off the harmonic series." Tonality is NOT directly based on the harmonic series. Harmonic series is an arithmetic sequence that can be used to describe the vibrations of an ideal string. You CANNOT explain with it anything outside of some traditional drone based world music cases. There is a lot of weird stuff around the globe like gamelan systems (based on the vibrations of metals; has pseudo octaves), Georgian polyphony and similar that are still TONAL even if they have nothing to do with the harmonic series and the western tuning.

  1706. musictheory 2017-10-26 17:06:45 TheEpicSock
    Tone color, from the tessitura of the singers as well as the fingering choices of the string musicians.

  1707. musictheory 2017-10-26 19:19:02 HideousRabbit
    This puzzles me, because almost everyone says that modern western tuning is equal tempered: like intervals have equal frequency ratios. This being so, intervals should only be uneven if you're (a) using a non-standard tuning (which OP never suggested), (b) making intonation errors (which can be done in any key), (c) making shifts on the fly for purer intervals or better voice leading (which AFAIK is just as possible in F as it is in F# for strings and vocals), or (d) using non-octave harmonics to hit some notes (which strings and singers don't normally do). Now, I have heard people say that string players still play enharmonic notes at slightly different different pitches. But this suggests either (c)-type corrections, or a meantone tuning, in which common keys sound the same but keys with lots of sharps or flats have wolf intervals unless you use more than 12 notes. What you're suggesting sounds like a well temperament, in which there are just 12 unevenly spaced notes and every key is at least subtly different. So your remark is puzzling, because it doesn't agree with anything else I've heard. Not saying it's wrong though. Can you cite any sources?

  1708. musictheory 2017-10-27 03:19:57 nixcamic
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undertone_series#Resonance is the best I can find. Hold a low note on the piano without striking the string and play a higher note and you'll get sympathetic vibration on the lower string. The individual stings don't produce undertones but the instrument as a whole does.

  1709. musictheory 2017-10-27 03:20:26 nixcamic
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undertone_series#Resonance is the best I can find. Hold a low note on the piano without striking the string and play a higher note and you'll get sympathetic vibration on the lower string. The individual stings don't produce undertones but the instrument as a whole does.

  1710. musictheory 2017-10-28 00:49:54 MiskyWilkshake
    Why don't you share the piece, or at least the string part, then we can more accurately judge how difficult it would be for the strings to play it in F#.

  1711. musictheory 2017-10-28 04:21:18 65TwinReverbRI
    Our local orchestra tunes to 441. If you ask them why, they'll mostly say "it makes it *brighter*". But they may also do it just because NY Philharmonic does too or something... But that's still just conditioning - they're used to one sound and a new tuning sounds "fresh". It's "brighter by comparison" to what they used to tune to (though it is more tension on string instruments which does affect tone/timbre). Not sure about percussion but it might be a marimba is tuned to 441 because that's what most orchestras do, but it could be that they're tuned high to begin with so there's room to fine tune later (or if they drift, etc.). You've got to grind material off the keys to tune them so it makes sense to start with more so you have some to take off. I believe our piano tuner at our university keeps ours at 441 because of the Symphony players we frequently collaborate with - so we're all in tune. It kind of irks some of the jazz groups that want to stay at 440 though. But I don't believe most of us can tell an aural difference between a piano in a room at 441 versus coming back a week later with it in 440. Someone with perfect pitch will probably be able to hear something out after a certain number of cents, but I've heard plenty of music in all kinds of tuning standards (especially old tape and records that were intentionally sped up or slowed down for various reasons) that's not in 440 and no one seems to have an issue with it.

  1712. musictheory 2017-10-28 06:38:17 Jongtr
    The 9th is no big deal. I think he's playing this shape: (0)-7-9-9-(7)-x, i.e., a power chord barre, and the 2nd string is a kind of optional extra, not always there.

  1713. musictheory 2017-10-28 19:45:51 Jongtr
    Sure - I meant that mostly it sounds like a power chord, but they could be playing that shape somewhat lazily, so the barred 2nd string is occasionally heard. Conversely, they could be playing Esus2 somewhat lazily, so that most of the time the F# is not audible.

  1714. musictheory 2017-10-29 21:33:06 Korrun
    I've usually heard this in the context of a guitarist learning how to do more than just strum a single chord shape at a time. You embellish the chord by changing voicings or adding extra notes. Often with hammer-ons and pull-offs (slurs) and single string plucking. For example when playing a D chord you might start off with a Dsus2 (open string 1) and hammer on to the fret 2 F#. This works just as well for a D minor chord just go from Dsus2 to Dm.

  1715. musictheory 2017-10-30 03:06:11 genericus23
    I love Stephen Egerton, yet I've never sat down and figured out any of his stuff until now. This is basically Em D A, but he keeps the open G string going under the D & A. I guess you could call those D sus4 or D/G and A7, but he's pretty much just going for beautiful dissonant mess like you said.

  1716. musictheory 2017-10-30 05:06:27 65TwinReverbRI
    Interesting experiment. Maybe it's because of the familiarity I have with the piece, but it really doesn't bother me being in Locrian. Maybe that's what you're hearing as well. FWIW though, you should consider this: Even CPP composers like Beethoven approached Minor differently from Major. On the surface level is of course the "borrowing" if you like of the Dominant harmonies from the Parallel Major into a Minor key to give it the "push towards the Tonic" minor keys would lack if they were purely Aeolian. On a deeper level is just the kind of chromaticism implemented in minor and things like that. So one thing to think about is if a composer were to use another mode, they more than likely would not simply approach it as a "transposed" version of Major - they certainly didn't do that with minor so there's every reason to believe they wouldn't have done that with any other mode. In fact there are certainly modal things that were "tonalized". See Beethoven's on String Quartet movement marked "In The Lydian Mode". There is also a lot of "tonalized modality" in Bach Chorales, especially on Phrygian Hymn Tunes - and many minor key pieces especially early in the Baroque walk a fine line between Dorian and Minor.

  1717. musictheory 2017-10-30 09:12:42 pouffywall
    The perception of harmony can be simplified down to simple intervals. Major and minor thirds as you know them can be thought of as 5:4 and 6:5, respectively. However, in our normal tuning, 12-edo (12 equal divisions of the octave), those intervals aren't approximated very well. In 12-edo, our major and minor thirds have a width of 400 and 300 cents, respectively (cents are a measurement of the width of an interval). However, 1200log2(5/4) = ~386 cents, and 6/5 = ~315 cents. There's a ~15 cent different between "just," or pure thirds, and 12-edo thirds. That's an easily recognizable difference to most people, and there are a lot of people who choose to use different tunings and temperaments to be able to play these notes. That's where just intonation comes in. Just Intonation is a sort of temperament where you utilize only these simple ratios. Even a normal major scale can look very different in just intonation - 9:8, 5:4, 4:3, 3:2, 5:3, 15:8 are the intervals making up the major scale. In cents, that looks like: 204 (4 cent difference, sharp), 386 (14, flat), 498 (2, flat), 702(2, sharp), 884 (16, flat), 1088 (12, flat). Many people thinks this sounds more harmonious, or more beautiful. Other also like using intervals 12-tet can't approximate, like the subminor third (7:6), the supramajor third (9:7), the harmonic super-fourth (11:8 - an interval I think is really neat), or the harmonic seventh (7:4). To hear what some just intonation music sounds like, I suggest you listen to: [Ben Johnston's 4th String Quartet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4MkJXXMBAw) [Ben Johnston's 5th String Quartet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG4Z8yVEHZI) [Michael Harrison's Revelation: Music in Pure Intonation album(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4oKzSRs3sA)

  1718. musictheory 2017-10-31 04:03:29 QswagmasterQ
    It’s literally impossible to do what you said without tuning down a half step haha to get an Eb on the 6th string you have to go to the 11th fret unless you tune down

  1719. musictheory 2017-10-31 04:04:30 kazizza
    Tune down each string a half-step. Now your E A B is Eb Ab Bb.

  1720. musictheory 2017-10-31 04:53:23 MillionDollarBooty
    All your clues to your "riddle" are right there: Eb, root on the 6th string, AND most importantly you can't go past the 9th fret. Your only option at this point is tuning down half a step.

  1721. musictheory 2017-10-31 05:32:03 65TwinReverbRI
    Chuckled at James "Bone" Sorry I can't help you but Dr. No was like 1962 and certainly things like String of Pearls (which does down and up, and is major) were around since the 40s so I have to imagine it at least existed in some form or another. I would bet there are some in Django Reinhardt style - in fact, I just Googled it and there are: http://www.djangobooks.com/blog/lesson_6_minor_line_clich/ Django was recording in the 50s so at that time anyone hearing it could have thought it sounded like "Gypsy Jazz" and not "Spy" music. Though Peter Gunn was on air in the late 1950s, the whole "Spy" thing is really a 60s thing - think of all the Mancini (he wrote PG, Pink Panther, etc.) and I would think that prior to the 60s, any line clichés would more likely be conceptualized in the fads of the time.

  1722. musictheory 2017-10-31 12:45:06 RandomPrecision1
    It seems like we're saying * The root has to be on the 6th string * The root has to be Eb * The root has to be between frets 0 and 9 * We want it to be in standard tuning And in standard tuning, each fret on the 6th string is * 0: E * 1: F * 2: F# * 3: G * 4: G# * 5: A * 6: A# * 7: B * 8: C * 9: C# sooo, one of those 4 assumptions is wrong. I guess that leaves us with: * Maybe we aren't limited to standard tuning (what a lot of folks are suggesting) * Maybe the "root" doesn't need to be Eb? Ab pentatonic minor and Bb pentatonic minor have the same notes as Eb pentatonic minor, so maybe the idea is to use the 4th or 6th frets as "roots"? * Maybe the root doesn't really need to be on the 6th string somehow? I guess you could play a 12-string in standard tuning so that your "6th string" is a G - you'd have an Eb on the 8th fret. * Maybe we aren't limited to the 9th fret somehow? I don't even know what that would entail. I guess you could play an instrument with fewer frets - like a lot of dulcimers are tuned to a key, so you only have 7 frets in an octave.

  1723. musictheory 2017-10-31 14:32:45 xiipaoc
    Major 7th and minor 7th are very similar. They both consist of a major triad and a minor triad on top of each other. For example, CM7 is a C major triad and an E minor triad; Cm7 is a C minor triad and an Eb major triad. You end up getting both sounds, the major and the minor, and they kind of blend in. But I hear the M7 as more melancholy and the m7 as more neutral. What I recommend is sitting at the piano and just playing these chords and listening to them. Like, play a DM7 and just keep playing that same chord over an over for a while, slowly. Change voicings, play other stuff in between, whatever, but just keep playing that DM7. Then play... a Bbm7 for several minutes. Improvise a little on that. The important thing is to spend a long time on each chord, not to string them together into some kind of song or whatever. Hopefully you'll get an appreciation for the differences by doing that.

  1724. musictheory 2017-10-31 15:12:53 IdiotII
    F# will be better for string players than Gb

  1725. musictheory 2017-10-31 17:23:04 one_tim_whatley
    Tell your music teacher you’ll play an Eb on the sixth string without playing above the ninth fret as soon as he can get $0.06 without using pennies.

  1726. musictheory 2017-10-31 18:29:32 teddytightpants
    Start on the IV or V chord? The Ab and Bb are on the 6th string.

  1727. musictheory 2017-10-31 22:32:16 DRL47
    Great tune! This is just a string of secondary dominants. The interesting part is slipping the F in between the D7 and the G, which delays the resolution (to the G) just a bit. There aren't any "rules" being bent, but trying to find just one scale to play for all of it ignores some of the more interesting notes in the chords. Playing a blues or pentatonic scale can work, but doesn't make use of the "ragtime" quality of the progression.

  1728. musictheory 2017-10-31 23:45:42 Jongtr
    As DRL47 says, this is a string of secondary dominants. That's the rule that's being followed - a very common rule in vintage jazz. (No rule is being broken. No rule that's worth anything, anyway.) > when i improv over the progression, g mixolydian seems to be most pleasing to the ear. does this make... sense? Only in the sense that G mixolydian is the C major scale. (It would only *sound* like G mixolydian on the G chord. It will fit C and F perfectly too, of course, but no sense in calling it G mixolydian in those cases.) One easy option is to use the chord tones and fill in with notes from the C major scale. If you want the resulting scale names, that means A harmonic minor (on E), D melodic minor (on A), G major on (D7), and C major on C, F and G. But you just need to know the C major scale, and the various chord shapes (scale in same position as chord shapes), then it's easy. For bluesy embellishments, I'd approach the M3 of each chord from the m3 below.

  1729. musictheory 2017-11-01 05:43:14 locri
    Almost everyone gets into classical stuff to write those delicious romantic harmonies.. With that, you have to accept almost all composers before Schoenberg were taught with counterpoint as children, it forms a basis of how they write everything especially harmonies. What's unique in the romantic period, as opposed to the baroque (or is rarer on baroque) is how pure harmonic or non-contrapuntal ideas effects voice leading, maybe it's best to think of this as modulating to a different key for the current chord that's being prolonged. Things like secondary dominants create leading tones for these chords, creating chromaticism, and sometimes they'd add add chromatic notes just due to how the voices were moving, or what's called chromatic inflection, where upwards step wise moving voices could freely use sharpened notes and downwards step wise moving voices could freely use flattened notes (Edit: I've butchered this concept, the semitone resolution seems to be what's actually important here) and any other notes in the chord would also change to accommodate this inflection. Wagner and even Mozart was known to use this technique, notably in his string quartet (K.428). This chromaticism to me, especially the harmonic influences and modulation, is what gives that romantic era sound which is similar-ish to jazz harmonies as well as that both heavily use extended chords. Unlike jazz, a seventh in classical is more likely some subtly hidden suspension (fourth species style) rather than extending a chord because the composer felt like it. Classical is exactly not postmodern, actually postmodern is deliberately critical of anything you could call classical, so it's an entirely different aesthetic that demands a sort of humility that just doesn't allow self justification.

  1730. musictheory 2017-11-01 15:15:29 MiskyWilkshake
    It can't be done with the root actually being played on the 6th string. You just have to play it rootlessly or in inversion. Try [X 6 5 6 4 X] [X 4 6 4 5 X] [X 6 8 6 7 X].

  1731. musictheory 2017-11-02 14:04:07 Yeargdribble
    >My son is thinking about a music performance major. Just no. If he wants to be a performer, he should get a degree in something that might actually end in a job and just practice like he wants to perform. Nobody cares about that piece of paper when it comes to getting a job performing. They care how well he can play. Too many people go after a performance degree to do nothing but teach. And honestly, most of them go back to teach at universities after getting several degrees and honestly end up misleading the next generation of performance majors with their "performance" experience. Playing top spots in all of the ensembles opportunities your university offered you on a silver platter does not actually equal performance experience. So few professors have had to go out there and actually make it in the real world performance space yet they are teaching kids how to perform. At the very least our son's undergrad work should be in education and if he's not burned out, maybe he can pursue further work with performance in mind and hopefully will have a lot more perspective to go with it. I honestly feel like undergrad performance degrees are predatory. Virtually nobody that goes into them actually knows what the reality is. They are naive and full of dreams that are frankly an unrealistic picture of the performance space. To make matters worse, so many schools focus on things like orchestral rep for wind players as if orchestra is the only option for professional advancement. That's actually [completely bogus](http://www.trumpetjourney.com/2013/08/31/trumpet-job-numbers/). Most of the jobs are going to be in contemporary styles, but a musician should be able to do all of the above. To be a one-trick pony is to be leaving a lot of (if not all) money on the table. You just can't compete like that in a world where there are no longer space for extreme specialist (in the performance space). So many people out there have so much versatility that you *must* be able to complete. Honestly, your kid has equally realistic chance of playing for the NFL to be making it as a performing musician... and he'll be making a hell of a lot less while paying back a lot for that education that didn't really get him a job. Talk to some full time performers (like actually making a living free lancers) about this. You'll get a lot of "follow your dreams" but that's coming from 1) HS kids who don't know any better 2) current music majors who are still hopeful, and 3) older people who "I wish I'd followed my dreams" while they enjoy the benefits of a solid paycheck. >He's taking lessons on his primary instrument, but we're thinking about getting him some piano/theory lessons also. I think this is a fantastic idea no matter what course he decides. >I suspect that normal beginner piano lessons aren't quite what he needs. Wouldn't he have more value from lessons that teach him to use the piano keyboard to explore theory? Or, at this point, is he going to benefit more from just the mechanics of learning to play? Honestly, in the long run he'd get a lot out of being able to just play the instrument. I've been playing trumpet for over 25 years. I've been playing piano seriously for closer to 9. I make more money playing piano just because there is more work doing it and across a wider space. Trumpet is luckily a pretty versatile and in demand instrument compared to some instruments. I'll get church and orchestra jobs a sax player will never get. I'll get jazz jobs a horn or string player would never get. But even as giggable as trumpet is, piano is 10x that. And if you're good in both legit and contemporary styles, there are more opportunities (the name of the game for freelancers). I also think you're totally right about the benefit of learning the mechanics, but not just that... learning how to learn. The secondary (and beyond) instruments you play teach you a lot more than your primary. People go in thinking (wrongly) that they can skip the line... fast forward the fundamentals. You can't. No matter how much knowledge you are carrying over, the technical physical fundamentals of any instrument still have to be worked on slowly and accurately from square one. Experiencing it personally will give your son a ton more respect for the process. The reality is, even if he does make it out there as a performer, he'll likely be supplementing as a private instructor and the above lesson will make him a significantly better teacher. One who can empathize with the technical limitation of early playing. One who truly values the importance of a slow, accurate, systematic approach. Being a good teacher really does matter too. Reputation in teaching (just like performing) is very important. Private instructors are a dime a dozen, but they often have a revolving door. Meanwhile, the really solid ones can price themselves at the top of the market and have a consistently full studio with a waiting list. Even if you son just wants to explore theory through piano, he honestly needs to be technically proficient. When I was in college I sure did waste a lot of time trying to explore theory through piano because it would take me so long to decipher the notes. I wasn't used to reading bass clef and certainly wasn't good at reading harmony. By the time I could sound out one chord after the other, any sense of harmonic progression was lost. Had I been a better player (and in particular a better reader) this wouldn't have been a problem. I'd encourage him to get lessons starting from the beginning, swallow the ego and use a teacher who is going to have him systematically work through a lot of pedagogical material with an emphasis on reading and not a teacher who is focused on repertoire. People in your son's position often want to play cool stuff ASAP or think that their mastery on their current instrument means they shouldn't have to play children's songs on a new one. Bullshit. Keep it simple. Focus on fundamentals. People make faster progress when they don't create a ton of bad habits. >Our high school has a decent music program and he will get theory lessons, but probably won't get much time on a keyboard unless he does it on his own. This just makes me want to reinforce the importance of good keyboard skills. There honestly just isn't a better instrument for wrapping your head around harmony. It's a great visual representation that you just can't get anywhere else.

  1732. musictheory 2017-11-03 02:31:44 LiamOrynthia
    It's a Strandberg Boden OS 6 Really beautiful guitar and company. I own two of them, one 7 string and one 6

  1733. musictheory 2017-11-04 18:57:18 0ollo0
    > Stevie Ray Vaughn's guitar sound is unique SRV played with very thick strings and that was a large factor in his characteristic tone. *Vaughan was noted for playing extraordinarily thick strings, "as thick as barbed wire," "sometimes as extreme as a .018 through .074 set." He was not picky on string brand, but favored GHS Nickel Rockers of heavy gauge, partly for tone and partly because his fretting and strumming were so strong he often snapped strings while playing. He [...] always favored, from high to low, .013, .015, .019, .028, .038, .058.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevie_Ray_Vaughan%27s_musical_instruments For reference, a lot of rock players go with 0.09 mm for the high E string, whereas most jazz guitarists would use somewhere between 0.10 and 0.12. For a guitarist that does tons of bending like SRV, 0.13 requires crazy hand strength. IMO bending on 0.11s is already noticeably difficult and fatiguing.

  1734. musictheory 2017-11-04 20:35:47 alittlealive
    He'd also tune down a half step to e flat and that would ease a *little* bit of the string tension, but not much

  1735. musictheory 2017-11-04 23:20:32 tastethesatire
    I think Tom Morello has a pretty identifiable sound/style in most of his projects and also Frank Zappa has a little 3 string (?) triplet thing he does and I've seen Ruth Underwood talk about his use of 2 chords (?)

  1736. musictheory 2017-11-05 05:43:30 SeaBiscuit1337
    Stravinsky's use of dense, clashing rhythmic and harmonic structures creates a sort of a distinct primitive nature to some of his works. Also his use of instrumentation and changing time signatures is some sort of organized chaos. And his woodwind and string parts. Sometimes they sound like someone fluttering their lips making random tones. In a good way though.

  1737. musictheory 2017-11-05 12:13:56 Remalle
    In half position just go 1-4 on the A string then 0-1-4 on the D string and 0-2-4 on the G string and you're golden. Sorry I only play double bass but this should suffice for everyone else too.

  1738. musictheory 2017-11-05 12:44:36 Sarahsota
    Start in second position, move to third for the D on the a string, then C on the E string, then Eb.

  1739. musictheory 2017-11-05 13:06:27 qhs3711
    I assume we’re talking about double bass. I start in half position, then go up the G string all the way. So that’d be: 1 4 0 1 4 0 2 4 1 4 1 4 + 1 2 Bb C D Eb F G A Bb C D Eb F G A Bb III II I

  1740. musictheory 2017-11-05 22:09:34 zeugma25
    assuming the viola, you can start with finger 2 or 1 on the G string. also, you really should be using both hands. i can't get into specifics but the right hand goes on the bow.

  1741. musictheory 2017-11-05 22:20:14 PlazaOne
    The guy did a *lot* of live shows and I can remember reading magazine interviews from while he was still alive. His hands were a mess, and he said part of the reason he drank a bottle of whisky a day was to numb the pain - but he wanted to play and couldn't just dial back and miss a few shows. Plus, he was aware that once your chops go, it takes months to get them back again. Apparently he'd regularly lose a fingernail when he did string bends (no idea what "regular" means in this context, but once it's happened more than a couple of times I'd guess you sort of embrace the reality).

  1742. musictheory 2017-11-06 00:48:16 mordecai98
    Fingering the G string is always gold.

  1743. musictheory 2017-11-06 01:45:30 hyyerr
    Depends on the sound you want, I generally play jazz so I'm trying to avoid open strings and play patterns that are easily repeatable in other keys Start on the low E, 6th fret. Play 6 (root) - 8 - 10. Move to A string, same pattern, 6 - 8 - 10. On the D string it is just 9 - 10 (back to root). Pattern starts repeating

  1744. musictheory 2017-11-06 01:55:06 hattroubles
    I'm aware the "finger a g string" joke is as old as time. There's also a million variations of "finger a minor" jokes, referring to fingering a minor chord on guitar or framing it in a bass progression.

  1745. musictheory 2017-11-06 02:48:21 bennoabro
    Get a 5 string bass and drop to subcontra so that Bb is open.

  1746. musictheory 2017-11-06 08:27:38 65TwinReverbRI
    Most. Firstly, Timbre is not consistent on most acoustic instruments to begin with. But leaving subtle variations aside: On Guitar, you can pluck at different points along the string - plucking closer to the bridge makes more harmonics and plucking more towards the center of the string eliminates more harmonics. It makes it "brighter" (or "metallic" which is the playing instruction sometimes used) at the bridge and "mellower" (dolce, or "sweet") nearer the fingerboard. This is true of all string instruments as far as I know. In piano, you can't move where the hammer strikes the string but in Grand Pianos the "una corda" pedal physically moves the hammers to the side so they strike not only fewer strings per note (some notes on a piano are double or triple strung) but the felt of the hammer is uncompressed at that point so it's "spongier" and softer and makes a mellower sound - fewer harmonics. You can use mutes on many instruments. Trumpet mutes drastically change the timbre. All brass have mutes, string players have mutes, wind players have been asked to put handkerchiefs in the bell to mute them, and so on. But on wind instruments in general, you can control timbre to some degree by how you blow. With many instruments it's possible to make the same pitch using a different fingering or technique and these will all produce predictable and consistent changes in timbre - harmonics (the kind you play) on guitar, strings, harps, flutes, etc. Even using a pick versus fingers changes guitar timbre, and different picks change the timbre. Vocalists can also change timbre by varying the degree their mouth is open - humming to singing, nasal sounds to throat sounds, and so on. Now, if you're asking of you can change the Saw wave nature of a Violin to a Sine wave nature of more like a Flute, well, harmonics might get you close (some instruments use the marking "flautando" for this in fact) but not like a synthesizer would. Likewise, none of these are going to be able to do maybe a full range filter sweep like a Moog or even what a Wah Wah pedal does, but many instruments can certainly emulate those effects with not too much difficulty. And what they can't do they make up for in other timbral changes.

  1747. musictheory 2017-11-06 11:30:18 octatonic_formula
    Quite a few examples, such as Valveless brass instruments (the trumpeter playing revely, by manipulating harmonics); string harmonics; over blowing on wind instruments (by a 10th on clarinet, by an octave on the flute).

  1748. musictheory 2017-11-06 14:44:37 Yeargdribble
    From a piano perspective, what got me very good at this was practicing 3-7 chords or root-3-7 chord around the CoF including the "inversions" of these through a ii-V-I. This forced me to be hyper aware of the 3 and 7 of every chord all the time. The 3 and 7 define the chord and everything else is just gravy. After years of doing it, it's hard to explain. It's almost as if those notes (and the root, which is usually obvious) glow or are highlighted in my mind. I've also seen tons of voicings and gotten used to identifying them (and then extensions) within those voicings. I'm also very aware of what's diatonic and what's not and in most keys or even just key centers (where things might constantly shift in a jazzier contest). Following that, there's also a bit of a process of elimination effect. If what I'm seeing outlines a Maj7, I might expect to see a #11. If it's a dom7, #5s o b9s might be more likely to show up. Certain alterations are more common to certain types chords and so are certain extensions to a lesser extent (natural 11s on dom7s, not on Maj7s, etc.) Now, the problem with all of this is that I'm not really sure how to work on it for guitar. The problem is that even if you practiced a root-3-7 (or guide tone) set of chords through a progression, it's not going to have the effect it has on piano. I'm not a great (or even a good) guitiarist but I grabbed my guitar and tried to think through this a bit but realistically, even if I grabbed a ii-V-I progression... I just have to think differently. I basically learn the shape of the progression (or the chords in that progression) I want to make with smooth voice leading and the only thing I actually have to think about is the roots and what string they are going to be on. Everything that follows is a shape, which is probably similar to your problem... read a chord, ad hoc an appropriate voicing. At best you're thinking of the root and the melody note you might want ton top, but you don't have to think of the spelling. And if you wanted to do his in every key... well, you just slide up and down the fret board. Piano forced me to think of the root, sure, but it became an after thought. I had to spell the 3 and 7 discretely for each chord in every key in a way that I just don't when playing guitar. I've actually thought about this a lot when working on guitar stuff, particularly with rootless ideas and thinking, "Damn, I'm glad I understand this conceptually from piano, because I couldn't imagine learning it from a guitar PoV." That said, sometimes shapes that can be shared across multiple chords stand out in a more guitar due to its physicality. I'm honestly not sure if any of this is helpful, but I'm hoping between your guitar knowledge and my experience, something will click that will help you work through connecting the dots. If there's something you can figure out that will force you to really think about 3s and 7s, everything else should fall into place I think. ... Okay, before hitting publish I grabbed the guitar and made another go of creating the mentally equivalent exercise. Try find a ii-V-I CoF progression on youtube or with iRealPro or something, or maybe create one with a looper through a small handful of keys. If you're using a looper (which I did) just play the roots of your ii-V-Is, and then go to your guitar and play over them, but just play the 3 and 7 of the chords. It should honestly be pretty easy. The voice leading is obvious and smooth to guitar. I assume you know your fretboard a hell of a lot better than I do, so this should work okay for you. So let's say I had my looper playing E -> A -> D as roots. So I'd find a place where I could play G-D, slide to G-C#, then to F#-C#. Now obviously, you can find lots of places all over the fretboard to do this and for reinforcements sake it probably wouldn't hurt (it would sure as hell make me better at my fretboard fast and I'm tempted to do it myself). Also, make sure you do the "inversion." D-G, #C-G, C#-F#. This ensure that you have to think of it from both the 3 and 7. If you set this up around the full CoFs, you'll have to think, "Okay, which key is next... A.... what's the ii chord... B... what's the 3 and 7 of Bm7... D-A." Now, while it's easy to just slide your fingers through the voice leading, I'd encourage you to be mindful of what notes you're actually playing (or even say them out loud) as you slide to your V and I chords. Ultimately the point is making yourself actively think about what notes you're playing and associate them with the parts of the chords they define. And like I said, once you know your 3 and 7 of any chord...pretty much everything else will just fall into place. You could obviously add more extension to make this exciting once you're decent at 3 and 7. One I found and messed with was as following. Assuming we're building G on the 4th string (D and the 3rd) I could find the 9th (F#) of my ii chord on the 2nd string. When I slide to the V chord, that same F# can hang out... now it's the 13 of my V chord (in a nice open quartal voicing). As I slide home to my I chord I can move that F# down to E where it becomes the 9th of my I chord. I think these would move from exercise to becoming extremely practical, sparse voicings for comping a lead sheet in a small combo setting.

  1749. musictheory 2017-11-07 04:05:16 uuuucnklaign
    Perhaps a bit too complicated to be a reasonable answer to this question, but to me the most mind-blowing concept in music theory is the concept of Temperament. Start with a simple vibrating string - it is not just a single vibration back and forth, but rather a whole series of vibrations: the fundamental vibration is along the full full string, but at the same time there are forces moving the string to vibrate at half the sting's length, and a third, and a forth, and so-on. These vibrations give the string it's musical quality, and are audible as overtones. A number of hugely important concepts of music theory come directly from this naturally-occurring phenomena, and therefore while much of music theory may be seen as learning the conventional rules written by the musicians of previous generations, some of these most important concepts were are not rules set by other humans, but rather direct consequences of the physical science of the universe. The distance between notes in a scale can be derived directly from the harmonic series. Our ears hear a doubling of frequency as a linear progression, so we hear equal "space" between a 440 Hz and 880 as we do between 220 and 440. Doubling the frequency creates an octave, and the quality of notes played on different octaves sound similar to our ears. As you progress through the harmonic series, each successive overtone is quieter than the last: the first few are audible, depending on the instrument, and the lowest audible over-tones are generally the loudest. The first non-octave (new) tone is the perfect 5th, and the next is the major 3rd. If you build a new overtone series on the fundamental frequency a fifth above and below the first, and take those first two audible non-fundamental tones and arrange them in order within a single octave, you get something that is pretty darn close to the major scale. Where this scale differs from the one we use today is an interesting topic. Pulling notes from the overtone series is arguably the natural / "correct" way of doing it, and how brass instruments work. However using this temperament has the series disadvantage of requiring a different instrument for each key. Before the great compromise of abandoning this natural system was made, trumpet players would switch horns when the song switched keys, and keyboard instruments like the harpsichord were tuned to specific keys. Like today, if you played all the white notes you would play in the key of C, but unlike today there were keys you could not play in because the instrument was not tuned for them. The great compromise was called "equal temperament" where the tones were split up into 12 chromatic steps perceived by our ears to be equally spaced. The diatonic scale that we know of today is playing the notes from this equally tempered system which are close to, but aren't quite, the naturally occurring intervals on which they are based. It's a subtle difference that goes un-noticed to an un-trained ear, and plenty people live their whole life without hearing music with naturally-tempered scales. So is music still based on that physical phenomena, or have we changed it to the point where it is strictly a matter of convention, an art-form derived from human creativity as opposed to the physical laws of the universe?

  1750. musictheory 2017-11-07 05:39:00 65TwinReverbRI
    Conducting is a little different. What you're talking about is a form of transcription, but usually for conducting we call it something more like score-reading or "reducing" a score (when writing it out). The way this is done is to take all of the notes in a score - let's take a Horn Quartet for exmaple - so usually this would be on 4 staves in what we call "open score" - that is - each Horn player has their own staff. So what you have to do is take each part and put it on a Grand Staff (piano staves - treble and bass) in the pitch they sound. Horns are transposing instruments so you need to know their transpositions. So you might end up with the upper two horn parts on the treble staff and the lower two on the bass staff or something like that. All you need really to start is to know which instruments transpose, and by how much. I like to remember all the ones that don't transpose first. Basically most instruments that don't usually say "in Bb" in the name or something like that don't transpose, with a few exceptions. Here are the instruments that sound as written: Violin Viola (though you need to read Alto Clef) Cello Flute Oboe Bassoon Trombone Some instruments sound an octave lower than written, so if you see a note for them, you write it one octave lower: Contrabass (Double Bass, String Bass) Guitar and Electric Bass Tuba And most things with "contra" added to the name, like "Contrabassoon" is an octave lower than regular bassoon. Clarinet is usually a Bb instrument meaning it sounds one whole step lower than the written note. So if you see a C written, it's going to sound like a Bb so that's what you write on your reduced score. Trumpet is also usually in Bb (and both of these would be assumed if they don't say, but if they're something else they're going to say). The outlier for common instruments is Horn, which is Perfect 5th down from written pitch (there's an older way of doing it as well but most modern scores use the 5th down method). So you see an E on a French Horn part, it's going to sound like an A a 5th below. So really, most are "in C" - as written, with a few things an octave down (really low instruments) and then Trumpet and Clarinet in Bb, then Horn in F, and that's it. The harder ones are anything less common or in some other transposition, and the Sax family. Saxes are either in Bb or Eb but they transpose to different Ebs and Bbs! So A Tenor Sax is a Bb instrument but it's also an octave lower and a whole step below the written note. So a middle C on a Tenor Sax will sound like a Bb below the bass clef C. There are less common things like English Horn, Basset Horn, and things like that so ultimately you have to learn them. But I'd say start with the easy and common ones first - the strings as they make up the cores of most orchestras, and start trying to reduce those to grand staff. Then work with other small chamber groups - trios, quartets, and so on. It could be helpful to start with something with piano already in the group so you kind of know what notes are already there in the piano part. HTH

  1751. musictheory 2017-11-07 12:14:11 DonutsMcKenzie
    > I'm not a great (or even a good) guitiarist but I grabbed my guitar and tried to think through this a bit but realistically, even if I grabbed a ii-V-I progression... I just have to think differently. I basically learn the shape of the progression (or the chords in that progression) I want to make with smooth voice leading and the only thing I actually have to think about is the roots and what string they are going to be on. Everything that follows is a shape, which is probably similar to your problem... read a chord, ad hoc an appropriate voicing. At best you're thinking of the root and the melody note you might want ton top, but you don't have to think of the spelling. And if you wanted to do his in every key... well, you just slide up and down the fret board. Absolutely spot on. This is my problem for sure, and I it applies to a lot of guitarists in general. Because the guitar is essentially a big grid of notes it's very easy to visualize the shapes of certain chords relative to any given root. Even though I feel like I'm pretty aware of the chord tones within those shapes, it's all relatively 'visual' and predictable in a way that piano isn't for me (at least right now). Thanks for the detailed response, and I think it does help me quite a bit. I'll definitely take a crack at your exercises tonight on both guitar and piano. I really appreciate all the time you must have put into helping me with this! I think the thing that is difficult for me on both instruments, but especially piano for some reason, is i'm always thinking about the roots (that's what's in the chart, after all) and I'm aiming for notes that are *relative to* the root, but the voicings are all mixed up or even completely rootless so it's all very counter-intuitive, if that makes sense. So yeah, I'll record a bunch of roots and just strip everything down to 3&7 and really think about chords tones along the way.

  1752. musictheory 2017-11-08 17:41:45 Yeargdribble
    One of the biggest ones for me was around improvisation, particularly coming from a more classical background. I kept trying to play "correct" solos. I spent so much time in the theory hole and worrying about laying scales over chords that I wasn's using my ears and just playing around. Ear first, theory second would've given me years more experience on improv. --- When dealing with reading on piano, I spent way too much time trying to read lots of semi-difficult music to improve my sightreading. I also just never realized the importance of keeping my eyes on the damned page, and now it's the most obvious thing in the world. I should've been reading offensively easy music with an aim at absolute accuracy with my eyes on the page to develop better proprioception. Instead, I did lots of harder reading, looking up and down, and guessing (usually wrongly) while trying to keep a steady tempo... in fact I was just reinforcing a half a dozen levels of mistakes. I wasn't letting my brain be ahead of my fingers and ensuring I fully read the chord I was going to play before playing it. Playing incorrect stabs create the wrong associations between what I was reading and what was on the page. If someone had just told me to keep my eyes up, read easier music, and read slow enough to keep my brain ahead of my fingers, I would be a much better reader now. --- Using the metronome wrong. I love the metronome and I'm not a person who thinks you should throw the baby out with the bathwater as many anti-metronome people are, but I used it very wrongly for many years. In particular with piano, I would set a tempo and go to work on scales. I could *almost* get a given scale at that tempo, but mostly I was just mess up a lot of times and keep trying until I got it right. In reality, I was training my brain to play mistakes. I should've dropped the metronome until I could at least roughly make sure I had mastered my fingerings (brain ahead of fingers). Then I should've worked only as slowly as I could play accurately and build up speed over time. --- One thing I used to do that the vast majority of musicians I see still do is spend too much time on everything. I was trying to pour water into a cup that was full. Even though I didn't fall into the trap of running a piece top to bottom over and over, I would spend an hour just beating one section with a metronome to get it up to speed. The reality is, most improvement happens while you sleep. You should focus on an area, expect meager improvements, sleep on it, then come back the next day to find it's much easier and you can magically play it faster. Practicing for long times just made me more fatigued, made me make more mistakes, and created problems I had to correct the next day. Not to mention I'd waste an hour on one thing when I could've spend 5-10 minutes on 6-12 things. I practice much less now, with greater focus, and with much better results. --- I also know there were plenty of theory conceptions I had over the years that were wrong and I felt like a fool once I figured out I was an idiot about them. Most of them I've forgotten as they've been replaced in my mind. Obviously my emphasis on learning common practice theory in college and all the extra time I spend outside of class practicing my part-writing when I could've been practicing any number of more useful contemporary skills burns a little. But that was an institutional issue, not an issue of self-teaching (which in a way makes it worse). But then there are simple ideas like the fact that CMaj7 and C6 share the same function. A lot of ideas about the interchangeability of jazz chords was something that took me a while. I came from a structured mindset. If it's a G7 on the page, why the hell would I play a G13b9? That would be "incorrect." A lot more grasp of functionality over correctness of notation from a conceptual standpoint would've saved me some grief. --- I think a lightbulb for a lot of contemporary musicians, particularly those playing harmony instruments, would be how much any one chord is part of other chords. Once you slap 7ths on everything and leave the openings for extensions, the world opens in up in what you can do. If I'm chilling on an FMaj7 chord and the chord changes to Dm7 (and I have a bass player), why should I do anything? I just hang out on my Fmaj7 and now it's a Dm9. Moving to G7? Hang out... now it's a G13sus or I could just employ some simple voice leading to make it a normal G13. My hands were moving more than they need to. It defeated the cool less-is-more sound in comping and could make what should be harmonic background too busy, angular, and prominent than it needed to be. These concepts are also absolutely essential for playing jazzier stuff on accordion. --- A problem for both piano and guitar was my focus on using the "correct" fingering for certain chords. Bullshit. I need to be able to play any chord with almost any combination of fingers. I need to be situationally aware. Where did I come from and where am I going? This definitely a thing when playing finger style guitar. Am I picking that string? No? Then why the hell am I twisting my fingers in knots trying to play that chord with the "correct" fingerings I read on some chart? Yes, practice the "correct" fingerings, but don't be so afraid of not having the "right fingering." Man, this was a thing for blues scales on piano, and also for doing sequence work or walking bass lines. When I finally had to deal with things for which there was never going to be a prescribed fingering, I realized that I just need to develop a system of contingencies so that I didn't run out of fingers in scalar improv stuff. I realized I just needed to work on it and find my own (consistent) fingering. And sometime I'd have to do something different. That didn't mean I'd learned the "wrong" fingering... it meant I'd learned and "alternative" fingering. That just makes me more flexible. I wish someone had told me that was okay sooner. --- Oh, and let's not talk about my guitar strumming or my (not-so) economy picking. I should've learned how to strum in a constant motion sooner and I should've learned about alternate picking way earlier.

  1753. musictheory 2017-11-08 18:31:20 Redhavok
    You're actually describing a lot of metal there, not just grindcore, almost anything hardcore has these elements. >Using scale degrees it goes 0 b6 3 b2 0 3 4 m3.. There is no mode that would use that string of notes together in a phrase. Just had a listen, it actually goes: 1 5 b3 1 | #7 b3 b5 2 1 5 b3 1 | #7 1 b3 1 2 1 b5(PH) The low D here is actually the 7th degree, not the root, it is Eb harmonic minor, with a b5, because metal.

  1754. musictheory 2017-11-08 18:56:34 gmarshallcomp
    It really depends on context as jazz musicians often use the melodic minor ascending as that is indicative of the melodic minor scale more so than the descending which is simple the aeolian/natural minor mode. They’d use the natural minor scale of that is the harmonic structure/colour they want to emphasise at a given point in the composition. I’m a bit sketchy on Jazz Theory though so it’s likely they’d see it as some Modal permutation. The melodic minor as we understand it as classical musicians relates more to good melodic writing in relation to traditional counterpoint... Probably why it’s called what it is... So good voice leading at a basic level, skipping exceptions, suggests the 7th must resolve to the 8th/root, the 2nd to the 1st, 4th to the 3rd, 6th to the 5th. The melodic minor as we know it ascending and descending really captures these rules along with the main exceptions too. If we’re heading up then the 6th and 7th are raised. The first raised note the 6th distances it from the 5th, propelling it upward as the extended gap between the 5th and 6th makes the lazy desire to fall back down less so. The raised 7th works in the opposite fashion, reducing the gap to the 8va making it want to get there. On the way back down the roles are reversed. The flattened 7th makes us not really care about going back to the 8va as we’ve been there and we may as well just travel the same distance to this new note, the 6th. The flattened 6th is now closer to the 5th meaning we definitely want to get there as they have a service station at the 5th where we can fuel up for the second stint back to the root. An example of what I mean, relating to voice leading, but using a different mode would be the string runs in Hedwig’s theme (https://youtu.be/I35XMs5J7II). A lot of them peak at the 2nd degree of the E-natural minor scale. so rather than have them sit precariously on F-sharp that will really want to go to the new territory of G it’s flattened to make it want to fall back on the root note which at most examples I recall is E. So in really short summary: it’s basically a scale that’s indicative of good traditional melodic writing.

  1755. musictheory 2017-11-10 00:24:50 moseslow
    It's derivative of one of the "rules" of species counterpoint, that a perfect consonance is stated(unison, 8va, P5) using contrary and oblique motion: not parallel. Parallel perfect intervals make two contrapuntal melodies lose their sense of independence. I gather the most common occurrence of this rule not applying is for when the guitar is playing power chords through distortion. I disagree with this principle for two reasons. First of all, when the guitar is playing power chords, what the listener is perceiving isn't 5ths moving in parallel, but a timbral extension of the bass line. Also, just in all other cases of writing music, the guitarist will find quirks centered around the vii diminished triad, especially if the root is appearing on the low-E string, that one might find the contrapuntal solution to most musically effective. A lot of the best guitarists I know do that, even if they're passively aware of that. Remember, the concepts introduced in theory and counterpoint class are centered around the principle of resonance. At the end of the day, yes, whatever's good is good, but most conventions have a physical, scientifically demonstrable idea underlying.

  1756. musictheory 2017-11-10 02:38:37 Jongtr
    The relevant mathematical division doesn't begin with the octave. It begins with a musical object, such as the pipe of a wind instrument, or a stretched string. If you take a stretched string (guitar makes a good example), and divide it in half, it vibrates at twice the speed. That produces the sound we call an "octave", and the note sounds so similar to the open string note we give it it the same name. So, on the "A" string, the note produced when we halve its length is also "A". On guitar, that note is marked by the 12th fret. (Of course the "12" comes later, but I'll get to that... we could just make a mark on a fretless fingerboard, like a violin or cello.) When we divide the string in similar simple fractions we get other notes that all sound like they relate closely to that "A" note. If we divide by 3, that lands us on the 7th and 19th frets of the guitar fretboard. So you'll see that the first *natural* division of the 12-fret octave is actually 7+5. That's where the irregularity of scales begins. The note on fret 7 (and 19) is a "perfect 5th", which we call "E". It's "perfect" mainly because of the smooth consonance it makes with A. It sounds related because the frequencies are in a smple ratio - 3:1 or 3:2. The next simplest division of the string is into 4. That division is marked by frets 5 and 24 (if there is a 24). Fret 24 would be another "A", because it's half-way between 12 and the bridge. But fret 5 is 3/4 of the string, and produces a different note: "D", a "perfect 4th". So by this point we have divisions of the octave into 12ths in a 5-2-5 proportion. Remember this is all governed by sound - choosing string divisions (not octave divisions) that produce notes that sound "perfect" together. We can go further and divide the string by 5. This gives us frets 4 (4/5), 9 (3/5) and 16 (2/5). So now we have 12ths of an octave arranged 4-1-2-2-3 (frets 0-4-5-7-9-12). We can stop here, because we already have all the units we need. We can take that 0-4 fret gap (between the full length and 4/5) and divide it in half - two of the same units as between 5 and 7 (and 7 and 9): a "whole step". And we can take the 3 fret gap between 9-12 (3/5 and 1/2 string length) and divide it into a whole and a half-step. We can put them either way round, but whole+half then gives us the major scale (ionian mode). Half-whole (between 9-12) gives us mixolydian mode. Most of the modes and scales in common use come from different distributions of whole and half steps in those "perfect" 0-5 and 7-12 spaces. (Only lydian and locrian break those positions, and both are rare.) So - we didn't need to start with a fretted instrument like guitar. We could have made chalk marks on a violin fingerboard and come up with those same positions. Of course (as any mathematician would realise), this maths doesn't result in exactly equal 12ths of an octave. E.g., the step between 5-7 is 1/9 of the string length from 5 to the bridge. IOW, the notes D-E are in a 9:8 ratio. But dividing the 0-4 gap into 2 means each whole step there is 1/10. A-B and B-C# are each 10:9 ratios. So we have two different sizes of tone! And the semitone is not exactly half a tone... But this wasn't a huge problem - not for a long time. Everything sounds OK when a scale is divided this way, it just means that if we want to use a different note as keynote, the other scale notes are in different proportions. Eventually everyone decided it would much more practical if all 12 semitones *were* exactly equal, and whole tones were all the same and exactly twice a semitone. But this system of "equal temperament" - which adjusts each semitone a tiny amount this way or that to make all of them equal - arrived pretty late in western music.

  1757. musictheory 2017-11-11 07:34:59 65TwinReverbRI
    Don't? Seriously though, can you read music? If so, just get the music for the violin piece and play it on piano. Violins can generally only play 1 note at a time, though double, triple, and quadruple stops are all possible, as are bowed chords. But you didn't link to an actual piece so not sure how complex it is. But you get only 1 or 2 (or maybe up to 4) fingers to play notes on violin and 10 on piano plus hands that can work independently. Shouldn't be too hard to just play it on the piano. If you can't read music or can't find the music, you'd have to do it by ear. Still you may not need to do any "arrangement" per se (usually we just say that's a "transcription") - IOW, you can just play it "as is" without making any changes in range, or key, or organization, etc. The one thing that could trip you up is that a violinist could play an open E string along with the same note on the 2nd string or so do some other notes on the 2nd string that creates a certain effect that might need to be done in octaves on the piano or something, but again without seeing the original piece impossible to tell. If your ear is not great, try a slow downer app and figure it out bit by bit.

  1758. musictheory 2017-11-11 14:37:31 Xenoceratops
    Compose in which style? I know it can be a difficult question to answer; I really hate it when people ask me what kind of music I make. However, if you know you want to write string quartets and piano sonatas, I can tailor my recommendations toward that. If you want to write pop/rock songs, there is pedagogy for that as well.

  1759. musictheory 2017-11-11 16:05:47 xX_SuperSic58_Xx
    Assuming this is not all strings at once, sounds D Major to me: That 0, 2, 4 on the D string shows a major triad relationship, makes me say it must be a Lydian or Major mode, then the B B C# C# on the A string implies the C# is a leading tone to the D as well. That Gb I would actually say is instead an F#. Notes of your key should be: D, E, F#, G, A, B, C#. You'd be playing in two sharps. I read your melody as: D D D D, B B C# C#, F# F# F# F#, D E F# D. Do take the time to learn some basic music theory, if you are indeed a guitarist as you are only selling yourself short in the long run. Been there, done that, learned better. I used TAB for 10 years, I wish I put in the effort sooner!

  1760. musictheory 2017-11-11 16:19:11 xX_SuperSic58_Xx
    I tried to work this out on a note by note basis, I tried notating this as chords into guitar pro, even retuning that F to a Gb assuming this is a piece written for tuned down 1 step. It just makes completly no sense. Assuming these are notes, not chords, I want to say D Major but you really do not make this easy at all. You NEED to learn some basic music theory if you want to get anywhere on your instrument. Music is a lifelong commitment, not just a "Lol let's play smoke on the water lol" thing. Go learn the Major scale, then learn the CAGED system. Both things you can do in a day, and it will make you a better musician. Again, looking at this as transcribed chords, I get nothing: Dm7add9/A??? G7? Dm7M9(No5)/G!?!? C#7M9(b9)/B!?!?!?!? What the hell even is that? The only real clue I have is the D/E/F# on the D string, implies A Lydian or D Major. The C# leading tone strengthens my belief this is D Major but again what in the living f- is this mess even...

  1761. musictheory 2017-11-12 10:50:55 MiskyWilkshake
    In that case, there's no easy way to easily play any of these pitches as harmonics except for the high G (which could be played as a natural touch-octave harmonic on the open G string) without retuning the violin pretty dramatically. They're all just far too low, and the lowest harmonics one can produce are natural touch-octave harmonics - which can only be produced on open strings, rather than any fretted note. [Here's](http://www.timusic.net/debreved/harmonics/) a useful resource for you.

  1762. musictheory 2017-11-12 13:31:50 theoriemeister
    Right. The lowest harmonic that can be produced on a string instrument is the octave (where the string is divided in half). As the lowest note on the violin is a G, there's no way to produce the G4 as a harmonic, unless you re-tune the G string to an F.

  1763. musictheory 2017-11-13 07:36:50 MiskyWilkshake
    Aye. The D4 could be pulled off neatly on a viola as a touch-4 harmonic on the open C string, though.

  1764. musictheory 2017-11-13 18:37:48 Xenoceratops
    I'll approach this from a different angle: write the music you want to hear. If you are enthusiastic about it and you can sell the performers on it, they will play it well. (Sorta well. Two rehearsals is hardly performance level, especially for new music.) If your composition is a bunch of abstract bullshit, the players' attitudes and resulting sound will be, similarly, a bunch of abstract bullshit as well. If those polyrhythms sound cool and mean something, the players will actually want to play them and get good at them rather than just getting it over with. Go to IMSLP and download some Beethoven quartets. Pick one you like and study it. The closer your score looks to that of the Beethoven quartet you pick, the better the music and performance will be. I don't mean triads everywhere and 4/4, but the clear instrumental roles, counterpoint, textural hierarchy, and form. You would be surprised by how much good string quartet music is basically an accompaniment for violin I. Don't be afraid to distribute the big roles to other parts, but don't try to give everybody a virtuoso line at the same time, because it is unidiomatic.

  1765. musictheory 2017-11-13 19:04:34 trackday
    And a 4-string fretless Fender Jazz bass would be an awesome instrument to play in lots of situations.

  1766. musictheory 2017-11-13 23:11:58 arcowhip
    If you can imagine it and hear it, then it is probably feasible. My string quartet played a piece where we all have our own divisions around the same pulse. The viola is in some division of 3's, violin 2 in 4's, violin 1 in 5's, and the cello is in 7's. If we can do it, Ethel certainly can. Here is that piece if you are curious: https://youtu.be/2vtyM7f3jgg I would be happy to look at your score to let you know my thoughts on how playable it is.

  1767. musictheory 2017-11-13 23:34:26 todi41
    Guitar! Perfect pitch + big hands is such am incredible combo for guitar. A lot of the best players (hendrix, SRV, frusciante, Jimmy page) use their thumb to hit the low E string which allows a lot more flexibility for the other fingers compared to traditional barre chords. Point being - with perfect pitch and no technical limitations, the sky is your limit for guitar.

  1768. musictheory 2017-11-14 05:14:46 65TwinReverbRI
    I've seen Ethel. They did a masterclass and performance at my university. While a lot of what they do seems to be things with "pop appeal", they were no slouches performance wise. I've only seen the one program they did that time but I would bet they'd be OK with it. Maybe what you should do is look at Eliot Carter's String Quartets. There's at least one movement from one that does just what you're talking about - a different division in each part. What's funny about string players is you'll get "you should start this phrase with an upbow" long before you get "I can't play this rhythm"! (at least IME). Sounds like a great opportunity - I'd say, don't be afraid to be experimental - you'll learn more from your mistakes and their comments!!! Good Luck. Let us know how it goes!

  1769. musictheory 2017-11-15 10:01:13 emeksv
    It's just an easy convention for remembering barre chords. Fingerings for C, A, G, E and D are all moveable if you barre what in those chords is simply the nut above the first fret. I find A and E to be the most useful basic shapes, and their minors and other variations are moveable as well. E-based barre chords are rooted on the E string, and A-based barre chords are rooted on the A string.

  1770. musictheory 2017-11-15 10:08:20 emeksv
    Another reason A and E are the most useful shapes - they're the *same* shape. The only reason the fourth string fretting position moves between them is because of the 4-half-step tuning between the G and B string. Both E and A-shaped chords finger the notes of the chord in this order: 1, 5, 1, 3, 5 ... and 1 again for E-shaped chords. Also, if you think about it, power chords are just E- and A-shaped chords as well, with the lower strings muted.

  1771. musictheory 2017-11-15 10:26:36 emeksv
    Sorry, a couple more just because this is one of my favorite topics ... just like power chords play the top strings and mute the bottom, you can play the bottom strings of these chord shape while muting the two top strings, and because they include the third degree you get major and minor qualities. For example: the [open F chord](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9d/12/62/9d12626d0461674f82be2e90b81e9101.png) is the bottom four strings of the E shape, so it's moveable and rooted on the E string. [Open Bm](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e3/14/bc/e314bc3801854bdff67c55e26dd8b730.jpg) works the same way; it's the bottom four strings of the Am shape, again moveable, rooted on the G string. Together, that gives you three different voicings for major, minor (and minor 7 is pretty easy as well) and two power chord voicings for all twelve notes by learning two basic shapes. Sweet, huh?

  1772. musictheory 2017-11-15 11:25:12 Korrun
    Try: [Swiftlessons](https://youtu.be/VNoMuKte4Do) And: [Justinguitar](https://youtu.be/7MbwbWSeZjc) Also, the G shape is not usually played in the full 6-string version. It usually just played as 3 or 4 strings at a time. For example, a C chord played with G shape could be: xx5558, 8755xx, x7558x, or 8x555x. These shapes also fit really smoothly with the major and minor pentatonic box shapes.

  1773. musictheory 2017-11-15 17:49:47 komponisto
    >You would be surprised by how much good string quartet music is basically an accompaniment for violin I. Don't be afraid to distribute the big roles to other parts, but don't try to give everybody a virtuoso line at the same time, because it is unidiomatic. Goodness, do you ever have the nature of this genre wrong. (So much so that I'm tempted to hypothesize that this is a prank comment on your part.) Its whole history can be read as being about the emancipation from the paradigm you describe. Already in the Classical period, it specifically contrasts with other chamber genres (e.g. the string trio and the piano trio) in this respect. Beethoven himself is a key figure in the history of this process (not surprisingly). "Give everybody a virtuoso line at the same time" is pretty much *exactly* what the string quartet is all about.

  1774. musictheory 2017-11-16 00:50:29 unequaltemperament
    It's actually my gateway drug to get people into new music! I'm pretty easy to track down on here, so I don't mind sharing, especially because I can namedrop a festival that's super important to me. I performed it twice while at Florida State during my MM, then last summer at the Taneycomo Festival Orchestral in Branson, Missouri and this past February at Oklahoma City University. The last two were both with my quartet, the Westheimer String Quartet. A video talk would be amazing! Can't wait to hear more of your thoughts on the piece, it's been incredibly special every time to share with the audience.

  1775. musictheory 2017-11-17 03:06:46 nmitchell076
    You're totally right that the pentatonic scale, the hexachord, and the diatonic scale are related structures by virtue of being constructed by grouping a bunch of perfect fifths together. So I think I agree with what you are saying, but rather than framing it as "the hexachord is based on the pentatonic" I'd frame it as "both scales are based on the same thing: perfect fifths." But really, both statements are sort of saying the same thing, so I'm not sure the distinction matters all that much. But to extend the discussion a bit: the different number of Fifths in turn results in different characteristic features in each scale. That is, the pentatonic is the maximum number of Fifths you can string together without creating any half step relationships, the hexachord is the maximum you can string together without generating any tritones, and the diatonic is the maximum you can string together without running into a chromatic version of the same note. Each one also allows you to increase the number of triads you can create. So, in short: Scale|# of P5ths|# half steps|# tritones|# consonant triads* :--|:--|:--|:--|:-- Pentatonic|4|0|0|1 [1M] Guidonian Hexachord|5|1|0|3 [2M/1m] Diatonic|6|2|1|6 [3M/3m] 5th generated octachord**|7|4|4|8 [4M/4m] *I'm only counting root position triads here. M = major, m = minor. **This last one is just for fun! (I think it's interesting how when we move to the 8-note set, the number of dissonant tritones jumps up dramatically, but we only pick up 2 additional consonant triads, this reveals one of the nice things about the diatonic scale: that it's an ideal compromise that allows for a lot of triads while minimizing the number of possible dissonances. Also, the fifth-generated octachord is no longar maximally evenly spaced in the chromatic scale, which is a downside). Anyways, back to the question of pentatonic vs. hexachord. I guess the question one might ask here is why was the 6 note scale such a theoretically important thing for Medieval and Renaissance thinkers? Why did so many Theorists talk a lot about these six-note collections, but said basically nothing about pentatonic scales? The answer lies in the half step you gain by moving from the pentatonic scale to the hexachord. This is the explicit thing that Theorists talk about when they discuss hexachords: you use them to figure out where half steps are. The pentatonic scale isn't useful for this, because it has no half steps in it. And the diatonic scale has two half steps, so it's a bit more ambiguous. What they wanted was to be able to hear a half step and say "okay, I know exactly what scale is active here." They then mapped the pitches of the hexachord onto syllables for ease of memory: UT RE MI FA SOL LA. So you knew that any time you sang the syllable MI, there was a half step above it, and any time you sang the syllable FA, there was a half step below it (and that no other syllables had half steps below or above them). This is the main value of the hexachord system. This in turn helped them to do something else: explain why both B naturals and Bbs were possible (but not sharps, they didn't need those yet). They rationalized it by saying "well, one is just MI [B natural, signaling that there's a C a half step above it] in the hexachord built on G while the other is FA [Bb, signaling that there's an A a half step below it] in the hexachord built on F." So the system designed to help you locate half steps had the advantage of providing you with an explanation for why it is that the music of the time used all the notes of the diatonic scale *plus* Bb. Then, when eventually they did start to need sharps (for leading tones in cadences), they found that the system they had provided all the terms they needed: just call any leading tone MI since it's always a half step below the note you're cadencing on. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Furthermore, the "half step finding" aspect of the hexachordal system helps to explain something that would otherwise be somewhat curious if you view the history of music and theory as a straight line of adding fifths gradually to get from Pentatonic to Hexachordal to Diatonic music: what theorists talked about before the introduction of the hexachord was *not* the pentatonic scale, but rather the *tetrachord* D E F G, which is not related to fifth cycles, but *is* related to half step finding. Here's the way it's explained in *Musica enchiriadis* in the 9th century: > Pitches, however, are not just any kind of sound, but those which are suitable to melody by legitimate spacing between themselves. They have a certain natural order to their rise and fall so that a similarly constituted group of four pitches appears four times in succession. But all four tetrachords, while dissimilar, are so internally homogeneous... To provide an example now, these are the four notes of the tetrachord in their proper order: > * The first and lowest, called *protos* or *archoos* by the Greeks [ie, D] > * The second or *deuterus,* separated from the protos by a tone [ie, E] > * The third or *tritus,* separated from the deuterus by a semitone [ie, F] > * The fourth or *tetrardus,* separated from the tritus by a tone [ie, G] > An unending succession of these sounds is created by their multiplication [ie, you transpose the tetrachord up to give you A B C D] So again, the basic unit is a group of pitches with a semitone in the middle, just like with the hexachord. The move that these theorists seem to make is not to expand from a 5 note collection to a 6 note collection by adding an extra fifth, but rather to move from a 4 note collection to a 6 note collection by adding a whole tone to the bottom and top of their basic scale. Now, I'm not saying that the pentatonic scale isn't a part of the story of tonality, obviously it is because of how important fifths are for western music making (and for other cultures too). All I'm saying is that hexachords are a unique structure for the history of music theory, one where one important thing (cycles of perfect fifths) meets with another important thing (using scalar structures to find out where half steps are located). So it's a structure that ties together two important elements of the history of western music together. In short, while it may be fair to say that musically we moved from a pentatonic to a diatonic system by adding fifths, theoretically, we moved from a tetrachordal system to a diatonic (plus one extra note) system by expanding outward from a central half step and then transposing the result. The hexachord is the place where the two ways of "generating" diatonic music come together.

  1776. musictheory 2017-11-19 00:52:22 65TwinReverbRI
    Glissando typically means you start on a note, and quickly "glide" through all the notes from the starting note to an ending note. In the case of Strings, since they have not frets, you get every possible pitch (including microtones and smaller) as the player slides up the string. To emulate this on other instruments, like guitar, you'd slide your finger up the same way but it would produce only half-steps because of the frets. But because it's usually done quickly, only the starting and ending notes (usually) are notated - the rest are just a "blur" or slide in between, and not meant to be specific (or specifically emphasized by the player). You could theoretically gliss some "chords" basically making them "arpeggiandi" - like if you gliss on only the black notes of a Piano you could have a Gb6/9 arpeggio, or harps, when tuned certain ways, can make chordal glissandi (piano white keys could be G11, etc.), But that is really stretching (or uber-specifying) the definition of arpeggio. A gliss is a gliss - a fast move up or down "all the notes" between two points. A "rolled chord" is one that has specific notes notated, and is played from low to high (and later, high to low) very quickly (in a technique similar to a gliss) but the term "gliss" is generally not applied to this effect, and is instead just notated with the squiggly line. Neither of these are usually called "arpeggios" other than in the most general sense (in that, it might be a chord and the notes appear non-simultaneously usually one at a time). Instead arpeggio is generally used most of the time, by most people, generally, to mean a broken chord that is played with a specific ordering of notes and in a specific rhythm. Generally speaking.

  1777. musictheory 2017-11-20 18:30:57 metamongoose
    Erm... Where did you learn all this? There's a lot of half-truths here and a hell of a lot of misinformation! I have no idea what you mean by this >Well, there used to be different ways to stretch the tuning on a piano. Today we break the 88 keys into 3 or 4 segments, which are all tuned flat in the lower end and sharp in the higher end. > >The Well Tempered Klavier was not just ground breaking in piano playing techniques, it also had instructions for how to tune the piano so all keys could be played at the same time- and relatively sound in tune. Bach's well-tempered Klavier did describe a tuning system that allowed all keys to be used, but it wasn't an equal temperament. > >Early techniques, around Bach’s time, focused on stretching each octave instead of larger groupings that we use today. If you’ve ever seen the inside of multiple pianos you might notice that there are often two different sections of strings going in different directions, and each kind of piano does this slightly different. Each grouping is called a harp. Break each harp into two groupings to stretch, and you have a modern approach to this innovative tuning system. You've conflated the idea of stretching octaves with the need to adjust the smaller intervals do that they match up. This is called tempering the intervals. Earlier tempering schemes would have mainly untempered fifths and would then account for the mismatch with one or more wolf intervals that were unusable. Over time this was refined to spread the wolf over more and more intervals, until equal temperament was adopted (after Bach's time; it wasn't even really tuned on pianos until the late 19th century). Stretching octaves is needed on string instruments because of the physical properties of strings and also psychoaccoustic effects which make unstretched tunings sound flat. The separated string groupings on a piano has nothing to do with tuning systems. It's just a way to fit longer bass strings in without making the piano longer. It can mean that the intervals are tuned differently between the sections, but this is due to the different materials of the strings (plain steel vs copper-wound). There's a tonal difference that needs to be disguised as much as possible. > >The pitch B was difficult to place in the old scheme. It was last, and often being stretched so sharp sounded terrible in keys like C where the dominant is G major (where the major third is B, and being 40 or so cents sharp sounded awful). > >This is a long-winded way of saying that until modern pianos with steel strings and chassis came along, tuning and stretched temperaments were not so uniform, making it slow to be adopted. More to the point, keyboard pieces in keys of B Minor and Major were not very common at all. Temperaments could make groups of keys sound great, but not all of them. Someone listening to classical music, and learning perfect pitch techniques could easily develop a bias against the pitch B. It may sound weird, but the pitch as well as the keys centered around it, were less common until the later Romantic period (when steel and modern piano designs came into being). > >E: clarity This may be partially correct, I don't know the history of the naming of notes well enough to say. B major would indeed be one of the unusable keys in meantone temperaments, and it is the most remote and therefore most tempered and least clean-sounding key in Bach's 48, reflected on how he wrote for it. Whether this is the reason for naming it H next to Bb's B I couldn't say.

  1778. musictheory 2017-11-21 04:56:34 Estranged85
    Yeah, I know that chords are made out of several notes (thanks for explaining anyway) but for me the problem is that I just can't "hear" the chord. So when I'm playing an open G I'll try to sing a G but end up singing a C (for example) and for me it sounds right but as soon as I record it, everything sounds terrible. But as soon as I just hit the open G string I'll be able to hit it perfectly. I'm sorry if it's unclear what I'm trying to say It's just that I'm very much a beginner in everthing related to music theory so I just can't find the right words :/

  1779. musictheory 2017-11-21 05:02:00 OmicronPerseiNothing
    And, by "magic", of course you mean "physics", because the Circle is all based on the mathematical relationships between vibrations of different frequencies. Why a string of length/tension X should vibrate at frequency Y is embedded in the physics of the universe in which we find ourselves. Apologies for being pedantic, but where would Reddit be without pedantry? (Disclaimer: I know almost *nothing* about the Circle of 5ths, but I know a bit about science.)

  1780. musictheory 2017-11-21 06:26:52 Snowblinded
    I think this is a really helpful video, and it helped me confirm an idea I've had in my head for a while now. I'm in the odd position where I like playing jazz piano but I mostly play metal guitar. For the piano the fact that I do jazz improvisation means I have come to an understanding similar to what you describe just through intuition and practice, where, when I am improvising, I have the key notes and chord notes that underlie what I am playing hard-wired into my mind (once I have spend enough time with any particular song of course) and that leaves me free to move in and out of them without having to focus conscious attention on which notes are in key/part of the chord. However, with the guitar, my intuitive understanding comes mostly from memorizing scale shapes and the position of the tonic on each one, so when I try to improvise I essentially am making a binary "part of the scale" or "not part of the scale" distinction. If you were to ask me to name any given fret on the neck I could tell you with maybe half a second to two seconds time to think about it but it is not an intuitive understanding, unlike, say, the position of the tonic in the scale shape I am using. I'm curious if you have any advice on how to get this more natural understanding of note locations drilled into the subconscious. For about 2 months now I have been using an exercise I found in Mick Goodrick's "Theory for the Advancing Guitarist" where he recommends going up and down a single string with a predetermined combination of 1-3 fingers and only playing the notes of C major, which I started using to build more finger independence but I have found a fairly helpful in drilling the note positions into my head, but I still feel miles away from the way I look at the piano and can instantly know which note is which and whether they are in key, and I have been playing guitar longer than I have piano.

  1781. musictheory 2017-11-22 23:29:15 AndyChamberlain
    I suggest writing without a keyboard for a while, just focusing on the ideas and especially how each instrument plays. I.e. dont give a trumpet part high As and Cs the whole piece. The reason I say you should stay away from a keyboard for a while is because when you play chords on a keyboard with a string patch or something, you'll find something good eventually, and you'll be really tempted to arrange it just like you're playing it. The problem is that orchestra voicing needs to be a lot different than piano voicing. I do this all too often, and I have to make a conscious effort to not just write the piano voicing on the string staves. This is not to say you should never have a keyboard at your computer. This is simply to say that you should practice arrangement without one for a little while first. Good luck on your journey bro :)

  1782. musictheory 2017-11-23 01:44:15 DRL47
    This is an issue on any instrument with limited sustain. You either have to do some kind of tremolo (roll), or just count out the note as if it is still sounding. Half-notes on a mandolin or banjo don't really last, at least not at any usable volume. For short notes you CAN muffle the bar or string by touching it, but that is sometimes not worth the effort. Don't hit the bar any differently, just wait the correct time afterwards for the next note.

  1783. musictheory 2017-11-23 15:44:13 komponisto
    Since you say >I'm a huge Baroque/Bach fan I'll mention a pertinent anecdote. I was caught off guard once when I head someone describe the Air from Bach's Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D major (the perplexingly-nicknamed "Air on the G String") as being "sad". This had never occurred to me; the piece had struck me only as contemplative, perhaps intellectual -- but not really even wistful. I thought of it as the kind of music you would use for scenes of distinguished Oxbridge dons walking around a campus in 18th-century garb, or something of the sort. "Sad" according to me would be something like the *Pathethique* symphony of Tchaikovsky, or the E-minor Prelude of Chopin, or something from the Baroque period with an actual lament bass. So I inquired, and the tempo was revealed as the main reason; whereupon I realized that the person simply had a much smaller conception of the total emotional range of music, due to a limited experience with music outside some subset of popular music in which, indeed, *slowness* is used as the main signifier of "sadness". In that kind of universe -- where you certainly haven't heard anything like the *Pathéthique* -- I can see how the Bach Air could be perceived as "sad".

  1784. musictheory 2017-11-23 15:58:02 ptyccz
    > I'll mention a pertinent anecdote. I was caught off guard once when I head someone describe the Air from Bach's Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D major (the perplexingly-nicknamed "Air on the G String") as being "sad". This wasn't a tweet from the White House, I assume?</humour> But still, the tempo at which the Air should be performed is itself rather unclear. The score itself seems to point to a rather brisk tempo, as does (to some extent) the juxtaposition with the following Gavotte. Even the octave pattern in the continuo seems to "make more sense" when the music is performed faster. Here's a [performance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ6nS1wau0I) that hopefully shows what I'm thinking about, and indeed finding it significantly influenced my POV about this. It could probably be played even faster (1.25x or so, compared to that video), but only in a true chamber-music setting, with no doubled parts at all.

  1785. musictheory 2017-11-24 18:47:46 Jongtr
    He's talking about intonation according to simple frequency ratios versus equal temperament. The "pure major 3rd" is in a 5:4 ratio with the root, and the "harmonic 7th" (as it's called) is in a 7:4 ratio with the root. IOW, the 5th harmonic of a fundamental pitch is 5x its frequency, and it 14 cents flatter than an equal tempered major 3rd 2 octaves up. Here's the harmonic series of A=110 Hz (as far as the 8th), and their nearest equal tempered notes: HARMONIC - FREQUENCY - NEAREST NOTE - cents difference from pure 1st 110 Hz A 2nd 220 Hz A 3rd 330 Hz E (329.6) 2 cents flat 4th 440 Hz A 5th 550 Hz C# (554.0) 14 cents sharp 6th 660 Hz E (659.2) 2 cents flat 7th 770 Hz G (784.0) 32 cents sharp 8th 880 Hz A (880) If you're a guitar player, and have a tuner, you can discover this out-of-tune-ness of harmonics for yourself. Tune a string (any string) exactly, and than play the harmonic over fret 4 (or fret 9 or 16). This is the 5th harmonic. If you do it on the low E string, your tuner will read the harmonic as a G#, but noticeably flat (the tuner may not be accurate enough to read it as 14 cents). The equivalent fretted note is fret 16 on the top E. If you play both notes together (fretted note and harmonic), you should be able to hear fairly rapid beats between them. The "harmonic 7th" is more contentious, because it is so far out of tune with the minor 7th. A chord tuned to the pure harmonic ratios will indeed sound perfectly blended - the frequencies will be in a 4:5:6:7 ratio, all sounding like overtones of a note 2 octaves below the root, which is how they all "belong" together. (Eg. a pure A major chord would be 440-550-660-770, every note representing overtones of an A of 110.) Look up equal temperament for an explanation of why we don't use this tuning system any more! That teacher he mentions was actually one of my teachers, briefly around 10 years ago: [Barak Schmool.] (http://www.ram.ac.uk/about-us/staff/barak-schmool) He's definitely a cool dude and an intriguing guy. I seem to remember that all he taught us (on a music teaching course) was how to use Sibelius software (!), but I also remember (too vaguely now) some fascinating insights on music fundamentals (rhythm as well as pitch and harmony), and some great performances by his Fire Collective.

  1786. musictheory 2017-11-25 04:18:26 ts73737
    Beautiful answer. I had the harmonics issue when I was young too and didn't understand why. I used to tune my guitar with harmonics and innevitably it'd be off... Well the bottom two strings anyway. I used to have to do a 2 octave harmonic on the low E string (over the fifth fret) to tune the high E, then I'd do a 7th fret harmonic on high E to tune the B string.

  1787. musictheory 2017-11-25 04:21:44 umpkinpae
    Are you primarily talking about harmony rules? If so, there are many ways to learn harmony (common practice period through the present) that don’t require going through a college style text or course that is focused on the hows and whys of classical music. Not dissing on those (I studied music in college and love classical music), but there are many useful things you can learn without worrying too much about baroque 4 part harmony and species counterpoint and the like. Not sure what your knowledge base is, so from the beginning: 1 - understand the concept of key. -you don’t need to immediately go memorizing all the keys and there key signatures, but make sure you “get it” when it comes to thinking about what a key is. If you understand: -what the differences between key qualities are (major/minor/etc...) -what key transposition is then you are good with this for now. 2 - understand how chords are built: -memorize all the triads in the key of C (what notes are in each triad) -learn how to change a chord from one quality to another, I.e. “what do you have to do to change a C major chord in to a C minor chord, etc..... -learn to adapt this knowledge to all other chords and keys (it’s not actually a very big step to do so) 3 - learn how harmony moves, ie, chord progressions. While you can literally string any chords together however you like, there are certain ways that they fit together for the vast majority of western music, from Bach to Pantera to LCD sound system, we are all using basically the same “rules” - learn the “Nashville” system (not invented in, or exclusively used in Nashville). Some people refer to it as the “Shenkerian system” But that is more involved than you want to get at this point. Just learn Roman numeral style chord analysis, which is actually quite simple. -learn and Understand secondary dominants and the like. 4 - Analyze the harmonic structure of as much music as you can. Make sure you analyze the stuff you like as well as classics from all genres. The easiest way to do this is to start by just changing chord names (A - Bm - E7 - A) to Roman numerals (I - ii - V7 - I) on a chord chart or internet tab. Less easy, but still important, look at a piano or classical guitar score and figure out what the chords are from the notes on the page. **Look for patterns**. P.S. About voice leading, there are many rules and guidelines and they are worth looking at, but, they mostly just tell you to look for the closest note to move to from chord to chord. That is a great place to start.

  1788. musictheory 2017-11-25 05:58:20 65TwinReverbRI
    Hmm, tough call. Do you have any kind of Arts Schools or what we here in the US call "Magnet" schools? They're usually designed for High School age students (here, roughly 14-18) as a more focused study in an arts field such as music, art, theater, dance, etc. Most of them act as sort of "prepatory" schools for entry into a university music program. Otherwise, would it be possible for you to take any classes at either a local University or music school associated with the University? Many offer summer classes here that are open to non-degree seeking students. Also, there may be "schools of music" of music teacher who teach violin, and piano, and voice, and guitar, and tuba, and etc. etc. etc. that all teach out of the same location. Usually they can recommend a good teacher so even if it's not guitar, they might have someone that can teach you theory. But really, studying with a teacher who knows theory, or augmenting lessons with theory instruction is your best bet. Theory by itself is an abstraction - it's better for you to learn it in a musical context, especially one where you can apply what you learn. You were playing what I'd call "Classical Guitar" which is "art music" for Nylon String Acoustic Guitar. I know those pieces and they are considered "recital level" pieces at my university - IOW they're not "beginner" pieces. To be hones with you, Classical musicians tend to study harmony on their own less because they're concentrating on learning the established repertoire for their instrument. Usually, they major in music and get their theory education there. And generally that's about all the theory they ever need. I'm not sure when you say "I have other passions too" - are they musical? Or are you talking Football (we call it Soccer here)? I mean, to be honest, if you just have a "passing interest" in guitar, I'm not really sure that learning any theory is going to help you rekindle that interest. When you say "I don't have any theoretical knowledge" what do you mean. Can you read music? I would assume so if you're playing those pieces. Are you saying you don't know what chords you're playing? Are you losing interest in "classical" guitar and would rather play pop or jazz styles? What is your goal here?

  1789. musictheory 2017-11-25 06:44:00 mrclay
    A few interesting bits: Just before the C chord he (I looked the guy up) plays C#m up high. In a blues song bIII is right at home but iii is pretty rare (due to the unflattened 7 scale degree), and the smooth voice leading transform from iii to bIII is rare in any genre. He also starts to play this C#m near the end, but his bend from G up to G# is cut short by the low E string. Effectively the guitar is mostly in A blues but with unusual bits of A Ionian.

  1790. musictheory 2017-11-25 23:42:49 CommonPracticeAOmega
    Strumming staggers the starting attack of the various notes. It's a fast rolled chord, formally known as arpeggiato (opposed to a normal arpeggio.) A listener can parse arpeggios as a chord and thus track their voice leading for harmonic changes. An arpeggiato should be even easier to listen to, considering that typically the notes are not muted when the strum reaches the next string.

  1791. musictheory 2017-11-26 00:59:47 65TwinReverbRI
    If you're playing A Phrygian on guitar, starting on the 5th fret of either E string (6th or 1st) and you simply move the pattern (be it on one string or across the fretboard) down to begin on the 3rd fret, you'd be play G Phrygian now - this assumes you play the same pattern you played on A, just in a different place. If instead, you start with A Phrygian, but just "start on the G note" keeping the pattern of frets the same as you played in A Phrygian, assuming the G note is now the "key note", you'd be playing G Dorian. A-Bb-C-D-E-F-G is A Phrygian. If you play the same notes (keep all the frets the the same place) but start on G, you get: G A Bb C D E F, which is G Dorian. If we were talking frets only, on the 1st string, you'd have: **5-6-8-10-12-13**-15 then 3-**5-6-8-10-12-13** So taking A, then G as the "key note", while you're playing the same exact notes, the "key note" is understood as being different, making one A Phrygian and the other G Dorian. But if you literally just pick up the fingering pattern for A Phrygian and move it down two frets - or up or down any number of frets, it's just going to be X Phyrgian - X being whatever starting note you begin on. HTH

  1792. musictheory 2017-11-27 01:17:34 65TwinReverbRI
    It's kind of close to a strings tremolo effect, but there are lots of things about it that make me think it's just a synth sound effect patch. If you were asking real string players to do it, your best bet would be to ask one (and maybe there's a strings players Reddit...) and see what they'd do to produce a similar sound and how it's notated. It does sounds a little like Col Legno, which is play "with the wood" of the Bow. You can literally use the wood to play like you normally would, but you can also slide it up and down, or do tremolo with it, and so on. This is surprisingly, the only Col Legno video I could find that does any sort of technique like this, and it's really short, and almost seems like someone's just screwing around, but I think you'll be able to hear how an effect like this might be acheived: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HCkuxIVetE Other Col Legno vids tend to use the bow to "hit" the strings which is actually not the way I've always heard it discussed. At any rate there are just tons of modern (and old that are rarely used or encountered) effects strings can produce. This is a tour-de-force of string writing. Around 2:15 you start hearing some things that are sort of like the effect in the song.

  1793. musictheory 2017-11-27 01:31:11 65TwinReverbRI
    Played that song many a time. There is a guitar solo in the song so that should tell you exactly how you would play over it. Do what the original guitarist did and take from that. It also opens with that open E string with a slide into the unison on the B string. That should give you an idea that they're kind of thinking of it as "in E". It's really essentially in Em, except that the i chord is I - E Major instead of E Minor. And playing Em, or Em pent (or Em blues, whatever one calls it) over the E Major chord does in fact yield a "bluesy sound". "Why" things like this "work" has largely to do with conditioning. Not only have you heard plenty things similar to it, but you've heard this song, like it, and think it's cool, so you readily accept it as "working". But it's playing on some common "tropes" if you like - the use of lots of borrowed chords, mixture of modes, blues scales, and so on. Granted, it's probably one of the more uncommon progressions which, in its ambiguity, lends a coolness factor to it. FWIW, when this happens in any song, the explanation is the same. For example, in "Dock of the Bay" by Otis Redding, all the chords or Major (or 7ths). It's "in G" but the chords are G - B - C - A then the chorus is G - E - G - E - G - A - G - E. It's the most "wrong" kind of progression anyone could come up with, but it sounds absolutely fine? Why, because our ear has heard things like this before and isn't really bothered by it - it's tame enough not to scare us off, and fresh enough using existing sounds to hold our interest. Trying to "explain" it using "theory" is a bit of a useless pursuit. In fact, I've heard that Redding tuned his guitar to a Major chord like an open tuning, and if that's true, that's probably a far better explanation as to why he chose all major chords than some "planing" explanation and things like that.

  1794. musictheory 2017-11-27 02:08:13 on9987
    thank you for your comment! I am actually trying to do a midi mockup of the song, so I guess I could EQ a string tremolo sample to recreate it. btw, what is the tour-de-force of string writing you are talking about?

  1795. musictheory 2017-11-27 14:20:17 nebulaeandstars
    If you play a stringed instrument (which you probably don’t but eh it’s what I’m allowed to talk about) it can be easier as they’re tuned in 5ths or 4ths. On the guitar you can pick two strings (which is all you really need). Imagine placing a finger on that note. For instance, imagine playing a C on the G string of a cello (or whatever you’re familiar with). The D string is a 5th above the G string, and so to move one step clockwise you just imagine playing using the same finger on that string. You can do the same thing with a lower string if it is a fourth below your current one. Swap the strings over if it’s the other way around (4th above or 5th below). After that, you can just repeat the same thing with the new note. A fifth above C is G, so pick G and repeat to find D. I can’t imagine this is particularly helpful because I’m tired but if you stop strings on your instrument it can really help both your theory and performance skills to have that visualisation there.

  1796. musictheory 2017-11-28 06:17:35 65TwinReverbRI
    Stupid Viola: Making Theory Students learn the Alto Clef for decades now!! :-) There are usually a decent number of String or Orchestra excerpts in Theory courses, so being able to read it will be helpful, but knowing it even better won't hurt! Keys (Key Sigs) are Theory 1. Go ahead and try to get all of them down now! If you're a musician, you'll use them your whole life, so nice to know them. I just scaned through and saw this comment repeated in a number of responses - they're right - it's called "Tonality" which is about "Keys" - and it is all based on Keys - so knowing your Key Signatures and Major and Minor Keys (and scales) is super important. You've got a lot of the basics from Theory I, so you'd probably be OK in a typical university-level intro course. And you'll learn what you're missing. You'll walk in the door with 75% on each topic, while some will be more like 25%. So that gives you an advantage (and a way to make food money tutoring your classmates!) Inversional Symbols come from Figured Bass. I is root position (G) I^6 is first inversion (G/B) I^6 /4 is 2nd inversion (6 is superscript, 4 is subscript directly below but in text we use a slash or dash, etc. - G/D) Most people don't know Voice-Leading and Part-Writing, and that's why they can't pass out of Theory I on a placement test. It's how you voice chords (taught as 4 part harmony) and how each note of one chord leads to each note of the next chord. Yes, D7 - G7 - C - the D7 is a secondary dominant. In most colleges, you study Common Practice Period music, and "borrowing" happens only between Major and the parallel Minor - so in C Major, you'd get a D^o, or an Eb chord - as those come from C Minor. Borrowing from other modes is a Jazz thing (good to know, but unless you study jazz theory specifically, it may not be a major topic). Enharmonic means, "same note, different spelling". C# and Db are enharmonic. Probably the worst thing anyone can learn before going into theory, because it causes all sorts of problems. But in Theory 4 usually, it becomes imporatant again (in one of the more advanced topics). I like to say that theory exists "off the paper" - but we do have to represent it on paper. What you typically do is read a piece of music, and analyze it, or, you're given some framework, like Figured Bass and you "compose" the parts (using proper voice-leading) - sometimes a melody line is given, sometimes not, but you get a bass line. Sometimes you're given a melody to harmonize in chorale style. You don't do a lot of playing in classes, but sometimes teachers have students bring in a harmonization for instruments they have in the class, or people play it on the piano and so on. You've got a great start and what you could really use is the kind of pedagogical approach that happens in courses - that way you don't miss anything and you get everything in a logical order, as each topic tends to build on the next.

  1797. musictheory 2017-11-28 15:56:07 lazy_stacey
    It's a really good video and you clearly know your stuff... But your responses to people pointing out you mean positions not keys are really weird... And the 7 "positions" you refer to are only with respect to the root note on the bass string in the first octave, you could still find many more ways to "position" your hand then 7! As is, the video is great but the title is just flat wrong/misleading. Saying "all 7 keys" is incorrect and damaging info for someone who may not know better

  1798. musictheory 2017-11-29 01:06:41 ashamed6256
    Please read my post and the comment again because I feel like you haven't comprehended what I said. Maybe I'm not writing as clearly as I feel... Regards to genre - I mean that instead of picking up a guitar and saying "Right, let's make a technical post-black-metal song", I just let myself make music using whatever is there, however it comes to be. It's as restriction-less as I can possibly be. Theres no *logical* part to it. It leads me to generating many more ideas. Now I'm looking for different ways to string things together and develop them. I'm also not putting it on SoundCloud, iTunes, Spotify, etc. I'm not selling it, so the genre is not something I'm too concerned with, especially while generating ideas. However we agree it's going to fit into one of those categories. I'm just not setting out to fill it beforehand. If I feel I need to, I can label it at any point. At the risk of sounding like a dick - I do not see the crime of looking to try implement the CONVENTIONS (maybe you don't take ill with that word as much as "rules"?) of other styles and composers in my own music. Is it "wrong" in your eyes to compose with any kind of "guidelines"? Consider Conlon Nancarrow, who would use mathematics to make unplayable music? Or Black MIDI artists that draw pictures in MIDI data? Is that *wrong*? Are soloists *wrong* if they use scales to narrow down their note choices? Sorry, I'll stop ranting. I'm not looking for an algorithm that tells me "Play a Cm7, 4 bars. Now play a Badd9, 3 bars." and I don't know what part of what I said makes people here think that's what I want.

  1799. musictheory 2017-11-29 02:09:16 mtg4l
    Amateur guitarist/theorist wondering what did I play today on my guitar? I meant to play a ii-V-i, with Fm7b5 -> B7 -> Emin7. However, on the B my fingers were misplaced, and I believe I played Fm7b5 -> Bmin7addb13 -> B7, and it sounded awesome. The chord in question is tabbed 7-9-7-7-8-7 (B F# A D G E), and I don't know if I should call it a Bmin7addb13 or some sort of minor augmented 5th chord or what. It didn't seem to make a big difference whether or not I played the power chord 5th on the A string. After toying around, the Bchord -> B7 resolved rather nicely to an A major, but I'm not sure why. The voice leading on the B and G strings led me to try the A major. I guess my questions are 1. what would you call that chord? 2. Is it common? What function does it have?

  1800. musictheory 2017-11-29 06:29:49 65TwinReverbRI
    It's not that the 3rd of the chord is "flatted". The difference between a Major triad and a minor triad is that the **distance between** the root note and the 3rd is different - for a Major triad that distance is a Major 3rd Interval, and for a minor chord it is a minor 3rd interval. A minor 3rd interval is one half-step (one semitone) smaller in distance than a Major 3rd. So if we have a chord like C-E-G, which is C Major. In order to lower the E note a half-step, we have to put a flat on it: C-Eb-G That makes the distance (interval) between C and E smaller - so we can say that *compared to the root* the 3rd in a minor chord is "closer" or lower than the 3rd in a Major chord. But, in D-F-A, the F note is already an interval of a minor 3rd. D Major - D-F#-A and D minor - D-F-A A natural note like F, is a semitone lower than F# (or the reverse it true - F# is a half step higher than F) so we don't have to put a flat symbol on it, we just need to make it natural because the original state of the Major chord on D is D-F#-A. This is clear on instruments like Guitar, where each fret equal a semitone. For example, D on the 2nd string is on Fret 3, and the F is on fret 6. That's a Minor 3rd, or 3 total semitones (6-3 = 3). But if we check C to E on the same string, it's fret 1 to fret 5, and that's 4 total semitones (5-1=4). So the 4 semitone distance is a bigger 3rd than the 3 semitone distance, so the bigger one is Major, smaller one minor (hence the names pretty much!). With an instrument like a Piano, you can count the physical number of keys (including the black keys). From C to get to E, it's 4 keys (you count C as 0) and then from D to get to F, it's only 3 keys. So again, the D-F 3rd interval is already naturally smaller than the distance from C-E. What this also means is, you can't judge this on letter name alone - the letters only tell you the number distance - C-E, D-F, G-B are all just "thirds" of some sort. What makes them major or minor or anything else depends on exactly how many semitones are between the notes (or it takes to get from one to the other). In the Key of C Major, there are actually 3 Major, and 3 Minor chords. C-E-G; F-A-C, and G-B-D are all Major. D-F-A, E-G-B, and A-C-E are all minor. The latter 3 all have smaller distance between the root and the 3rd - they all have a minor 3rd from the root. There is one more chord in the key of C Major, built on the note B. It too has a minor 3rd from the root - B-D. If you look very carefully, you can see that the upper part of each major chord - C-**E-G**, F-**A-C**, etc. is the lower part of the Minor chords - that means the distance between those notes is a **minor 3rd** (so a major chord has a Major 3rd between the root and 3rd, and a minor 3rd between the 3rd and 5th). D-F-A is minor, and that first 3rd from the root to the 3rd is minor. So that means B-D-F, our last chord, not only has a m3 from B to D, but a m3 from D to F as well. Since the major chords are stacked M3+m3, and the minor chords are stacked m3+M3, this one doesn't fit - it's m3+m3. Looking back above, the m3 - 3 semitones and the M3 = 4 semitones, so if you add them together you get 7. But with the B-D-F chord, it's m3+m3 or 3+3 semitones. That only totals 6 - so the whole chord is smaller. We also say that compared to all the others, it's 5th has been lowered one semitone (not necessarily "flatted" though, could use a natural just like it does in this example). So since it's been "made smaller" than all the other chords, we call it "Diminished" and represent that with a little superscipt ^o like the degree symbol. So our chords in C Major are: C - Dm - Em - F - G - Am - B^o By the way, this is true for ALL Major scales - the first chord will always be Major, the second chord will always be minor, 3 will be minor, 4 and 5 will be major, 6 will be minor, and 7 will be diminished. We represent that with Roman Numerals like this (upper case Major, lower case minor, diminished minor with the symbol): I - ii - iii - IV - V - vi - vii^o So ANY 2 or "ii" chord in ANY Major key will be a minor chord, as will any iii (3) or vi (6), and I, IV, and V (1,4,5) are Major, vii^o (7) is diminished. HTH

  1801. musictheory 2017-11-30 00:04:34 ljse7m
    That is pretty much an unanswerable question unless you define what "swing" means and that is the problem. But I will attempt to give an opinion. I consider the era of swing to be coincendental to the big band era and the styld of rhythmical syncopation associated with the big band charts that played the rhythms that led to the Jitterbuge dande. If you are readding the big bands of the 40s and innto the 50s you will find that the eight note matrix of the rhythms are not even eights in the traditional sense. Earllier music like rag time developed a more 4/4 feel than a two feel. The origins of Jazz around Basin St brothels were based on a 2 beat feel that came from the marching bands of the day when the bands played "jas" music in the original Storyville. Then as evolution did its influence there became a "jas" feel and a ragtime feel, both associated with Jazz music, The 6/8 two feel and the 2/4 feel began to emerge. I like to describe them as a 4/4 feel and an allabreve" In my experiences Swing and Jazz erre always teo separate things. Swing was/is one period of Jazz. Jazz is ususlly associated with improvisation. Seing can be improvised and then it would be Jazzy but it can be written out and the term swing applies to the sub feels and matrix of how the notes are played rhythmically. It then can be subdivved into more regional and stylistic genres of music depending on hot the music is played. In short, they are both descriptive terms and both have wide varieties of interpretation. Benny Goodman, Glen MIller and count basie all would be considered "swing bands There are similiarities of intetpration rhythmically that are associated with the terms swing. Lawrence Welk played a more "strict" written interpretation of music in a more rhythmical looseness on the placements of the notes to give a sort of combination of Two againse Four rhythmic pulse and sub pules. Your statement of nearly every sub genre of jazz swings is not really acccurate by the definition of Swing as stinw is referenced and came into being as a term during the time when the big bands started to be popular and Count Basie seings but Lawrence weiilk doesn[t. Swing was a terem that is more related to the style of dancng of that big band period. Does Herbie Handcock "swing" ? Does the MJQ swing,? Does Dave Brubeck swing? in some cases, yes they all do but in other cases they dod not. so certainly all Jazz does not swing. By the same token one can say that Mozat is classical music. But then what is Strivinski? His music is also considered classical music. but neither all music played towards a more mainstream music played by "educcated musicians" in what is called a "classical medium' like orchestra, string quartet and ues the forms that are associated tith the term cllassical music are all considered classical. All improvised music played by a "big band" medium or a Jass group medium is called Jazz. So why would you call William Waltan's Facade Classical when it uses a Jazz chamber group format? Some of the European music with artists like Ebberhard Weber who playes Atonal Jazz is muech more classical in many ways in the same manner that Dave Brubeck does not Swing. Context is the only thig that allows the use of either or both of those terms to be of any use at all. They are short cuts to describe something about the music in a short and concise manner. Both terms of Jazz and Swing have multiple meanings and the choice of which to use or both or in conjunction with orher terms like but not limited to "east coast" California. Ragtime, Chicago, New orleans , smooth, funky, progressive, bebop and a miriad of other subjective terms will further define something about the various periods music in the various genres. In the older days they had the same question with Secular and Sacred! There was music of the Churrch and there were music outside of the Church. But as people lerned of a wider variety of muisical genres, these two terms were replaced with other modifiers. just as Swing and Jazz are and with such a variety of genre within these major classifications, they are almost meaningless unless they are used within a context and that context is very subjective and only with a list of delimiters can you even come close to having a meaningful description. of the music being described. If you call lmuic "swing" toeday, which swing to you mean? IN general it means music of the period defined by the big band era and the stule that the most popular bands played. Jazz can swond, or be funky or classical lor progressive or a lot or things. Classical music can be anything from Bach to Schoenberg. It all depends on the context. Who decides? Critics for the most part and that is why its really not really in itself a logical problem. they are both subjective terms and who says it in what context in what part of the world and when they say it all changes the meaning. You are sotr of akking whty is some music like oranges and some like apples? or is this color Black or White, Context is needed for these and many other terms to have any meaning worth mentioning if you are tryiing to describe or classify music. Each piece, if it is worth listening to is defined by what it is and the description will only accurately be understood if the writer and the reader are both thinking in the same context. LJSe7n

  1802. musictheory 2017-11-30 01:38:11 bomber_hanna
    String skipping with a LOT of pedal notes.

  1803. musictheory 2017-11-30 05:16:06 woo_im_great
    The first thing that any compositional instructor would do beyond making sure that you understood the fundamentals behind voice leading, modulating, etc. is: they are going to sit you down with probably a Bach chorale to analyze, both by listening and on paper, then something a little more difficult like a string quartet or piano reduction of the first movement of a Beethoven piece. first focusing on Roman numeral analysis and things like identifying motifs, and then on things like overall form and structure of the piece: where does where does it repeat, how many times, where does it change, when does it return to earlier sections, stuff like that. They will probably in parallel have you attempt composing pieces in the same style, where the emphasis is on you identifying what makes that style of music what it is and how to replicate it. every time this is done it is not so that you are good at copying Bach, it's so you gain an understanding of the tools used in a piece and can take those ideas and make your own work. Bach himself developed his compositional skills mainly through transcription of the works of his contemporaries and the 'greats' before him. If you can listen to music and write it down, it will be much easier to write what you want to be heard. Through analysis and imitation you will become very familiar with the structure of these kind of works and with enough practice and study you will internalize the concepts learned and be able to use them in your own style. Learning how to write music is like learning how to cook meals, you have to practice recipes and learn what works and what doesn't, what you like and what you don't, until you start creating your own. For a teacher, you want someone who helps you understand the process behind creating, it shouldn't matter what their taste is as long as they can give objective critical feedback to your work.

  1804. musictheory 2017-11-30 08:15:59 65TwinReverbRI
    Go to the music department's website and find the composition instructor(s) email addresses and send them an email. Some may not respond (end of the semester right now at mine!!!) and some may get back to you with little help. But some of them may at least give you some solid students to contact and so on if they're not able to do it themselves. Depends on how broke they are...usually the lower on the totem pole they are, the more likely they'll need the little income they'd make from lessons! The worst they can say is no. I get emails from people all the time asking for advice on who to contact for this that and the other, or if we've got any students (read: cheap labor) who are looking to help on a project, etc. If I can help them out, I'll send their message along at the very least. If I can't, I just let them know it's not something we do. BTW, my university has a "community" part, which uses some of our faculty (again, usually low on the totem pole people who need additional income but are still worthy instructors) as well as other locals (symphony musicians, and so on) to teach lessons - they not only do instrumental lessons but they do "prep" work for theory and comp, as well as conducting and things like that. In that case you can take through the university as a non-degree seeking student, and it's cheaper than if you'd pay $50 a week for lessons or something like that. Of course you do have to be enrolled for that. But there may be private music schools in your area (or worldwide - good point about geography) who do something similar. So again, I'd say go ahead and start local as you'll probably have more connections. Since you're talking about Romantic style music, at some point you're probably want to get readings of your works, so you're going to have to eventually find someone who can play the music for you (assuming you want to do more than just piano) so it wouldn't be a bad idea to get involved with a university or music school where you'd have student string players (who'll work for pizza and beer) who can play through your strung quartet piece, or at least give you an idea how your orchestral strings parts would work out, etc. Good luck!

  1805. musictheory 2017-11-30 09:21:27 NinetoFiveHeroRises
    From this thread I've gathered to separate instruments into continuous (violin, trombone), discrete (piano, xylophone), and bendable (guitar, reed instruments; pick a note then move away from it in a limited range). To make it a bit more western-centric, I'd say you can split discrete to make continuous (violin, trombone) semitonal/chromatic (piano, most other western instruments), diatonic (certain zithers and xylophones), microtonal (fixed pitch but with intervals smaller than a semitone), and bendable (guitar, reed instruments; pick a note then move away from it in a limited range). This places favor for diatonicism and 12 tone music over other possible pitch systems but that's why I say it's west centric. It's really esoteric but I like that kind of thing. Some instruments sit in the middle, like on a recorder you can get some off-pitch notes with certain fingerings and on any string instrument you can use harmonics to access just intervals. But when do things ever line up perfectly?

  1806. musictheory 2017-11-30 10:47:12 Glordicus
    Learn Arabic scales. They sound dope for melodeath. Simple shit like frets 5-7-8-4 on your A string, with palm muted open E string between each note. Chuck in a few 5's and 6's on your E string too and you're good to go.

  1807. musictheory 2017-11-30 13:55:22 feanturi
    Guitar can go the opposite way too though. It is common to pre-bend and then release into the "fixed" note from there. The actual note struck in the pre-bend position is not necessarily in tune with anything, so you could, with practice, aim for something say a quarter-step above some note, silently bend to that, strike it there, and maybe not even release it down to the fixed note but just hold the bend steady for the duration of the note then mute the string so that you just played some in-between note that doesn't even sound like a bend happened.

  1808. musictheory 2017-12-01 01:34:41 DRL47
    There is notation for this, called feathered beams, which is a string of note heads barred together like sixteenths, except there is one bar (eighth-note) at the beginning which gradually turns into three or four bars at the end. It can be written backwards to show a slow down. Lilypond notation shows this on there website.

  1809. musictheory 2017-12-01 10:44:40 65TwinReverbRI
    Firm Cactus!!! I'm not sure how much you've done already, but you're kind of not supposed to write your own Cantus Firmus. It means "fixed song" and that kind of implies that it is a pre-existing melody you've taken from somewhere else and that's how species counterpoint approaches it typically as well. There are aspects about it you typically wouldn't find in traditional C.F. And there's a further problem - most of us are listening with modern, western ears. C.F. from Fux and what not were based in modal styles. So this, as a "melody" on it's own, not only doesn't follow some general guidelines of C.F., but it also doesn't follow some elements of typical tonal melody writing that might give some listeners pause. They might then, in that context, think it's "bad". The F-G-B thing is outlining a Tritone, so not so good. From a tonal standpoint, B is the leading tone of C, and you've ascended up to it - everyone expects it to resolve up to the high C. It doesn't. One general (general mind you) about writing like this is that after a leap, you should go the opposite direction. Usually it's also stated that the larger the leap, the more of a necessity it is to go the opposite direction after, sometimes even "counter-balancing" with another small leap. C-D-F-E (the Mozart Jupiter motive, which has 5 part invertible counterpoint so he knew what he was doing) is a somewhat "more typical" move. But C-D-F-G is not horrible. However, following it then with the E-F-G-B bit sounds a little "too classical" in a 4 note motive repeated higher, and, it sort of just "climbs similarly" up a bit higher (that by the way will add to the confusion of those hearing it in a tonal light). That the last 4 are just the first 4 backwards is a bit, maybe, atypical of your typical supplied C.F. ideas. In fact, try this, change the B to the same note as the starting C. I think you'll hear something that sounds very "sing-songy" and melodic, not unlike maybe a typical nursery song or something. Now, is it "bad" - well, I bet you could write a counterpoint to it that worked well - but that didn't necessarily follow the "rules" strictly - which would be appropriate. Likewise, I could see this as a long note melody with a string sound over top of some chords that could sound quite beautiful in a modern context - and that could be made to where that B wouldn't even bother tonally-influenced listeners. Let me ask you this: What is your end goal here? Is it just to learn Species Counterpoint? Or are you trying to write music, using contrapuntal techniques? (and if so, why - are you fascinated by counterpoint, or feel it's a challenge and want to see if you can do it, or do you want to write music and you think you need to know counterpoint, etc.) Best

  1810. musictheory 2017-12-01 13:46:02 Diezauberflump
    At jam sessions, I feel confident jamming on keyboard, guitar, or bass in most genres, and I'm pretty good at leading bands and not getting lost. I never imagined I'd be able to do that when I entered music school as a kid that could barely string together a bunch of barre chords.

  1811. musictheory 2017-12-02 02:03:08 65TwinReverbRI
    >I had a question about this kind of harmony, where you maintain a same bass note while moving the other two notes in the chord. First of all, is there a word for this technique? Second of all, would this be considered functional? As you can see I tried to understand the function of these chords, but I always try to be aware that a progression may be non-functional. Totally depends on the context. When two notes of a chord change, but one note stays the same, it may simply be a common tone. For example, C-E-G moving to C-F-A is just a chord progression of I-IV. Same would happen if either the E, or G note, of the C chord stayed. Now, sometimes, if it happens over a longer span of chords, it's called a "Pedal Tone", which comes from the idea of holding down a foot Pedal (you can play pitches with these pedals) to sustain a note while the hands play various chords above. Some of those chords may be a note of the chord, but for some chords it may not. So sometimes we use the word Pedal to simply mean a tone that continues to appear in a string of chords, but "officially" it's a type of non-chord tone where it sort of starts as part of some chord, holds, but as other chords move above it, they often will not have that pedal note as part of the chord. In more modern music, we extend the concept to include notes in any register (so doesn't have to be the lowest note) and even multiple notes such as guitarists commonly do by keeping the open E or E and B strings open while moving chord shapes around on lower strings. Whether they're considered part of the chord or not itself depends on the context. Sometimes you hear the term "dominant pedal" or "tonic pedal" and this means the note is either the dominant or tonic pitch specifically. ________________ Functional or not. Yes, for now. But read on. _________________ You put V for C-F-A but it's actually IV. So the progression would be I - IV - I - i^o at the beginning. However, and this is where things get tricky and why context is so important. These chords are, shall we say, "not really chords at all". IOW, they are simultanously appearing notes that happen to make chords we recognize, but it's not "about" the chord itself. Instead, it's about melodic lines, working in tandem, above a Tonic Pedal note. So in that light, the F chord and the C^o chord are "really" simply results of voice-leading over top of this Tonic pedal. What maybe confuses this issue is that the resultant chords are pretty common chords so they don't seem amiss, or like non-chord tones, and so on. Because of this, many analysts will put parentheses around a IV in a I - (IV) - I progression because the IV is not really "functional" per se, but merely an embellishment of the Tonic harmony. Why context is important is because it really depends on if the F and A notes are heard more prominently as connected with a melodic line and the F chord just results from their happening over the static C note, or if they appear more as a chord change and maybe less of a melodic idea (and there's a lot of grey area there of course, but suffice it to say that when quicker, like hear, we tend to hear them more as melodies, while if they were each a measure long, we'd hear them more as chords). The i^o arises from a similar idea - the E and G from the C chord simply drop down chromatically and come back up. So in a sense, the F and A can be seen as diatonic Upper Neighbor Tones to the surrounding E and G notes, and the Eb and Gb can be seen as *chromatic* Lower Neighbor Tones. Sometimes something like this, where it's "all about an embellished I chord" is called "Tonic Prolongation", which sort of means it's "all about the I chord, with some frilly melodic decorations". But if it is seen primarily as a decoration of the Tonic harmony, or moving chords over a Pedal Tone, it would be non-functional from that standpoint. However, most people would just say that a I-IV-I in a general sense falls within the realm of Functional Harmony (and most won't be familiar with this idea of (IV) being decorative so it may cause more confusion than it solves). ________________ I'm sorry, I'm not really sure what you mean about the minor thirds over major chords. HTH Some.

  1812. musictheory 2017-12-02 03:54:04 UnlawfulAwfulFalafel
    Yeah, I hear you there. I struggle with that sometimes too. My advice to you is to take it a little at a time. If it were me, I would break it up like this: 1. __Slowly__ count 1 2 3 1 2 out loud. String the measures together. 2. Add the ands of the beats to your vocalization. 3. Clap in the places where the notes are played. Don't break! String measures together and keep counting and clapping until the rhythm is understood. 4. Keep counting in your head, but replace the out loud counting with a metronome. 5. Replace the clapping with the playing of a single note. 6. Replace the single note with the correct notes. (Maybe one at a time?) I'm not an instructor, just a little pleb, but that's how I'd tackle it. Nice and slow.

  1813. musictheory 2017-12-02 04:14:49 lascanto
    So you need good manicure skills because it’s a lot in the nails. You also need to be comfortable moving your right hand from the bridge to the 12th fret. I don’t know how much you know about tone on the guitar, but there are two factors that play into tone: the angle in which your finger strikes the string; and the position in relation to the sound hole where the string is plucked. For the first method, to get the warmest tone, you want to “slice” diagonally through the string with your nail. This is why nail care is important; if there any uneven ridges or roughness on the nail, then it messes up the sound. To get the brightest tone you want to make a broad pluck parallel with the string. For the second method, the warmest tones are plucked over the neck, up to the 12th fret. The brightest tones are struck near the bridge. To create the phaser effect, you move your right hand between the bridge and 12th fret, starting out warm with your plucking and gradually getting brighter. It takes a lot of control and, personally, like 50 hours of intense woodshedding. And it’s mostly a party trick since most music doesn’t utilize it.

  1814. musictheory 2017-12-02 07:16:14 bobbysmith007
    In a similar fashion good pick work with thumb muting can make a Wah-Wah happen on basically any stringed instrument. Just let the string lightly contact the ball of your thumb on its way back after being plucked. IT damps the volume a little but when you get good, you sound almost like a Wah.

  1815. musictheory 2017-12-03 20:06:20 Jongtr
    > augmented minor, as an embellishment of the iii chord in G major. "Augmented minor" is an odd term, as raising the 5th of a minor chord produces an inverted major. As here, raising the F# of Bm produces an G/B chord. (Including the A makes it Gadd9/B.) That's more or less what your teacher is saying, I guess. In your example, though, it makes a lot more sense for that chord between F#m7b5 and Em to be some kind of B7 chord, and not some kind of G (or Bm). Try making it B7#5 (7-x-7-8-8-7), or even a jazz altered chord, B7#5#9 (7-6-7-7-8-x), so you keep that D on 3rd string.

  1816. musictheory 2017-12-03 22:12:42 nokes
    I think you need to look at some string quartet scores, and read through the voices. You should avoid **parallel** 8aves in **independent** voices. Same goes for parallel 5ths. This doesn't mean you should avoid 8aves and 5ths. It just means that parallel 8ves and 5ths make two instruments sound like they are playing the same thing. Common Practice Era String Quartets use parallel 8aves all the time, between the 1st and 2nd violins, There are **not** independent voices, but two instruments playing the same melody, the 8aves just thicken the overtones. Normally you see this for a few measures and then the composer switches it up a bit.

  1817. musictheory 2017-12-03 23:32:22 BRNZ42
    Stacked minor thirds is a diminished 7th, and has specific uses. I would, frankly, avoid dim7 chords until you're more comfortable with just triads. It can be used to *lead* to a new chord they is 1/2 step higher than any pitch in the dim7 chord. It's a powerful tool for switching keys, but not usually the best choice for simpler chorale's. For the style you're writing in, which we assume is some kind of generic string quartet, you will use almost entirely triads. So that means you've got 4 voices performing chords with 3 notes. One of those notes is going to be doubled, probably at an octave, in every beat. That's fine and normal! The only extended chord I'd use is a V7. Dominant chords are the most common chords to see extensions, and the V7 is arguably more common that a naked V chord.

  1818. musictheory 2017-12-04 00:21:41 65TwinReverbRI
    Honestly, Christmas will be here sooner than you know it! What I would do is find a program like Musescore, or Finale, or Sibelius, or Notion, or anything that will let you write out notes for String Quartet and hear them play back. You're not going to "master" Piano or Composing in 3 weeks, and you're not going to master any particular style, as Common Practice Harmony is different from Jazz is different from contemporary Pandiatonic music is different from modern Centric music is different from Avant-Garde/Experimental music. You'd almost be better off to pick something like "God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen" and use the existing notes and transcribe it for String Quartet, or make an arrangement of some other existing song where the melody and harmony are all written out for you and all you need to do is convert it to strings. Even if you do feel the need to compose your own piece, a program like those mentioned above will give you immediate feedback on how things things sound and will give you much more information than plunking away at an instrument. No offense, but it seems you don't really know much about part-writing, and you're not going to learn it in a couple of weeks. Your last sentence is telling - you're saying you "know" stuff that really is only applicable to a very specific style. If you want it to sound like a perfect reproduction of Mozart, you need to follow the same rules Mozart did. But the fewer of those rules you fully understand, it's going to be a pastiche or even a parody at best. Forget all the parallels and crap - we're 200 years past that. Listen to some pieces you like and start inputting notes in a program to get something you like the sound of - forget about "correct" - you don't have the time to learn correct for a 200 year old style (or any style for that matter unless you're already heavily into it). The other advantage to using a program is you can actually print out the music as well as make audio files from it, so your gift could include a nicely presented score with a link to the file on YT or Soundcloud or iTunes or the Musescore site or whatever so that the person has something to keep and cherish.

  1819. musictheory 2017-12-04 02:49:15 LampInMyCloset
    >You're not going to "master" Piano or Composing in 3 weeks My bad, it was meant to be a birthday gift for my mother. I've got almost 5 months. >If you want it to sound like a perfect reproduction of Mozart, you need to follow the same rules Mozart did. I'm apparently very good at improvising, so I can say I'm doing my own thing. They're quite coherent, many of them need only a little polishing and they'll be good enough to be re-arranged (which I still don't know how to do). Most of my improvisations are in 3 voices, hence the question: I didn't know how to set that 4th voice. Personally I think I can apply these conventions without ruining my sound. Hopefully I'll be able to post this string quartet here, or on r/composer, when you'll hear it you will certainly know what I mean. >Forget all the parallels and crap - we're 200 years past that. Imho it's all about discipline. Parallel 5th have a very distinctive sound, which I always want to employ only strategically. By doing so, which is according to my taste, I also get more aware about tonal harmony, since I have go actively think about it in order to solve those problems that necessarily arise from every progression. I'll certainly give Musescore a try.

  1820. musictheory 2017-12-04 10:13:32 Xenoceratops
    No, there are no forbidden intervals within a chord. You have to be aware of the intervals you are creating between chords though. If, from bottom to top, you have [G D G B] going to [C E G C], that's okay: the octaves are happening according to acceptable voice leading. If you have [G D G B] going to [C E C G], then you have all sorts of problems: [G G] to [C C] in the bass and alto voices is a parallel octave, there is probably voice crossing (if not, then funky spacing) between the alto and tenor, and an improperly resolved leading tone in the soprano. Check out the Coursera course, "[Write Like Mozart](https://www.coursera.org/learn/classical-composition)" if you want to get a better idea of how to voice lead well. You can get a head start on the lessons by watching the videos. I think it's fine to try to finish that string quartet for Christmas. It's a nice gesture, whether or not it is technically correct. Plus, you will learn a lot. If you can learn to string together a couple of [parallel periods](https://www.lsu.edu/faculty/jperry/virtual_textbook/parallel_period.htm), you can knock out a short piece pretty quickly. I suggest you get a hold of some notation software, as /u/65TwinReverbRI mentioned ([MuseScore](https://musescore.com/) is free, though I might steer you toward [Finale Notepad](https://www.finalemusic.com/products/finale-notepad/resources/)).

  1821. musictheory 2017-12-05 23:57:12 uuuucnklaign
    Your response does a lot of assuming what you imagine I am thinking just to refute it, so I don't know why I am even responding. On any stringed instrument intervals can be visualized on the chromatic fret-board/neck. A major 3rd is up one string and down one fret on the guitar or other instrument tuned to 4ths, or down three frets on instruments tuned to 5ths. That's all I was getting at - if you want to imagine that that means string players don't think in terms of staff notation, have fun with that, but that's not what I said at all. Yes, OP's point of view is closer to staff notation. There is nothing "backwards" about that - that's essentially what I said, but you apparently read it differently, presumably because you were focused on finding something to disagree with. Yes, figured bass is different than roman numeral notation - what's your point?

  1822. musictheory 2017-12-06 17:45:44 komponisto
    >Your response does a lot of assuming what you imagine I am thinking No, what it does is point out an *implication* of what you said, which may have been unbeknownst to you. In other words, you may not have *thought* you were saying that string players don't think in terms of staff notation; but if so (I claim), that's because you didn't realize that what you said implies that. You stated that string players would be "confused" by the OP's system of using accidentals to notate alterations of diatonic tones. But since that precisely follows the logic of staff notation, the only possible reason to be confused by it would be as a result of not thinking in terms of staff notation. By contrast, the idea of notating chords with reference to the "root" and not the key signature is exactly the approach of lead-sheet notation -- which contrasts markedly with that of staff notation -- and this is the way of thinking you attributed to string players, when you said >a guitar or violin player who sees major, minor, and diminished as different chord shapes that go on top of the root, and does not have the same need to pay attention to the key signature Whereas, if the guitar or violin player is thinking in terms of staff notation, then -- as should be obvious -- they necessarily need to pay attention to the key signature! >Yes, OP's point of view is closer to staff notation. There is nothing "backwards" about that - that's essentially what I said In [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/7hjncw/roman_numerals_trilemma/dqrpwio/) you made it sounds as if the OP is proposing something at odds with tradition, and you seem to be urging them to consider the advantages of the latter (or at least, the futility of upending it). This is indeed backwards, because staff notation *is* the traditional notational system, and therefore a theoretical vocabulary which better reflects and is more compatible with it is hardly going to turn "the bulk of written music" into "a dead language". For that reason your comment seems misaddressed. >Yes, figured bass is different than roman numeral notation - what's your point? That your idea of "Roman numeral notation" doesn't seem to include Schenkerian notation, even though the latter uses Roman numerals; and that the OP's system is similar to Schenkerian notation.

  1823. musictheory 2017-12-07 04:12:55 bloodhawk713
    They mean the same thing. Martellato is just used by string players because it describes a specific bowing technique used to achieve marcato.

  1824. musictheory 2017-12-07 08:06:20 yodelingpterodactyl
    I play trumpet, violin, and little bit of piano. I’m a high school student but some of the works we’ve played this year include a string orchestra arrangement of the first movement of Beethoven’s 5th (violin), Rhapsody in Blue (trumpet), a string orchestra arrangement of the first movement of Dvorak’s 8th (violin), Bernstein’s Overture to Candide (trumpet), Smetena’s Overture to the Bartered Bride (trumpet), a string orchestra arrangement of the first movement of Mozart’s Jupiter symphony (violin)... that’s all I can recall off the top of my head. We’re just now starting to work on Stravinsky’s Firebird Suite (which I’ll be playing trumpet for) so I’m looking forward to that. I listen to quite a lot, but recently it’s mostly been stuff from the mid Romantic period. That’s about as specific as it gets really As for melodies I’ve transcribed... I’ve only really transcribed a few, I can’t really remember all of them though. I know one is the melody from the Adagietto movement of Mahler’s 5th, and of course the melody from Dvorak’s Cello Concerto that I mentioned in the OP. Generally melodies I find very compelling I’ll try transcribing to try and understand them more.

  1825. musictheory 2017-12-07 09:28:17 65TwinReverbRI
    Awesome! Firebird should be fun!!! (and challenging). Have you checked out Petrushka? Nice trumpet part. You're playing a "main melody" instrument, so you should have a good handle on melodies. But I would say those broad, sweeping, Romantic melodies can be a little more difficult to suss out becuase they're on an expanded time scale. Maybe it's time to just start grabbing melodies from other places and learn to play them on both your instruments - I'm thinking things like the Bach Two and Three Part Inventions (Inventions and Sinfonia), the melodies to things like Fur Elise (great chromatic right at the top!). A lot of the later Mozart Sonatas but really Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven - get the parts for the first Violin in those - Symphonies, String Quartets, Piano Trios, etc. There's what some people call "essential" chromaticism and "unessential" (inessential) chromaticism. I never liked those words because it makes one seem more important, but essentially it's functional, and decorative chromaticism. Chromatic notes can be used in a melody simply to embellish any melodic tone. They can be chromatic passing tones, chromatic neighbors, and chromatic appoggiaturas (something that almost becomes a romantic period cliche). Here's a great example of a lot of decorative chromaticism (not all, but most): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfKcFi_ou9U Functional Chromaticism instead largely appears as "ti-do" to a note other than the tonic, or "fa-mi" to the 3rd of some other chord than the tonic (like a 7th resolving down). So a Bb in C will appear on a I chord to turn it into V7/IV to resolve down to the A. Likewise, an F# in C will appear on a "II" chord to turn it into V7/V and resolve up to the G - which is what happens here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnv1ZBBRBcc So functional chromaticism tends to happen more in a harmonic context, and decorative chromaticism more in a melodic context. FC is part of the chord (or the chord reflects the chromatic change). Here you see it used for secondary dominants and to modulate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVULQVEsGIk In Minor Keys, the 6th and 7th degrees kind of work slightly differently because they are sort of part of the key itself and thus diatonic. But, you can tell in the names of Harmonic and Melodic minor scales, what their purposes tend to be. Horrible sounds, but you should be able to play it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbIXDMGYHZ0 Learning melodies like this will kind of help you intuit how chromaticism is used (i.e., not just willy nilly!) and the more of it you play the better - and it's especially important to understand it in the context of the harmony and other parts, so you need to start analyzing them as well. HTH

  1826. musictheory 2017-12-07 13:23:59 nmitchell076
    > Like maybe the in a mode, the III/iii/iiio chord would be the de facto dominant, and other chords have different natures to their relationship. Or perhaps you need to use sus chords in place of triads in order to make everything line up. But *what* is being made to line up in this case? What does it actually mean to be a dominant under the view you're proposing? That's what I can't figure out, what calling something a dominant even means from your perspective. Like I said, what makes the dominant concept work is that it's rooted in the way a specific sounding event (going up by half step to an ending note paired with descending by a whole step to the same note) was so strongly associated with closure for like centuries of western musical practice. The dominant worked precisely because you play the sound of a V to I progression and instantly anyone who knew western music from like 1400-1900 would be like "yeah, that's closure!" The problem with extending that to modes is that you take away the common, conventional basis for understanding and communicating closure in ways that make sense to listeners in our culture. It's not to say that you *can't* have closure in modes, but I don't think it's something that makes sense to talk about with modes as an abstract concept. It makes way more sense for me to think about "how to people create dominant-like effects in RnB? How do they do it in Bluegrass?" etc. than it makes sense to say "how do we create dominant-like effects in modes?" The difference being that RnB and Bluegrass, or whatever genre, has a listener base and a set of norms you can get at regarding how closure works. I know, for instance, that Bluegrass music often features normal dominant chords in every part of the ensemble *except the banjo,* who holds the tonic note through as a pedal point, usually on an open string. It makes sense to me to think about "V with a banjo pedal point" as a way of modifying and expressing dominant function in this genre, because it's a sound that listeners would get used to being associated with "the chord before closure" after listening to tons of bluegrass standards. But the same isn't really true of "mode" as an abstract concept. Because like how Debussy creates closure in the Dorian mode has like nothing to do with the way Miles Davis does it.

  1827. musictheory 2017-12-07 19:10:16 jmbarlow
    The gentry think it was overly loud folk music, and tell their coachman to thrash you with the whip as they road past. The peasantry would string you up from a tree for witchcraft.

  1828. musictheory 2017-12-08 12:37:46 flekkzo
    "Plucked string based genre", that it is:)

  1829. musictheory 2017-12-08 14:06:03 thejazziestcat
    No, no they are not. The (hah) point here is that no matter what scale shape you play--no matter what finger you start on--the actual *note* is the same. An A Major scale will always start on an A, regardless of whether you're playing that A with your first finger, second finger, fourth finger, or on an open string. The A Major scale also contains the same seven notes: A, B, C#, D, E, F#, and G#. *Modes* are completely different. I can see your confusion here, but the difference is that while a scale shape starts on a different *finger,* a mode starts on a different *note.* So if you took that same A Major scale, but started on D, then it would be a different mode--in this case, Lydian. Critically, though, it would be D Lydian, not A Lydian. The other way of thinking about modes is thinking of them as altered scales. For example, D Major is D E F# G A B C#, whereas D Lydian is D E F# *G#* A B C#. It might help to look at modes on a piano at some point, ideally using only one finger, because the keyboard is a very intuitive way of visualizing scales. On a guitar it's easy to get lost in scale shapes and forget that an A is an A is an A no matter where you play it on the fingerboard.

  1830. musictheory 2017-12-09 02:25:47 NicoNik
    I think you're definitely on the right track. For me personally (on guitar) it was a step by step thing. 1) Linear (piano-like) understanding of notes and intervals 2) The tuning of the guitar: Just like you said, keeping in mind the unique major third going from the G to the B string is very important and can be confusing at first. What helped me a lot was practicing interval- and chord-shapes all across the fretboard. For example: Your campfire open chords on Guitar E, A and D are all voiced the same (1,5,1,3), which doesn't make much sense visually when you are starting out. This is because of the 4th-4th-4th-3rd-4th tuning. The general rule of thumb is: moving a chord shape to a higher set of strings, the note that was on the G-string moves one fret up and on the B-string and the other way round. 3) Octave Shapes. There are really only two main octave shapes on the guitar. Learning to visualize them on the fretboard is extremely helpful, for example for quickly moving a melodic idea from the D-string to the B-string etc. 4a) Learning the note names. I learned the notes on the fretboard with three methods. First: Mick Goodrick's Unitar. Pick a string and and play all melodies that you know (or improvise) on this string only. Start with C Major/ A Minor to get the natural note names first. Think the names and maybe sing them while you are playing them. Every day another string. Second: Finding the notes on subsequent strings. Pick a note, start with your lowest string, play the note and say the note name. Move on the next string and work your way up and down the fretboard without skipping a string, only playing the note you chose. Third: Pick a note and start on the fret of this note, that is closest to first fret of the guitar/uke, play it, say it and move to the next closest position of this note. Repeat and work your way up to the very last fret on your fretboard and back again. This method really gets the octave shapes down. 4b) Filling in the intervals. Pick yourself a root note (know that you can see and play it everywhere on the guitar) and "fill in" the intervals between two octaves. For example: a major second can be played on the same string, two frets up or on the next-highest string three frets down. Do this ascending, descending and when possible harmonic and also do compound intervals later on. Doing this long enough (and - of course - keeping the G-B-string thing in mind) will help further enhance the knowledge of the fretboard. If you want you can alternate between visualizing interval names and note names to learn scales and keys. In comparison to just learning scale shapes and boxes this might be a bit like reinventing the wheel but I truly think it helps a great deal in seeing intervals and notes in relation to the key center (or any center you like). A bit complicated to write about that without showing this stuff on an actual guitar, but I hope this makes sense and you can get something from it

  1831. musictheory 2017-12-09 02:47:51 thejazziestcat
    Am I misunderstanding what a scale pattern is? I thought a scale shape was playing the same scale (starting from the root every time) but playing, for example, the third on the fourth fret down instead of on the next string one fret up.

  1832. musictheory 2017-12-09 03:11:23 getintheVans
    What I assume you mean by scale patterns is that many people teach fingering patterns in a number of positions on the fretboard to breakdown learning where to play in key all over the fretboard. For example, I was taught a pattern starting with the middle finger on the root note on the sixth string, and going down all of the six strings. The next one I learned started with the index finger three frets back. If I play eight consecutive notes of that pattern, starting with my index finger and ending with the octave, I had played the Aeolian mode of the original scale.

  1833. musictheory 2017-12-09 03:31:11 Papitoooo
    One of the coolest things about uke and guitars IMO is movable chords. It's easier on the uke because of less strings, but take any chord and slide it up or down to transpose the chord a halfstep. Take a C major chord in first position on the uke. It's literally one finger (3rd fret bottom string) Now slide that up one (Barre the first fret to act as the new nut) you should be barring the first fret and fretting the bottom string 4th fret. That's a C#. Slide it up again... Thats a D major. One more time is a D# major. Learn all your chords in first position, and you'll know how to play almost any chord up the neck. Obviously chords that are already Barre chords are easiest for this, but if it's not a barre chord, just remember to add in a barre to act as the nut.

  1834. musictheory 2017-12-09 20:29:40 PlazaOne
    But this is precisely why some orchestras and recordings are more highly regarded than others, since they are all performing the same repertoire. Slide guitarists who use Open-E tuning are well known for slightly de-tuning their third string to get that G# a little more "just" and blended with the roots and fifths of the other strings. The difference between 400/1200ths and 386/1200s can give a very annoying beat as the overtones collide, but some people either don't hear it, or just accept it and don't realise there is an easy solution. What kind of person accepts money from an audience and doesn't aim to give their best performance possible?

  1835. musictheory 2017-12-10 14:00:23 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, *you* think it worked, but maybe others didn't?!?!? ;-) **Eb - Bb** - F - C - **G - D** - A - E Notice that in a quintal stack, the F/C dyad is skipped and you get the G/D dyad for the full EbM7 chord. If you think about Eb Lydian, you're getting all 7 notes up to the A right? So harmonically, you're not too far from stacking one more 5th, going to what is essentially Bb Lydian (which yes, would raise the Eb to E as you said). And just think if the next chord was an FMaj7! I was working with some quintal stacks recently and there's a "logic" about stacking 5ths that makes these "wrong" notes sound "right" - as if they are just bound by the logic of continual stacking in a way that makes them acceptable. But, I would say it would either need to be out of context, or, when appearing in a piece, in a context where the quartal sound is heavily reinforced throughout the piece. Otherwise I think you're going to pretty much hearing it as some kind of passing tone (which is even when you think about Bop scales, where the additional chromatics come from) But another thought is that when EbM7 appears in a song, it's not necessarily in the key of Eb. It could be a IV (which puts us back to Bb Lydian if you're using that over I) but it could just be a nice sounding chord in a context where you get a string of Maj7s - like the FMaj7 mentioned above - so the E could be part of the over-riding key and not just a note tied to this particular harmony. Key can often over-ride a single chord in many contexts. It's also b5 - a blue note - in Bb, so if it's a Bb Blues, it could easily work over the IV chord, though it would typically be 7 not M7, but sometimes the sound is familiar enough that it works in context. If the key were Eb, it's not really a borrowed note from the parallel minor, but b2 does have that kind of idea and of course b9 are common enough on altered scales - again typically a dominant but you know, once you get use to that kind of sound in the right context it can still sound OK. There's an old instrumental by The Shadows called "Apache" and it does this 5 to b6 move in the melody that people often ask about where it's a note borrowed from the parallel minor - it's less common to do a single note rather than a whole harmony, and it sounds kind of funny over the major I chord - but it's a sound you actually hear in some space music and even Brahms - sort of like I and I+ - so b2 can have a similar quality. Remember also that replacing the Eb with E gives you an Em7b5 sound or a Gm6 - so it also could be that you heard something that turned it into more of a Gm sound with the added 6 which is pretty palatable or again, even though not a dominant, something that gave you another familiar sound like a 7#9 (but Maj7#9). So could be a number of possible explanations - but I think your "circle of 5ths" falls in line with stacking 5ths and quartal harmonies, so you probably mentally accepted that inner logic of it just being a continuation of sounds that were already happening.

  1836. musictheory 2017-12-11 05:58:27 11pierrot_lunaire11
    In this example, the placement of the C chords is key. Gm has the note G, GmMaj7 has an F#, Gm7 has an F natural, then C has an E, and Cm has and Eb. There’s a descending melodic line that the chords are following. This is why it sounds so linear. This string of notes would also nicely then lead to a D chord, the dominant of G, and allow the cycle to start over.

  1837. musictheory 2017-12-11 21:40:45 Jmadman311
    I don't know of something specifically called a dissonance chord, but there are certainly dissonant intervals that you can include in chords. The two most dissonant intervals are the tritone (6 semitones, or go up one string and down one fret, two frets if the B string) and the minor second (or minor ninth- 1 or 13 semitones difference). You might want to try the sound of half diminished (1, b3, b5, b7) or full diminished (1, b3, b5, bb7=6) chords, or dominant chords with extensions like a 7b9 (1, 3, 5, 7, b9). You can't often sit on these chords very long because they sound kinda shitty, but they can certainly add tension that you can then release to a power chord or minor chord. Try playing scales in the darker modes over these chords. Pick a key, play a -7b5 or diminished chord and play Phrygian: 1 b2 b3 4 5 b6 b7 Locrian: 1 b2 b3 4 b5 b6 b7 If any of that didn't make sense let me know I can explain more thoroughly, hope it helps give you some ideas for writing

  1838. musictheory 2017-12-11 23:05:24 jzigsjzigs
    I'm Em, a diminished chord you could use is D. D-F#-C-E, starting at the 5th fret on the A string.

  1839. musictheory 2017-12-12 00:59:45 ImStuuuuuck
    7th chords. when you have a note and in the chord is also a note thats a half step away. pick any note now on the next string, find its half step. play together (example, e and f, or g and g#) notice the tension of the frequencies as they "dog fight" i believe this is what you are looking for.

  1840. musictheory 2017-12-12 01:51:28 pneumanaught
    I write and play metal music and use a lot of chord voicing in my writing. There are no hard and fast rules to making dissonant chords but there are some tips i can give you. 1. Experiment with chord voicing the have half step intervals in them. my favorite is a minor add 9 chord. the minor third and the 9 are a half step apart from eachother which creates a darker sound but the minor third and the 9 are still very beautiful on there own. 2. Experiment with adding voicing on top of your chords, especially power chords. adding a flat five on top of a power chord as opposed to the middle can give very interesting a eerie sounds without sounding to muddy. 3. use chords or power chords combined with open strings. open strings throw on top or in the middle can create interesting or new sounds. next time you are playing a power chord play the next string open and try arpegiating those notes. youll be pleasantly surprised with what you can invent. 4. using complex voicings in metal require a specific tone. make sure your gain isnt turned up to high so the notes are lost but not to low either. 5. look at jazz chords to get some new ideas. feel free to message me if you have any questions. there is a lot of freedom when it comes to this subject, thats where the dissonance comes from! i can even lead you to some band that use these techniques frequently

  1841. musictheory 2017-12-12 04:58:57 thejazziestcat
    It depends on the arrangement. If, say, the string section is playing Cmaj7 as a pad and the brass is playing a Dmaj7 ostinato, then it's Dmaj7/Cmaj7. If you're playing an airy, Debussy-style arpeggio on a harp or a piano, then it's a (very) extended tertian harmony. I still would't *call* it a Cmaj76/9#11b9, but that's what it would be.

  1842. musictheory 2017-12-12 17:00:07 jimjambanx
    In a lot of death, thrash, tech and black metal, shrill, dissonant intervals will be thrown into the mix. These aren't acting so much as chords, since metal typically doesn't use many chords, but rather they're just sounds, or a set of intervals. Try this; in whatever key you're in, play a high, unison bend, but stop just short of the unison. eg play the 12th fret on the high E, and the 15th fret on the b string, and bend the b string until it sounds the same as the E string, but stop just before it, so it's closer than a semitone, but not quite in unison. The effect is a very dissonant sound, as these notes are so close to each other but their wavelengths are just barely out of sync, and something you hear all the time in tech death (an alternative would be to actually bend past the unison, so the bent note is a fraction of a semitone higher, very spicy). A less abrasive sound would be b2 intervals and tritones, and you can experiment what scanned degrees to base these off of. These sounds are almost always played in a high register, as the notes are more defined and the dissonance is more striking; playing these sounds down low, with the possible exception being the tritone, will just sound muddy, which is cool but not the effect you're looking for in this case. All the other answers are really good too.

  1843. musictheory 2017-12-12 22:13:44 ptyccz
    > Nevertheless, I'm grateful for the pointer to that channel. One of the things I like about this channel in particular is that the relatively recent videos (which most often use synth-like 'soundfonts' - like you might hear in a recent movie soundtrack!) often have very nice "program notes" in their descriptions, which point out things about the work that may not be obvious to the novice listener. Quite independent of what else is, shall we say, peculiar about this channel, this is arguably how good 'music appreciation' should be done in the first place. > I can see that sort of thing serving as a music appreciation vehicle Along these lines, I found the similar arrangements of Arnold Schönberg's String Quartet No. 1 Op. 7 [[1st half]](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePZ_cKD_6Z4), [[2nd half]](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vbBFzhFkXQ) and [Alexander Scriabin Piano Sonata No. 5 Op. 53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3fhzZSGFlU) (from a different channel) to be quite interesting. While not really considered 'atonal', these works are obviously not *that* easy to appreciate either, and the 'chiptune' setting also seems to make a difference here. > (which, after all, bears a relationship to the original entirely similar to that of a piano arrangement) It's even more similar to a traditional *organ* arrangement - after all, the very first keyboard 'synths' were considered electric/electronic organs, before branching off in their own class of instruments. (And, as it turns out, Mozart did also write some music for early self-playing *mechanical* organs.) > (Also, it was just fun to hear a number of famous pieces that way, especially for one with certain kinds of formative experiences, shall we say.) (On the rather more technical side, an interesting [description](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_3d1x2VPxk) of how 'oldschool 8-bit' music actually worked.)

  1844. musictheory 2017-12-13 00:23:31 caelum400
    I have something similar but I would never describe it as "weak perfect pitch", I think that's aggrandising it. "Pitch memory" is a good descriptor though. I've noticed this when listening to albums. Take the Arctic Monkeys' first album, Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not. Give me the last ten seconds of The View From the Afternoon and I'll sing the first note/chord of I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor (which is an F# or 2nd fret of the E string (I've played this album on bass *a lot*)) 10 times out of 10. It gets harder without a reference point though, for example the first song on an album. The first two notes of Airbag by Radiohead are E and F and I'm *fairly* good at guessing what pitch they're at, but I've literally listened to that song over 500 times so it's clearly just my subconscious retaining it rather than some innate quality I have. Your teacher's comments about vocal cord tightness are interesting as well. I've noticed when I try to guess the key a song is written in, even when I'm wrong, I'm never really off by more than two tones or so. I figured it's because I roughly know where the song sits in my vocal range, so to speak. For example, The Fragile by Nine Inch Nails at no point needs me to transition from my chest voice to my head voice, and nor does it have me struggling to go deeper than my voice is comfortable for example, which gives me a decent idea of which key it's in.

  1845. musictheory 2017-12-13 06:45:07 jazzadellic
    That's a D - B7 - Em, I can even see the B7 shape in his hand (I've been playing that chord for 27 years). Now a D#m7b5 would actually be a substitute for a B7, in that it would be essentially a rootless B9. But from the video he is clearly playing a vanilla B7 chord on the 7th fret using this voicing: 7,9,7,8,7,7 lowest string to highest. The more common minor resolution that uses a half diminished chord would be (in the key of your example) a F#m7b5, B7, Em, and that is an extremely common chord progression in jazz and jazz related styles. But it can also be found in just about any style, including classical music from different periods.

  1846. musictheory 2017-12-13 09:54:01 lasercruster
    You nailed it. It's called a secondary dominant. You could even string several secondary dominants together, all moving around the circle of fifths. E, to A, to D, to G, back to C. In your example, the secondary dominant functions to temporarily tonicize ('make feel like home') the A Minor. You could choose to stay longer in A Minor and write the rest of the progression reinforcing that minor tonality.

  1847. musictheory 2017-12-13 20:58:45 octatonic_formula
    Great idea, and beautifully done. The layout, colors, music examples, and everything wonderfully done. A few suggestions: Often the first info someone looks for about an instrument is the written range of an instrument as shown on bass and treble (and alto and tenor) clefs; so I think the 'buttons' should also show, on a score, the bottom and top note. Maybe that would be too crowded and you need a separate graphic for that. Sometimes that's done on a single staff system, each instrument next to each other, bottom and top note. In classical orchestration, other standard info in instrumentation is what clefs the instrument appears on (for example, bassoon using tenor clef), and which are transposing. The legend in upper left gives the appearance that it would be an 'html' button which, if you clicked it, would rearrange the buttons just for that category. I would like to see...transposing instruments (bass clarinet, clarinet, horns) grouped together if they so choose. The buttons are not HTML type? Special effects like string harmonics, horn mutes. At the top left, there's color coded legend (wind percussion). The colors of your page are wonderful, but is it possible, if you click the legend button for, for example, winds, that all the buttons will re-arrange into sections? However It's sort of nice how the different categories are jumbled together; it gives a nice color effect (which I think is just as important as content issues), so maybe it's a trade off where you can't do both. Some of the instruments are used more by classical orchestra than jazz or pop, so could the music examples accordingly be well known ones from classical repertoire? That's what most orchestration books do.

  1848. musictheory 2017-12-13 23:26:57 Jongtr
    I assume you mean an open voicing? I.e., a 9th chord can easily be played as R-3-7-9 on strings 6-5-4-3. (I'm assuming a dom7 chord, btw, although maj7s and min7s are are easy.) There are a few open voicing options: R-7-3-9 on strings 6-4-3-1 (though that's the one you call your "silly voicing"); R-3-9-7 on strings 6-5-3-1; R-7-9-3 on strings 6-4-3-2 (close voiced on top) A drop 3 9th chord (starting from root position) means the 5th (the 3rd voice down from the top) is lowered by an octave, so the chord is voiced 5-R-3-7-9. That's a relatively easy shape on guitar, though obviously your root can't be on the E string! To get a drop 3 chord with root on the bottom would mean (I think) starting from close-voiced 2nd inversion (5-7-R-9-3). In drop 3, that chord becomes R-5-7-9-3 - much more difficult (if not impossible) on guitar. But if you lose the 5th it's playable: R-7-9-3 (as mentioned above) - awkward for a min9, but OK for a dom9 or maj9. Maybe I've misunderstood your question....

  1849. musictheory 2017-12-14 00:24:31 65TwinReverbRI
    You take an open position chord, and find a 9th, and find a free finger, or a note you can drop from an existing shape, and replace it with the 9th. Do you know what the 9th of an A7 chord is? What about E7? Do you know where the 9ths of those chords are on the guitar? It seems like you have a lot of information that you don't know how to apply, and maybe, instead, you should be working the opposite way - learn what notes are in chords, play those notes and then worry about whether it's a drop voicing or not. You can't go any lower than an open string in open position, so it's going to automatically restrict some voicings and make them impossible or even if possible, impractical.

  1850. musictheory 2017-12-14 01:00:55 asclepius2000
    Hi all thank you for your replies and my apologies for the ambiguity. My current set of drop 3 voicings look like this: 6-5-4-3-2 (STRINGS) R-X-7-3-5 (SCALE DEGREES) with alterations for quality I'm just wondering what the best way to voice a 9 chord is here. I think it's to move the 5 up to a 9 on my high E string. This just seemed "silly" to me because then I'm muting two strings, and the chord's range is potentially too wide (especially with the muted string gaps). This sounds cool if I add the 13 on my B string, just below the 9 (and this fills a gap)

  1851. musictheory 2017-12-14 01:30:42 Jongtr
    Well, yes. You choose for the sound you want. It's only "silly" if it doesn't sound right. Aside from the 13, you could also keep the 5th on 2nd string to fill that gap, if the voicing seems too wide. Is there a problem with voicing the chord as R-3-7-9, which is easy?

  1852. musictheory 2017-12-14 04:24:24 jazzadellic
    Well assuming you meant 1st finger on low E string, and assuming you are hitting all 6 strings, it would be an Ab major 9 with a #4. The notes from lowest to highest would be the 1, 5, 7, 9, #4, 9. So there is no third in the chord.

  1853. musictheory 2017-12-14 06:33:34 Talking_Meat
    The intro of Mozart's K. 465 string quartet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08uY0-ehL-w Liszt's Mephisto Waltz, particularly the stacking fifths at the beginning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJbg9V2KnD8 Also Liszt's Bagatelle without Tonality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcjU0kpbomo A lot of Chopin's music, but I picked the Mazurka in A minor (Op. 17, No. 4). The harmony isn't too outlandish most of the time, but there are these very interesting chromatic descents that crop up in a lot of Chopin's music. In this example, mm. 8-10 you'll see a 7-6 suspension chain, which isn't unusual, but the chords are E minor, D-sharp minor, and D minor (all in first inversion). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbxmca163Nc

  1854. musictheory 2017-12-14 10:38:38 Mentioned_Videos
    Videos in this thread: [Watch Playlist &#9654;](http://subtletv.com/_r7jknsh?feature=playlist) VIDEO|COMMENT -|- (1) [Carlo Gesualdo - Sesto libro di madrigali: XVII. Moro, lasso, al mio duolo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dVPu71D8VI) (2) [Carlo Gesualdo - Sesto libro di madrigali: VI. "Io parto" e non più dissi](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBC-45-FfVQ) (3) [Carlo Gesualdo - Sesto libro di madrigali: I. Se la mia morte brami](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fao21JPxow)|[+10](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/7jknsh/_/dr726bu?context=10#dr726bu) - What do I win? (1) [Mozart - Quartetto K. 465 "delle dissonanze" (I movimento)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08uY0-ehL-w) (2) [Liszt - Mephisto Waltz No. 1, S. 514 [André Laplante]](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJbg9V2KnD8) (3) [Brendel plays Liszt - Bagatelle sans tonalité (Audio + Sheet Music)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcjU0kpbomo) (4) [Chopin Mazurka Op.17 No.4 By Arthur Rubinstein (32/154)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbxmca163Nc) (5) [Gustav Mahler - Symphony No. 10 "Adagio" Vienna Philharmonic, Leonard Bernstein [HD]](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHyV8noUXC0&t=1100s)|[+4](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/7jknsh/_/dr7m0mh?context=10#dr7m0mh) - The intro of Mozart's K. 465 string quartet: Liszt's Mephisto Waltz, particularly the stacking fifths at the beginning: Also Liszt's Bagatelle without Tonality: A lot of Chopin's music, but I picked the Mazurka in A minor (Op. 17, No. 4). Th... (1) [AS Music Monteverdi Ohimè, se tanto amate dissonance bars 1 - 19 study guide](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-H85Gu6pds) (2) [Luca Marenzio - Solo e pensoso i piú deserti campi](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJlj1uy8cSA)|[+3](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/7jknsh/_/dr7i1to?context=10#dr7i1to) - Moro Lasso is sort of the "most famous" of the Gesualdo madrigals that do these "funky chords". Gesualdo was a late Renaissance composer. Two places to start are Palestrina and Monteverdi. Palestrina is usually considered to have a purity of style... (1) [Nicolà Vicentino: Madonna, il poco dolce - Exaudi](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoEpUcAHL08) (2) [Nicolà Vicentino: Musica prisca caput - Exaudi](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6zNO5Fieog) (3) [Nicolà Vicentino: Dolce mio ben - Exaudi](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vM3p4rtdbs) (4) [Nicolà Vicentino: Soav’ e dolc’ ardore - Exaudi](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGzjI3NXOZI)|[+3](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/7jknsh/_/dr7cx6c?context=10#dr7cx6c) - Youtube performances: [Cesar Franck - Symphony in D Minor](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nF6TobCyV4&t=420s)|[+3](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/7jknsh/_/dr7nhd2?context=10#dr7nhd2) - Franck has a bunch of jazzy moments. This theme from the Symphony d in minor always sounds just like Gershwin to me. [Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - Symphony no. 40, in G minor, KV 550 - 4th movement - Allegro assai](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J9k_nBFsUo&t=235s)|[+2](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/7jknsh/_/dr791rk?context=10#dr791rk) - The opening to the development section of the final movement of Mozart's 40th symphony. [01 Emilio De Cavalieri: Lamentations: In te Domine speravi: part1](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZf2lwaNsMs)|[+2](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/7jknsh/_/dr7ekfh?context=10#dr7ekfh) - Emilio De' Cavalieri's Lamentations. It can't beat Gesualdo, but it sounds quite modern to me. [J.S. Bach : Choral "Es ist genug, ..." (BWV 60)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwpwr0MYNWc)|[+2](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/7jknsh/_/dr7oafn?context=10#dr7oafn) - The whole tone motive in the opening of this Bach chorale comes to mind. [Carlo Gesualdo - Peccantem me quotidie](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wgJx-IpWfo)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/7jknsh/_/dr7jt9w?context=10#dr7jt9w) - I was going to say Gesualdo, too. This one is amazing [Mozart: Symphony no. 40 - II. Andante (Barenboim & Wiener Philharmoniker 2012)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POZCeEtEb8Q&t=166s)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/7jknsh/_/dr7yw9b?context=10#dr7yw9b) - Second movement is also quite "modern" to me. There's a wonderful progression that starts with an abrupt Abm7 and goes on chromatically. I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can. *** [Play All](http://subtletv.com/_r7jknsh?feature=playlist&ftrlnk=1) | [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | Get me on [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf) / [Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mentioned-videos-for-reddit)

  1855. musictheory 2017-12-14 17:07:03 Jongtr
    The notes are Ab D Ab Bb F G (assuming you include the open strings, capo 3rd fret). I can see it as a partial Abmaj9#11, but IMO it might be better to call it Gm7/Ab (the Ab on 4th string being superfluous either way).

  1856. musictheory 2017-12-15 13:07:27 MiskyWilkshake
    Third fret on the B string would give D, not Eb.

  1857. musictheory 2017-12-15 15:10:00 gotthattrans
    E♭ sounds like the tonal center there. You could think of the synth/string parts as E♭5-A♭m.

  1858. musictheory 2017-12-16 03:50:38 jazzadellic
    Just think of it like this -- if you play the D minor 7 "C shape", you are playing a chord voicing based off of this basic shape: (lowest to highest string) x,5,3,2,x,x (notice how similar it is to the D major C shape, only one note has been changed, the 3rd). If you play the G7 "E shape", you are basically playing this: 3,5,3,4,3,3. If you play the "A shape" of C major7, you are playing this: x,3,5,4,5,x. So he is saying if you want to play the arpeggios (or the chords for that matter) in the 3rd position, those are the shapes you are basing your chords/scale/arpeggio off of in the 3rd position.

  1859. musictheory 2017-12-16 04:28:57 octatonic_formula
    Stravinsky has nice retrograde in his Double Canon for String Quartet: https://youtu.be/_6StGCOLeq4 Also, in recording technology, 'reverse time' / retrograde...is more complicated, because they can reverse the envelopes and everything, just like playing a tape in reverse, Beatles era. Or, with Midi, they have other types of retrograde where the attack time is mirrored or something. I don't quite understand it (in Digital Performer), but the way MIDI fools with envelopes, you can how it involves a little more. (Also, recording your music, and playing it in reverse with a DAW, can give interesting ideas! Messages from outer space, etc.)

  1860. musictheory 2017-12-16 09:40:49 PlazaOne
    For me the CAGED system is just for thinking about roots and octaves, to help navigate around the neck. That way if I’m inside the “C” box, I know I can grab any chord that fits in that box, perhaps (but not necessarily) where my pinky is on the fifth string. CMaj7, C7, Eb5/C, Asus4/C, Cadd9 would all be candidates. Likewise for single note lines, whether riffing or soloing, I’d just be finding the C pitches to have a departure point and put my brain into the right gear for knowing where other pitches will fall underneath my fingers. For example, if you just stick to open position chords and whack out E7-Am-Dm-G-C *that* will be an application of what he’s talking about - but because it’s open position for some reason we tend to not think about it the same as when it’s higher up the neck.

  1861. musictheory 2017-12-17 23:28:09 n4m33
    Hello! I understand that when constructing scales there are 2 formulas for major (WWHWWWH) and minor (WHWWHWW) and I can construct them just fine on 1 string. But how do you implement the formulas and whole steps and half steps when moving up and down the neck?

  1862. musictheory 2017-12-17 23:36:03 11pierrot_lunaire11
    Transcribing is really just the act of writing down music you hear. You may need or want to do a bit of arranging depending on the original song and how well it fits the violin. My personal technique is to listen to the piece specifically focusing on the part I want to write. I like to internalize the part so I often sing or hum while I’m doing this. I’ll usually sit at a piano so I can play back what I’m listening to. The piano is advantageous because it’s sure to be in concert pitch and it’s easier (for me a guitarist) to visualize patterns. String instruments can be a bit abstract at times. The piano is also good because you realistically won’t encounter range problems the way you could on other instruments. Once I start to get the part I’m looking for I begin to write it down. I use standard notation or shorthand symbols for chords depending on what I want. Once you get the entirety of the part you want, assess what key it’s in and see how well it fits your instrument. Depending on the range or key, you may find you need to adjust certain parts or the key may need changing altogether. If it’s just for fun you can make whatever edits you want.

  1863. musictheory 2017-12-18 02:47:31 thejazziestcat
    Assuming you're on guitar: Moving from the E string to the A string is the equivalent of 5 half-steps. That is to say, instead of playing the fifth fret on the E string, play the open A and continue from there (G to B is only four half-steps). It's easier to look up some scale shapes and memorize those, though.

  1864. musictheory 2017-12-19 00:46:34 cslwoodward1
    I take it you’re referring to using the guitar as a tool for theory. For me, the circle of fifths/fourths never clicked until I visualised it on the fretboard as a power chord and knowing if you have a note on the A string, the fifth of that note is on the same fret on the E string. I’ll try and explain it a bit better. Take the note ‘C’ on the A string, 3rd fret. One string away (E string) but on the same fret is the note ‘G’. Now if you play a G power chord or ‘G5’ chord, the next note in the circle of fifths is D, the other note you’re playing. Repeat the cycle starting on ‘D’. Directly below (above, however you think about it) ‘D’ is ‘A’, power chord of ‘A’ contains ‘E’, below ‘E’ is ‘B’, and so on and so forth. I’d been taught the circle so many times but never clicked until I was in the shower one day and thought about it in relevance to the fretboard. Now I use it all the time.

  1865. musictheory 2017-12-19 00:48:09 jenslarsenjazz
    The CAGED system is a 5 position scale system for guitar. It gives you 5 positions of the scales based on the open chords C, A, G, E and D. It integrates very well with Pentatonic scale positions and arpeggios. The whole system is designed to avoid intervals larger than a minor 3rd on one string.

  1866. musictheory 2017-12-19 03:09:05 _Occams-Chainsaw_
    I posted a brief-ish explanation of the CAGED system [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/guitarlessons/comments/4znzbi/are_there_any_other_places_to_learn_to_play/d6xkujq/) and copied below - there's some discussion in the thread too which you may or may not find useful. ---- Warning, wall of text incoming! ---- The idea is to use the shapes of the open chords C, A, G, E and D in their movable (aka barre) forms to be able to find any chord you choose anywhere along the fingerboard. ---- For example, if we think about E major as a chord then we can use the open position voicing built from the open bass E string `(0 2 2 1 0 0)`. If we were to use the E note on the second fret of the D string as our root, we could use a D-shape barre chord `(x x 2 4 5 4)`. If we start from the E at the seventh fret of the A string, we could use either a C-shape barre `(x 7 6 4 5 4)` or an A-shape barre `(x 7 9 9 9 7)`. If we start from the E at the twelfth fret of the E string we could use a G-shape barre `(12 11 9 9 9 12)` or begin our pattern again using our original E shape but now as a barre chord an octave higher than where we started `(12 14 14 13 12 12)` ---- If we look at the order of the chord *shapes* in this collection of E Major chords, we get E D C A G. EDCAG isn't a word I'm familiar with, whereas CAGED is! And it's the same order of shapes, just starting on the C rather than E. ---- So, if we were to use C Major as our chord and play using C-shape `(x 3 2 0 1 0)`, A-shape `(x 3 5 5 5 3)`, G-shape `(8 7 5 5 5 8)`, E-shape `(8 10 10 9 8 8)`, and D-shape `(x x 10 12 13 12)` we'd move through the CAGED pattern in order, and end up with another C Major chord played using a C-shape barre `(x 15 14 12 13 12)`. ---- As well as working with Major chords, it can also be applied to other variants (m, 7, m7, M7, mM7, m7b5, dim, dim7, aug etc etc). Similarly with scales and arpeggios. ---- Does that make the idea any clearer? If not, I'm happy to help if you can let me know where my description falls down for you. ---- ^^Edits ^^for ^^clarity, ^^typos ^^and ^^formatting.

  1867. musictheory 2017-12-19 03:33:14 Dirty_South_Cracka
    Guitars are equal temperament instruments. Calculating the next note in the series is equal to the (previous note) * 12th root of 2. For instance if you started with A4 440Hz, A#/Bb would be 440 * 1.05946309436 (roughly 466.163762Hz). This works fine for a single string but when you start lying them parallel to one another and have straight frets that don't also use this mathematical format, they slowly starts to get "off" by quite a bit. There are true temperament guitars, but they're rare, expensive, and require some really odd looking frets that have to be cut with cnc machines. http://www.hangoutstorage.com/banjohangout.org/storage/attachments/archived/photos/large/95/95660-2023171112017.jpg

  1868. musictheory 2017-12-19 03:46:46 Jongtr
    > hope this helps. Can't see how. What do you mean by the Fmaj7 open shape? The one with the open 1st string? If you keep that string open it's going to mess up the other major chords. If you don't use that string, then you just have a major chord - so the principle works (but it doesn't start from Fmaj7). What do you mean by " the shape starting on the high-E", and how does that get the minor chords?

  1869. musictheory 2017-12-19 07:23:04 Jongtr
    OK, that's a little clearer. The shape shown there is a Bbm (or A#m) chord; the "Am" shape on fret 1. (The enharmonics are wrong, but I guess that's the dumb app you're using ;-).) You'd get a Gbmaj7 (or F#maj7) chord if you fretted the low E on fret 2 - and if you muted (or avoided) the 5th string somehow. IOW, what you get is a movable *maj7* shape - not a major (triad) chord. And the minor chord on the top 4 strings is not really a "corresponding" chord. It's the iii if the maj7 is the I. You're right it belongs in the CAGED system, and exploits the fact that a minor triad is a rootless maj7. One of the notes in the 4-string shape is superfluous, but no big deal. (The standard CAGED forms all double some notes.)

  1870. musictheory 2017-12-19 11:30:33 grunfy_com
    no worries ;-) I guess everybody is different but I am wondering how do you improvise e.g. when playing with someone...I always start with pentatonic major or minor and build from there. To do this, knowing those shapes helps a lot...I also played with a lot of people which were playing amazing stuff and still having a hard time to find any note below A string...just by applying shapes..

  1871. musictheory 2017-12-19 18:47:18 surfingpiano
    What I’m saying is this, If I move the Fmaj7 shape (with thumb fret) up every fret here’s how it would go: 1st fret: Fmaj7 2nd fret: F#7 3rd fret: G6 4th fret: Ab(b6) 5th fret: A 6th fret: Bb (#11) 7th fret: Badd11 8th fret: C 9th fret: Db#9 10th fret: Dadd9. And so on... Now, if you mute the high E (this is what was giving the chords extensions) and just move this shape up you can do every major chord easily. Also, the chords sound rich and full. What I meant for the minors is that if you move every finger you have in the current Fmaj7 shape down a string you get every minor chord. 1st fret: Bbm 2nd fret: Bm 3rd fret: Cm And so on. I think it’s just a cool tip honestly.

  1872. musictheory 2017-12-20 03:46:06 Jongtr
    OK, even clearer - thanks! It's still just an alternative (although useful) way of fingering the usual CAGED forms. They don't have to be played as full 6-string shapes, and it doesn't matter how you finger them - i.e, the "E" form can be played as you suggest (thumb on 6) and any combination of the other strings your other fingers can get to (muting the unfretted strings).

  1873. musictheory 2017-12-20 15:18:55 BoonsterSiege
    Since you have played guitar, I suggest playing electric bass, banjo, or something that has frets. Since you have been playing guitar for years, you may not be used to a string instruments without frets. Violin, Viola, Cello, and Double Bass are all great instruments but lack frets and may appear less accessible. Along with the familiarity, the fretted instruments (primarily guitar and bass) have online tabs that are accessible for free. I am not exactly certain of your 'mastery' on the guitar, but if you want to play chords easily, banjo and guitar are the primary instruments for such. If you want an instrument with an easy learning curve, electric bass is quite accessible. I've divided this follow up into two parts: bass and guitar Bass Simple (but not boring) baselines like that of Sting in "The Police" are a good starting challenge. While electric bass may have an easier learning curve than guitar (as a majority of bass players never need to play chords), it is still a challenge to master. There are a plethora of bass players; all depending on what genre you prefer. Primarily Rock: John Entwistle of "The Who," Sting of "The Police," Jack Bruce of "Cream," Geddy Lee of "Rush," etc. Also: James Jamerson who played in many Motown records, Larry Graham of "Sly and The Family Stone" and "Graham Central Station" who invented slap bass, Les Claypool of "Primus," who is one of the more 'inventive' minds still working today, and Jaco Pastorius of "Weather Report" who is possibly the most technical bassist of all time. Guitar You most likely know enough about guitar to not want to hear me recite the same material, so instead I will list a few of the most talented guitarists. A number of them are household names, but there are plenty more that manage to rip the instrument apart. Popular guitarist most people know: George Harrison, Jimi Hendrix, Chuck Berry, Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Pete Townsend, and Brian May Not as popular but just as talented: Frank Zappa, Elvis Costello, Steve Vai, etc. Most of the guitarists managed to carve their own careers inside and outside of bands. This is not to say bass players cannot, but a majority of the time the guitarist manages to take the spotlight. Note: Talent isn't about how technical you play but how well your music holds up.

  1874. musictheory 2017-12-20 17:06:21 Jongtr
    In order of difference from guitar: bass guitar, ukulele, banjo, lute, mandolin, dulcimer. How about (fretted) string instruments from other cultures? Lots of great sounds here: bouzouki, oud, balalaika, tres, portuguese guitarra (*not* a normal guitar), sitar, pipa, ruan, guitarron ...

  1875. musictheory 2017-12-20 23:55:33 ptyccz
    > How about (fretted) string instruments from other cultures? Lots of great sounds here: > bouzouki, oud, balalaika, tres, portuguese guitarra (not a normal guitar), sitar, pipa, ruan, charango, cuatro, guitarron ... there's a whole world out there, Along the same lines, he could consider the viol family, the cittern or the lute, which are "from another culture" in a rather different sense!

  1876. musictheory 2017-12-21 02:53:43 Superslinky1226
    Piano is my suggestion, as it's pretty easy to learn, keyboards can be procured relatively cheaply, and they're abundant and flexible. Learning piano will advance your theory knowledge 10 fold because the patterns in music become more obvious. If you have to stick with a string instrument with frets, I'd say ukulele is going to give you the best bang for your buck, both money and time wise, especially if you're gonna be playing alone. If you want to play in a group, I'd suggest electric bass, but it can be less fulfilling as a solo instrument, at least to beginners. Being a bassist in a band is awesome though, as you'll always be in demand, and can still have an awesome time. If you're trying to change course, alto sax is by far the easiest of the woodwinds, and trombone would be my go to for brass, as it's easier to play than trumpet (embouchure wise) and they can be picked up pretty cheap. Bowed string instruments are going to be a difficult change, harder than changing to wind instruments IMO. There's very little that carries over from guitar, so not only do you have to learn a new instrument, but you have to retrain your body what to do.

  1877. musictheory 2017-12-22 05:30:25 octatonic_formula
    I think the author of that blurb is combining two issues --chord voicing (regardless of instrumentation), and orchestration. With 4 part harmony, like in chorales, and exercises, there are standard considerations what, and what not to double (such as the 3rd of a major triad), connected to voice leading issues as well. In orchestration, there a doublings aplenty aside from the chord voicing issue (for example, the complete harmony often appears in both the string and woodwind 'choirs', and sometimes brass as well. You could write a book on this topic.

  1878. musictheory 2017-12-22 08:12:36 Jmadman311
    Time lag. I pluck a string on my guitar, how many milliseconds before you can hear it? If you're in the same physical room as me, (distance from my amp to your ear divided by speed of sound). Over the internet...? That note has to travel through a series of tubes to get to you, I hear...

  1879. musictheory 2017-12-22 08:26:04 Yeargdribble
    My point is that the world of professional concert pianists is so exceedingly small as to be pointless. You literally listed some of the top classical concert pianists to live. My point was you have a better chance of being an NFL quarterback. Who would tell their kids to hang all their hopes and dreams on athletic success? If you think putting all your eggs in the pro-football basket it foolish, it's no different for a classical concert pianist. The demand is ridiculously low. We're talking about a fraction of 1% would ever actually be able to make a career out of it and I think that's being generous. Meanwhile, there's a much broader target and tons of other jobs playing piano at large, but instead the vast majority of people get a degree that focuses on the skill set of the smallest job market probably in all of music? If they learned to be a good accompanist or learned to sit in with jazz bands or play with pop groups they would have infinitely more job opportunities. And if you say, "That's no what speaks to them" or some equivalent... welcome to the real world. If you want to get paid to do something, sometimes you will have to work on skills that aren't to your personal taste. But it's real first world problem to complain that you're having to learn Latin jazz to help make a living playing music. --- And about memorization. There is a point where you might memorize a piece of music through sheer volume of thorough practice. Yeah, did that for solo competition in HS (on trumpet). I could prepare that same literature that took months then in a week or more. At that point memorization would be an *extra* step. Very good professional musicians constantly play with very good musicality while reading and even while sightreading. When you play less well or read less well, and you're playing at the bleeding edge of your ability, yeah, you might need that little fraction of extra concentration that memorization offers (with risk of forgetting leading to an rocky recovery). But when you're a better player and a better reader, you really don't need that extra little bit because the music is easy to you. You could probably play a C major scale just as musically looking at the music or your hands because it's not challenging to you. I frequently end up playing with small chamber groups where we are given the music sometimes the day before the gig, or even hours before. We all read well enough to play very musically, listen to each other, follow the conductor, pay attention to style and balance, all while reading the music for the first or second time. When you have a certain level of technical and reading mastery, reading doesn't affect musicality at all. Most wind/string players are fully aware of this. It's just the culture within the music they play. They play in ensembles and frequently are playing a pretty large volume of different music in different styles, sometimes just counting rests and listening. They play a lot of music at or slightly above their level rather than constantly at the top margin. They are used to following a conductor and paying attention to those around them. But pianists so frequently spend all of their time alone playing a very small number of exceedingly difficult pieces. They never develop the awareness that you *can* read and play musically at the same time. Yes, piano is much harder and has a lot more going on, but that just means the bar is higher... it doesn't mean it's impossible. Pianists just make an excuse about it because it's so much a part of piano culture to *not* have developed those other skills.

  1880. musictheory 2017-12-23 09:44:02 trainercase
    Other answers have been great but overlooked one possibility. Harmonics is also a term for notes played using a *specific performance technique* on certain instruments. It's also relates to the harmonic series. On string instruments you lightly touch the string at specific points (instead of pressing it all the way down) and it will play just the upper harmonics of the string. For example, touching the middle of the string mutes the fundamental but lets all of the overtones through. Doing it at either 1/3 or 2/3 down mutes the fundamental and first harmonic and only plays the second and above, etc. It gives a kind of hollow sound different from normal notes and makes for a useful effect.

  1881. musictheory 2017-12-23 21:53:47 octatonic_formula
    Additionally (to m3g), as the common practice era developed, minor became associated with sad and dark due to its literally darker sound, acoustically, from the minor 3rd, as compared to the major 3rd. It's a more dissonant interval -- smaller, and with more roughness and beating than with the major 3rd. The minor triad's dark, 'sad' sound was was also the subject of much theorizing over the centuries (Zarlino, proportion of string lengths; Helmholtz, roughness, etc). Now I believe it's mostly considered to be an effect of cultural conditioning...of growing up and hearing minor used for that effect.

  1882. musictheory 2017-12-24 13:24:14 ajarndaniel
    I'm learning some Bach on the guitar at the moment. Chord changes every beat or couple of beats. It's brutal, and I can feel my brain growing new connections. I have a piece of advice for your chord changes: Look at where each finger needs to go next. So a C - G change for example. Your index finger is moving from 1st fret B string, to 2nd fret A string. Repeat that movement a bunch of times, don't worry about the other notes. Build up the movement with your index finger, and then in the end all of your fingers. The result is that whenever you need to change from a C - G, your muscles want to do it, instead of your brain having to brute force them do it. Think about the changes even when you're not on the guitar, too. I don't know if you've noticed, but your brain is working on this stuff subconsciously. That Bach sounds better all the time, even if I've taken a couple of days off from it.

  1883. musictheory 2017-12-24 13:53:05 MrRedTRex
    > I disagree with Segovia that age is irrelevant. As a teacher, I know that young people find it much easier and quicker to build skills than older people - i.e. those past their teens. That's why I feel truly blessed to have started at 10 years old, before I even knew what I was doing. I used to get punished a lot for bad behavior and would lose access to TV, not allowed to go play with friends, etc. I found my mom's old acoustic nylon string guitar in the basement and figured it was a loophole to my grounding. Nobody said anything about playing guitar. Then I just fell in love with it. I'm entirely self taught and did a ton of things wrong. It took me years to discover alternate picking, for example. This was back in 1994 though, when all that was available on the internet were some rudimentary printable tabs. These days kids will learn much quicker given the access to video teaching tools and the like.

  1884. musictheory 2017-12-24 14:40:55 SweetTalkingWoman
    OP is probably a guitarist and has dealt with many new guitarists who latch onto modes as a way to solo/improvise better. Modes are absolutely useful but not as much as the basic pentatonic or major/natural minor scales to a contemporary guitarist. Only after they can improvise well in that framework should they begin to really study incorporating modes. Otherwise you're learning new words without being able to string a sentence together.

  1885. musictheory 2017-12-24 18:22:55 s_SoNick
    I honestly just wish I'd started earlier; back in 2009 I picked up a cheap electric guitar and was all set to begin learning. I broke a string trying to tune it and then when I enlisted a friend to help replace the string he was unable to do so. Thanks to this experience I put the guitar in the cardboard box it came in and then it sat there for over half of a decade. In early 2016 I set out to replace the string and did so successfully, then later that year I started taking lessons. Don't get me wrong, I like where I'm at now for someone that's only been playing for a year and some change. However, I really wish I'd started sooner so that by now I'd have even more experience!

  1886. musictheory 2017-12-25 10:25:10 tjbassoon
    It's similar to how you can write a group of notes slurred together but with staccato marks on all the notes under the slur. It's called portato, but it looks really unintuitive for wind players that see those two markings as purely contradictory, but it's meaningful to string players and adopted for other instruments that have to copy the effect to their instrument.

  1887. musictheory 2017-12-26 09:12:53 larsedlundisdaman
    The chord progression is: Bbm, Adim7, Db/Ab, Gbm6/Ab. I'd say the magic comes from a combination of the expressive chord progression and the way the string parts are being used: a third a part for most of the time, spiced up with chromaticism and some beautiful intervallic leaps.

  1888. musictheory 2017-12-27 02:48:05 DRL47
    A secondary dominant is using the chord a fifth above (the dominant) to lead you to any chord. Just like the regular dominant wants to resolve to the tonic, a secondary dominant wants to resolve to the chord a fifth below. Adding the 7th to make a dominant 7 chord intensifies this need to resolve. These are always "outside" the key and will require some kind of accidental. They can occur as a whole string of dominants. "Sweet Georgia Brown" is a good example. In the key of F it is D7 - G7 - C7 - F.

  1889. musictheory 2017-12-27 05:28:55 DiversityAlgorithm
    Same except I play trumpet, so I usually hear (especially a lead sheet) as trumpet. Except if I knew the sheet was in concert key, I may hear it instead as piano, since that's my go-to concert key instrument. And if it was bass clef I might hear it as a string bass of some kind.

  1890. musictheory 2017-12-28 01:11:09 Telope
    It's amazing reading through the comments here that people don't make an effort to develop their mind's ear. You should be able to hear any piece of music in your mind while reading the score. That's how all the symphonists composed. It would be like trying to read a book without being able to visualise the characters and scene, or worse still if you're a composer, trying to write a book! If you can't hear for example a muted solo violin playing arco on an open d string, how can you expect to choose the best timbre in your next composition? To develop your ear, listen to recordings go to concerts and read scores.

  1891. musictheory 2017-12-28 03:49:33 spoonopoulos
    You might find the [canonical paper](http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~godfried/publications/banff.pdf) on Euclidean Rhythms interesting. > The Euclidean rhythm E(3, 8) pictured in Figure 1 (a) is none other than one of the most famous on the planet. In Cuba it goes by the name of the *tresillo* and in the USA is often called the *Habanera* rhythm used in hundreds of *rockabilly* songs during the 1950s. It can often be heard in early rock-and-roll hits in the left-hand patterns of the piano, or played on the string bass or saxophone. A good example is the bass rhythm in Elvis Presley’s *Hound Dog*. The *tresillo* pattern is also found widely in West African traditional music. For example, it is played on the *atoke* bell in the *Sohu*, an *Ewe* dance from Ghana. The *tresillo* can also be recognized as the first bar of the ubiquitous two-bar *clave Son*.

  1892. musictheory 2017-12-28 10:32:50 Joxton
    Sounds like between my own voice and a clarinet. If there isn't much sustain and lot of movement then it sounds like a string section. I'm a guitarist.

  1893. musictheory 2017-12-29 09:03:41 65TwinReverbRI
    So the first part sounds like a guitar or similar stringed instrument played with a slide (sounds like a glass one) or some other object you can use as a slide. It's the first 3 strings which make a minor chord and seems to bounce around between Fm, Dm, and Gm chords moving up and back not necessarily hitting specific chords though it ends pretty well on a Gm. The next section begins with the guitar playing B (and open string) against A# - it sounds like they're then dropping that to A# and A natural moving those two clusters back and forth. When the keyboard instrument comes in it sounds like they're playing a "more standard" kind of idea that would be in a key against what the guitar is doing - at least for a bit. One interesting thing is although it's listed as "improvisatory" and they seem to be doing so PITCH wise, they're actually playing in time pretty well which kind of shows a predeliction for pitch-thinking and not rhythmic thinking that kind of telling. Someone's screwing around for fun, but lacks the ability to really make it intentionally thoughtfully screwy, and it's more of just a "musical joke" (Mozart reference for the other posts). Using the tools meant for analyzing Common Practice Period music don't really apply to music like this - and even if we can use words like "Gm" for the guitar intro, it doesn't really tell us much about what's going on or how the music is constructed or conceived, or whether it's part of any larger stylistic movement and so on. "Sounds like a couple of blokes screwing around" might be the best analysis you can come up with. If you want to emulate it, figure out what it is they're doing, and try to deconstruct it and reconstruct it in your own way. There's more that can be said about things like the keyboard part (some mirror intervals going on) but honestly I'm not gonna put that much time into it! Enjoy it for what it is.

  1894. musictheory 2017-12-30 10:29:02 65TwinReverbRI
    There are a couple of different types of uses of Chromatic notes. The two primary ones are as "decoration" or "embellishment" and as "functional" harmonic elements. For example for the latter one, in the key of C Major, you can introduce a D7 chord to act as the V7/ of the V chord (so you get D7 - G, which looks like V7 - I in the key of G, but it's actually all still in the key of C). For that, you'd have to make F into F# which could be in the melody, the harmony, or possibly both. For the former one, you can just "fill in" the gap between two notes a step apart with a chromatic "filler" note, or you can approach a note from above or below. You can do this as a neighbor tone between two of the same note as well. So: F - F# - G or F# - G or G - F# - G You should listen to the first bit of Beethoven's "Fur Elise" - he hits you with a chromatic neighbor tone idea right at the very beginning (and when you do that, it helps set it up for the rest of the piece). If you're composing, there are two very common "cliches" and one is even called the "Line Cliche" - you hear this a lot but basically you take a chord, like Em, and move the highest note B up to C, then to C# then either back down, or continue chromatically up (if you go back down, you get the James Bond theme idea). A very famous one is in String of Pearls by Glen Miller. The other common one takes a chromatically descending bass note with a static harmony above (so kind "upside down" of the other idea) like a Cm chord with a bass note that goes C, Bn, Bb, An, Ab, G and so on. We might call this the "Chim Chim Cheree" progression (from the Mary Poppins Disney movie - check it out). Jim Croce's "Time in a Bottle" does it do, but it goes way back to Bach and Purcell (check out the "Lament" from Purcell's "Dido and Aeneas"). Those both tend to be more harmonic then melodic and it isn't uncommon to have a purely diatonic melody over that chromatic accompaniment, but it also opens up the possibility of more chromatic melodies as well. Just learn to play as many pieces as you can and the more pieces you learn the more you'll encounter chromaticism and get to understand how it works. There's "Atonal" music which can be highly chromatic, but even some of the most basic Tonal music introduces at least some chromaticism - so it could be worth trying to learn to play at least what you can of things like "Fur Elise" to see how it works in that kind of context. HTH

  1895. musictheory 2017-12-31 11:26:21 mrclay
    Yeah the album recording is sped up in the cracks between A and Bb. This [live video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coj-FN61qMw) will help (same for a lot of his songs). The verse is basically Dmaj7 (D7) A (x3) E13 A. During the D chord the C# is flattened a bit with the vocal to create a bluesy D7, though not in the live videos I've seen. The bridge sounds like A9/G F#madd9 Amaj7/C# E13. I'd play these roughly (from capo 2): x-8-7-0-0-0 | x-7-4-0-0-0 | 7-9-0-0-0-x | x-5-4-5-0-0. He plays the G bass way up on the 6th string which seems unnecessary but whatever.

  1896. musictheory 2018-01-02 11:46:12 sirduggins
    I appreciate the meanness haha, I know that is usually what needs to be said. I am currently learning piano but I am mostly writing compositions in a sequencer since I've only been playing piano for a few months. I know you will probably say "music isn't for me if I can't teach myself" but I learn *so* much better out of books than through trial and error (though trial and error are still a big part of learning what the books are saying). I feel like reading a book is just going to teach me same stuff I would learn through making mistakes on my own anyway. I can't afford to go to a college on music so what I've done is looked at what classes you have to take to achieve a degree at berklee and I am reading up on all the subjects on my own. For a long time, I won't lie, I really skimped out on the "making music" aspect of music production but nowadays I have been studying my theory alongside composing. Reading a book on harmony has made my chord progressions exponentially better and so much less generic. As you noticed, my huge flaw here is that I since I am going down a list for college courses (which are meant to be taken alongside one another) I am getting pretty educated in a single facet of composition while all of the other, extremely basic or not, parts of composition are getting very little attention at all right now. The way I look at theory is simply to give myself a ton of different options to expand upon an idea. Every song thus far has come from a single idea: a chord progression, melody, drum groove, or w/e. Without theory how would I ever know the best or most expressive way to expand upon that idea? My biggest goal in music is drift away from even doing that though. I would love to be able to have an emotion to start the song with rather than a physical sound. I imagine studying melody would be the only way to understand how melodic intervals can create an emotional response for example. I'd like to say I'm "serious about learning music" but I feel like everyone and their mother who gets into making music says that at some point. I really am trying to find the best possible path to become the best I possibly can though. I have an entire schedule layed out for studying, analyzing, and writing each of these subjects I'm studying (and that goes alongside producing songs on my own). The reason I dedicate so much time to theory though is because it allows me to analyze the songs I love so much and learn from them. Even if I could identify the chords of a Beatles song before I studied harmony (which I wouldn't have), I wouldn't have understood why they had a string of Dominant chords during the chorus and only tonic and submediants in the verse. Though to be fair, the Beatles didn't study theory themselves but they were clearly following in its footsteps anyways.

  1897. musictheory 2018-01-02 17:24:28 Jongtr
    The way I learned (taught myself) was in open position first. C major scale, seeing how it fitted a C major chord. Likewise for a G chord and G major, A chord and A major, D chord and D major, E chord and E major. Then I discovered (from using a capo) that those shapes and patters could be moved up the neck for other scales. So I could take the "C" chord shape, move it 5 frets up, fill in the open string notes as 5th fret notes, and I had an F major chord and F major scale. Many years later I discovered people called this the "CAGED" system, of 5 shapes for every major chord (all 12), and the major scales associated with them. My suggestion would be to get totally familiar with ONE scale first. Say C major, starting in open position. Look at how it fits all the chords in that key (how many chords you can make from notes in the scale): C, F, G, Am, Em, Dm, G7. And also that C major pentatonic and A minor pentatonic are subsets of that scale. Also play through a few songs you know in C major. Next I'd suggest working round the [circle of 5ths] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_fifths), clockwise. That means G major scale next: same as C major except it has F# instead of F, and therefore a few different chords. Play some songs in G. And so on, to keys of D, A and E. Still no need to go anywhere above 4th fret. No point in doing that until you can see how chords fit the scale and vice versa. (If you don't understand the key-scale-chord links, you won't be able to use the scales properly anyway.)

  1898. musictheory 2018-01-02 19:17:20 FatBabyBrother
    Yes. The scale pattern stays the same, just the notes change (ie major scale: step step half, step step step half) You can memorize the pattern quite easily (the only really weird thing is the B string). For me the hard part is recalling the note names from memory. Once I look at the fret board it call comes back.

  1899. musictheory 2018-01-02 20:46:13 PlazaOne
    Absolutely, it takes time and practise to learn these things, to get them memorised and fluid under your fingers. For guitar you have the huge benefit of the shapes being moveable, so when you change key you can simply shift the entire pattern up or down the instrument's neck. Many players start out with the pentatonic scale, using *two* notes per string. There are five different patterns, although some players just learn one and then constantly move their hand to different neck positions. Unless they have private tuition, many players won't progress for many months to learning the Major scale with *three* notes per string. If you are attempting to learn exotic scales, such as e.g. Hungarian Minor, Neapolitan Major, Spanish 8-Tone, etc. then it'll be far easier if you've already got great chops from a strong familiarity with the more common scales. Then you'd just need to focus on the specifics of what is different in each case. Like, you might perhaps initially think of Hungarian Minor as being simply a natural minor - Aeolian - but with a #4. That way you'd be able to think in terms of adjusting something familiar, not starting from zero. The other piece of the puzzle is having some reason for learning another scale, then another, then another. Some styles of music very rarely utilise a vast array of scales. If you can already play chromatic passing notes, you may not actually gain a huge lot more by all that effort of getting entire scale families learnt. Sure, if you want to play jazz it might make sense to get down the Harmonic Minor, and maybe a few others. But you might go a lifetime without getting opportunity to impress with that 4th Mode of the Kumoi, which you spent all summer working on back in 2019.

  1900. musictheory 2018-01-03 02:25:24 Fendersocialclub
    Very basic but very useful. On a bass tuned to standard EADG, every string down from the highest is a tuned a fifth... D is the 5th in G, A is the fifth of D, E is A’s 5th etc. The same is true for every note fretted on the same fret line... Ex. At the 3rd fret - G is C’s 5th, C is F’s etc. The point is that pumping the R/5th pattern gets boring quick when it’s a 5th higher. As a bass player our job is to keep the groove going, and hitting that lower 5th just swings, it’s easy to hit and works for everything.[Here’s an example](https://youtu.be/0OlrI-fFFpA).

  1901. musictheory 2018-01-03 10:21:21 nebulaeandstars
    It does depend on who you’re writing for. While any professional musician should be able to use any system, a string quartet or classical orchestra would probably find the music easier to read if the rhythms were written out fully.

  1902. musictheory 2018-01-04 06:17:45 65TwinReverbRI
    OK, a couple of things here. A guitar and piano can play the same exact pitch. Middle C on a piano can be played on the guitar. It is located at the 2nd string, 1st fret. However, guitar is a "octave transposing instrument" meaning that the notes on guitar SOUND an octave lower than they are written (and thus named). IOW, a guitarist who can read standard notation who sees a Middle C, will play that note on the 5th string 3rd fret. But that sounds an octave lower than the piano middle C - it sounds like the C below middle C on the piano. So if you like, they are "an octave off". If the instruments are in tune with each other, a C on one should be some C on the other, just a different octave for the same name. D above middle C on the piano would be played on the B string, 3rd fret on guitar. HTH

  1903. musictheory 2018-01-05 19:31:42 PlazaOne
    > So if I want to play a four note G11 could I play A C B F and end it with and Emaj? Or G13 A C E B F? I guess it depends on context, but those fingering options might not be high up on my own likely choices. Part of the reason the slash chord F/G is so well-loved as a partial voicing for G11 is that it includes the root and all of the upper extensions - that F Major triad is providing the b7, 9 and 11 of G11, so it's just the 3 and 5 that are missing. In many cases the 3 and 5 will be included in a bass or keyboard part anyway, so would still be present in the overall mix. But another benefit of playing F/G on guitar is its convenience for freeing up spare fingers for other embellishments. Playing it on the top four strings: x x 5 5 6 5 with a first finger partial barre and the second finger fretting the 2nd string's F, you can use your ring finger and pinky to hammer on / pull off notes from the C triad at 9 8 8 on those top 3 strings. Just make sure to figure out which inversion the F triad you are using, so you'll know which notes you are raising. You can do the same kind of ornamentation tricks on the middle four strings, using F/G as: x 10 10 10 10 x and now have the luxury of three fingers spare for all that fancy stuff. But the rather more interesting one perhaps is on the big interval voicing (between root and b7 is huge) F/G: 15 x 15 14 13 x (root-b7-9-11) which can be easily adjusted with a partial barre to become: 15 x 15 14 12 12 (root-b7-9-10-13) and 15 x 15 12 12 12 (root-b7-8-10-13) - yep, 8 is the octave, and 10 is a 3. On top of the familiar F/G fingerings though, I'd suggest trying out as another option Asus4/G: 3 x 2 2 3 x (root-6-9-12) with your first finger barring, second finger playing the root. As well as your pinky adding thirds and fourths on the G string, etc. you should be able to move your wrist just enough to gently lean down on that second finger (without lifting it from fretting the root) in order to raise the D string's sixth to a b7.

  1904. musictheory 2018-01-07 05:19:15 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, besides tradition, widespread use. I would bet that, a musician trained in say, Japan, might be trained with Italian terms so it's more likely overall that Italian terms are more "universal" in music than English (or French or German, etc.) terms. And I would also add this: If you're writing a Symphony, or String Quartet, or if you're writing music in a style that's 300 years old, well, "Anglicizing" the musical terms is kind of silly - it's like you want to modernize (or simplify) one thing because you're too lazy to learn it, while living in the past with everything else. Most of the composers who wrote musical terminology in their native language were part of the trend of "Nationalism" which not only saw a rise in composers of French, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian, Finnish, Swedish, and even American and South American music, but a rise of PUBLISHERS of that music who adopted "native language" terms - I wouldn't surprise me if the crafty publisher made copies in various languages - at least Italian and native - to sell more copies! I've seen scores with 2 languages for every marking. There were a number of American composers in the early half of the 20th century who use English only as both a form of nationalist pride, and as a break from tradition (as the music was breaking from tradition). It seems to have been somewhat of a fad in that many "neo-Romantic" or whatever John Williamsian age we're now living in is called, have gone back to more traditional Italian terms for the more traditional kind of music they're writing. Of course, for pop music styles, English all the way. I usually just use English, since it's become so widespread in the world I think it'll be OK. But it's not because I was unwilling to learn the Italian terms. The most recent piece, for some reason, I also included Italian terms in parentheses - my thinking was that as you mention, sometimes there's a traditional concept that the musical term in Italian carries with it that the English translation just doesn't capture. So those three reasons would be primary: Tradition Universal understanding (though English is quickly getting there) Traditional non-translatable meanings But I'll also add this about the 2nd one - I'd rather see a score by a Japanese composer with Italian terms instead of Japanese writing. English speakers and especially Americans (I'm one) have a tendency to be a little one-sided about this. So if you choose to use English and not Italian, make sure you have a good reason for doing so - one with honorable intentions rather than just laziness or ignorance. I once wrote a piece with only two dynamic levels and I wrote "loud" and "quiet" for the dynamics rather than Piano and Forte, becuase I didn't want any per-conceived notions about how loud or quiet they were supposed to be - just different levels was all I needed. So what I felt was a good reason for abandoning the traditional terms (but even when I use English instructions, I still use "pizz" and "arco" and "mp" and "sfz" and things like that, that have become "stock" terms).

  1905. musictheory 2018-01-07 05:23:18 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, besides tradition, widespread use. I would bet that, a musician trained in say, Japan, might be trained with Italian terms so it's more likely overall that Italian terms are more "universal" in music than English (or French or German, etc.) terms. And I would also add this: If you're writing a Symphony, or String Quartet, or if you're writing music in a style that's 300 years old, well, "Anglicizing" the musical terms is kind of silly - it's like you want to modernize (or simplify) one thing because you're too lazy to learn it, while living in the past with everything else. Most of the composers who wrote musical terminology in their native language were part of the trend of "Nationalism" which not only saw a rise in composers of French, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian, Finnish, Swedish, and even American and South American music, but a rise of PUBLISHERS of that music who adopted "native language" terms - I wouldn't surprise me if the crafty publisher made copies in various languages - at least Italian and native - to sell more copies! I've seen scores with 2 languages for every marking. There were a number of American composers in the early half of the 20th century who use English only as both a form of nationalist pride, and as a break from tradition (as the music was breaking from tradition). It seems to have been somewhat of a fad in that many "neo-Romantic" or whatever John Williamsian age we're now living in is called, have gone back to more traditional Italian terms for the more traditional kind of music they're writing. Of course, for pop music styles, English all the way. I usually just use English, since it's become so widespread in the world I think it'll be OK. But it's not because I was unwilling to learn the Italian terms. The most recent piece, for some reason, I also included Italian terms in parentheses - my thinking was that as you mention, sometimes there's a traditional concept that the musical term in Italian carries with it that the English translation just doesn't capture. So those three reasons would be primary: Tradition Universal understanding (though English is quickly getting there) Traditional non-translatable meanings But I'll also add this about the 2nd one - I'd rather see a score by a Japanese composer with Italian terms instead of Japanese writing. English speakers and especially Americans (I'm one) have a tendency to be a little one-sided about this. So if you choose to use English and not Italian, make sure you have a good reason for doing so - one with honorable intentions rather than just laziness or ignorance. I once wrote a piece with only two dynamic levels and I wrote "loud" and "quiet" for the dynamics rather than Piano and Forte, becuase I didn't want any pre-conceived notions about how loud or quiet they were supposed to be - just different levels was all I needed. So what I felt was a good reason for abandoning the traditional terms (but even when I use English instructions, I still use "pizz" and "arco" and "mp" and "sfz" and things like that, that have become "stock" terms).

  1906. musictheory 2018-01-07 11:32:25 65TwinReverbRI
    No offense but I hate when I see people say "how can I get that" - and then they have some term they've picked up online that really doesn't mean anything or have anything to do with the subject - "epic" "dark" "chill" and so on. Forget that. They're all sounds and can be used for many purposes - it's kind of the context you use them in that makes the difference. We do associate some things - like Major 7ths are generally "bright" or "happy" sounding but that doesn't mean stringing a bunch of them together is necessarily going to give you a happy result. Most of the time, you can just simply replace any chord with any of the above. If you have a chord progression that goes: C - am - F - G You can replace the C with Csus2, Csus4, Cadd9, CMaj7 etc. Depending on what else is going on in the music, some may sound better than others, and some may produce different sounds. For example, you could put a B on all the chords above CMaj7 - Am9 (or Am(add9) ) - F(add#11) - G And that sustained be (or repeated B whichever) could add a certain "tense" effect because you keep wanting it to move but it never does. There are a few songs I've played that do somewhat funky things where they have add a 7th to the Tonic chord as a b7 (which is not in the key at hand) or otherwise not in the key. "Good" by Better Than Ezra goes: G - D - Em - C7 So that last C7 is kind of not something you'd usually pick because it's out of the key. So if you bog yourself down in this whole looking for certain chords to "do certain things" - especially really broadly defined things, you may trap yourself into fewer chord choices and not get something really cool. IOW, take each chord in the progression and add or subtract things to it until you get a sound you want. Then do like we all do - try the same on the next chord, and when you do, realize that the first chord now doesn't sound right, so you have to go back and rework that!!!! It's all trial and error. String a bunch of Sus2 chords together and see what happens. Don't forget you can also Do multiple versions of the same chord - C - Csus4 - C - Csus2 - and so on. Cheers

  1907. musictheory 2018-01-08 01:17:20 Imjusthereforthedubs
    Huh, just realized this but...how are guitars with part writing and counterpoint? I mean I've played Bach, Dowland, Brouwer, etc. on guitar so it obviously isn't an issue, but I'm thinking more about regular ol 'cowboy chord progressions' as they are sometimes called. For example the standard A minor shape is A E A C E. There is only one minor third to give the chord it's quality, but two perfect fifth relationships. The standard C major shape is C E G C E, which has two major thirds to give quality (and if I remember correctly it's better to double the root or fifth in part writing and avoid doubling the third, and never the seventh) but only one instance of a perfect fifth. I'm wondering how this affects our perception of the chords when they change? For example I always notice that if you play the low E string with a standard C shape, it muddies the chord a bit and makes it sound a little less stable to me. It's just a C6 at that point, but maybe it's because of the timbre of the guitar? Then if I add the G on the low E string, it becomes even chunkier sounding, and is of course a C64. Sorry for the tangent, I just woke up and I'm chugging coffee.

  1908. musictheory 2018-01-08 08:45:30 65TwinReverbRI
    Ok, from a non-Jazz perspective: The only two types of o7 in CPP music are those that function as Leading Tone Diminished 7th chords, and those that function as Common Tone Diminished 7th chords. LTo7 come in two flavors - the ones native to the key, like viio7, and the ones that are secondary chords - viio7/X Most jazz people haven't learned about Common Tone Diminished 7ths (and for that matter, neither have a lot of people who haven't been through or remembered a 4 semester college theory education). In analysis, some people just write ct^o7 and leave it at that. Some schools of thought just "name" chords with a number and don't really spell out their function, which I don't care for. For example - #iv^o7 - well that's almost always a vii^o7 /V In that school, sometimes you see something like i^o7 or #ii^o7 or something of that nature. With a little explanation this will make sense: C - A - C G - F# - G E - D# - E C - C - C The chord in the middle is some kind of o7 - but you can see it's really a result of neighbor tone motion. The bass note is common with the root of the surrounding chord, which is why it's called a "common tone" o7 - IOW, unlike "normal" secondary LTo7 chords, there's a common tone here, and that's the distinguishing characteristic. IN some ways, it's not really a chord at all, in that it's really just a result of multiple neighbor tones happening simultaneously that happen to form a chord. In Kostka/Payne's Tonal Hamony, what they do is give "letter names" to chords like this that are non-diatonic "resultant" structures that are results of voice-leading, or "voice-leading chords". A lot of things in Jazz and pop music are the CTo7 - the cliché "honky tonk 6ths" which are similar to the Basie Ending are linked to it. The notes are formed by passing tone motion rather than neighbor tones, but the idea is the same: E - Eb - D - C G - Gb - F - E C - C - C - C Often, the 6th of the chord will be present (forming a full o7 chord on the 2nd chord) or some other chromatic line as well. The only other viio7 chord in CPP music are "linear" and non-functional chords - again, sometimes just "resultant" of non-chord tone motion. For example, sometimes you get strings of o7 chords that could be considered LTo7 but when they resolve, the resolve to another o7 chord - it's not unlike how V7/ii can resolve to "II", which is V7/V - you get viio7/X that resolves not to X, but to viio7 of Y, that reolves to viio7 of Z, and so on. Because of the nature of o7 chords (symmetry) you can end up with chromatic ascents and descents that make perfect sense in a sequential manner. But labeling all of these is usually not something people to. It's more just "a string of o7 leads to..." Probably forgetting something, but I think that's the main gist.

  1909. musictheory 2018-01-08 11:37:58 [deleted]
    Where I was able to relate frequency to pitch was on guitar strings. When tuning one to another, when sharp or flat I could hear and even feel some of the hum and vibe when the waves were out of sync. And when finally turning the peg to bring one string in sync with the other, I could actually feel the hum disappear. Really neat phenomenon.

  1910. musictheory 2018-01-08 18:31:30 gaberrina
    Everything said about how we percieve key and historial development and frequency is right but also consider this, if you are a singer you probably want to write songs in keys which fit into your vocal range nicely. If you play piano its easier to play in a key which is all or mostly white notes and if you play violin (its lowest string tuned to G) the fingering positions for a key such as A# are going to be a little challenging. Sometimes this isnt considered when pieces are composed for well trained musicians or when a piece fits into certain styles or traditions but it is quite normal for contemporary musicians- singer in a wedding cover band for instance, to transpose songs into a key which brings out the best in their voice

  1911. musictheory 2018-01-09 01:40:33 65TwinReverbRI
    They're accidents. When you play a note on the D string, you may accidentally bump into the A string causing it to ring - a "ghost" note. Likewise, if you're playing a note on fret 3 and jump up to fret 15, you may accidentally sound the open string as you're moving - a "ghost" note. I would assume whoever started calling them that did so because they are usually quite faint and somewhat "transparent" and more of a "remnant" of something else. IMHO they are notated for the point of the transctriptionist being super accurate and not really intended for the player to try to play, though I bet there's this whole contingent of people who are out there trying to play them believing they are necessary components to recreating the exact sound. But like ghosts, maybe we should let them rest in peace. So don't try to play them at all (there could be intentional sounds people are calling "ghost" notes as well, so context will determine if they were accidents or intentional and you can treat them accordingly).

  1912. musictheory 2018-01-09 04:15:10 TheFerretMcGarret
    Every case like this should be thrown out. You shouldn't be able to own a chord progression or a string of notes. So much music is copied and borrowed and there is no way that lawyers should be the ones deciding on what music we are allowed to make.

  1913. musictheory 2018-01-09 14:34:53 nonotan
    Far higher than human hearing, basically arbitrary. For example, stringed instruments like a guitar basically produce arbitrarily high harmonics for any note played (I'm sure there is an actual limit in practice due to particle size and so on, but you'll have to ask a physicist for that one). All you need to do is lightly touch the string at the right point to suppress harmonics lower than the note you want, and there you go. Of course very high harmonics will be weak, but still audible if you play very strongly even on an acoustic instrument, nevermind an electric one with amplification (but I guess one may call that "synthesized" even if it's an analog amp, since you're altering the soundwave and at that point it's not too different from an analog synth)

  1914. musictheory 2018-01-09 19:28:25 0Chuey0
    I suppose with some elitism I could accept the analog amp; my main idea was “not a computer,” where it’s easy to produce a high-pitched sine wave and call it a day. The open-ended quality of harmonics explains why there isn’t any definitive answers, especially if it’s unnecessarily challenging to pose any sort of name to the nearly inaudible. I would be interested to learn more about the upper end of harmonics, especially because I’m not a string player and could still benefit from learning some more on this topic. Thank you for a thoughtful response :)

  1915. musictheory 2018-01-12 04:59:47 golem1988
    That was awesome, thanks! especially the example songs and the new won knowledge that there are actually songs written in modes. Some guitar guys told me that nobody does songs in one mode anymore but the pink floyd song is great and I feel the modes are useful now other than a "waste of time and mental effort" like in the relative concept. And it makes sense now that it is popular in metal because the E string drones most of the time in a lot of songs.

  1916. musictheory 2018-01-12 10:03:06 Spriggster
    I believe the context of the music determines what the chord would be, as well as your voicing playing a part in it. As a guitar player I can visualize from the top down, as one of the most common ways to play Am9 is for the root to be on the bottom string (usually E or A string). As a piano student, I'm still wrapping my head around when to use which voicing. I can only speak for guitar as I'm not near qualified enough to answer for piano. Because chords are made less ambiguous by the music surrounding them, we find in situations where the lack of music allows for some pretty cool creative expression. Take for example Scott Henderson's [solo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnXsyhxuqsw) here, starting at around 1:55. The bass is keeping it pretty simple, with what sounds to me like mostly Eb and Ab. Melodically bare, the song allows for him to play most scales he wants. When only one or two notes defines the melodic nature of the song, the improviser has ample room to explore chord voicings and scales. I can't play anything like [this example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdlyUU5M2dI), but notice how the backing track is a simple interval between F and G on loop, and then see how expressive he gets with his improv.

  1917. musictheory 2018-01-12 11:52:02 Jirmstyle
    One of the reasons for using E as a pedal note is how is it is in the guitar to use. Any open string works but E being the lowest gives a deeper more "powerful" sound. Since you have the open string you can solo and add rhythm to the guitar parts easily. Also due to the guitar tuning Em is basically the best key to write in guitar

  1918. musictheory 2018-01-12 20:53:10 ninefourtwo
    with guitar it's relatively straight forward assuming you have learned the notes on the fretboard. Put it this way, you only have to learn 7 tonal relationships. A, B, C, D, E, F, G. if you can remember their relative minor keys (as you do for C / a min) you now know the major 6th. if you can place the any of those notes on the fretboard and you go up a string now you know it's IV, go backwards and you know the fifth. it's just practice, but these are the just some tips on finding my way around the fretboard.

  1919. musictheory 2018-01-12 22:43:14 mladjiraf
    Search for neo-riemannian music theory. As long as there are no wolf notes in the musical system, you can go (modulate) anywhere you want in a convincing way. When talking about "functions", old theory guys were mapping the relations of different chords to the major key. All this stuff is terribly misunderstood today. I've written and played plenty of flamenco using 10 to 12 notes and "the non-functional" chords are 99 % of the time short modulations/"shifts" to a different tonic. I hope you understand that there is a gap between what is written and what is actually played by the players (for example the intonation of the "fat" romantic chords of Wagners and friends can be interpreted in different ways by the string players).

  1920. musictheory 2018-01-13 19:51:57 xiipaoc
    > When you're singing with an instrument player (say, guitarist) Well, there's your answer. A guitarist will probably play the same chords whether you're singing an octave higher or not. It doesn't make a huge difference. If it did, the transposition would take a lot more effort regardless. Think about it this way. If you're in D, you can use the fourth string as an open string for D major chords, but in C, you can't do that, so already everything is going to be different. Sticking a capo on the 10th fret would sound really weird, too, not to mention that it would drastically reduce the range of the guitar. So you just reinterpret the song in the new key, playing the chords as you see fit, playing the licks as you see fit, and you let the singer worry about what to sing!

  1921. musictheory 2018-01-13 23:50:53 Jongtr
    The string is forced to vibrate in equal fractions. 2/3 of a string can't vibrate on its own. It's simple physics, but hard to explain. Each part of the string, when divided, vibrates in the opposite direction, and *at the same frequency* as the next fraction. As I'm sure you know, 2/3 of a string will vibrate at half the frequency (being an octave lower) than 1/3 of the string. If the string is free to vibrate in full (stopped only by the harmonic node at 1/3), the 1/3 will move one way and (let's imagine) the other 2/3 the other way. But as soon as the 1/3 has finished its first sideways move down and is on the way back up, the longer 2/3 (moving more slowly) will still be on the way up. At some point, therefore, the string would have to bend sharply at the node, to allow each part to move at a different speed - sometimes in the same direction, while the node stays still! Obviously that's not going to happen. So the 2/3 is forced to vibrate in two (1/3 + 1/3) in order to keep pace with the other 1/3. Similar things apply at all node points. At the 1/4 node (5th fret), the string vibrates in four quarters (not 1/4 and 3/4), 4x the open frequency (2 octaves higher). At the 1/5 node (4th fret) it vibrates in five 5ths (not 1/5 and 4/5), 5x the open frequency (2 octaves and a just major 3rd higher). Scroll down to fig.4.56 [here] (https://www.earmaster.com/music-theory-online/ch04/chapter-4-6.html) for a two-colour diagram showing the opposite movement of each string fraction.

  1922. musictheory 2018-01-14 00:40:18 martinborgen
    A good visualisarion is when spinning a rope, string or key chain - you then easily get the nodes visible, and how they appear.

  1923. musictheory 2018-01-14 01:07:51 phalp
    Think of it the other way around. The string isn't forced to vibrate in thirds; it already wants to vibrate in thirds (and halves, and fourths, fifths, sixths, sevenths etc.). It's forced *not* to vibrate where you touch it, so if you touch it at 1/3 you're muting any division that doesn't naturally have zero motion there. Thirds, sixths, ninths, twelfths, and so on are left alone, so those are what you hear.

  1924. musictheory 2018-01-14 01:16:04 bstix
    You can play it 1/3. That's the fifth. You use it when you tune by harmonics. 2/3 is not possible because the string is fixed at both ends. Look up standing waves.

  1925. musictheory 2018-01-14 01:19:14 rectangularjunksack
    Ding ding ding! This is the same reason that an open string has tonal characteristics- the only vibrations that are allows are ones that have zero displacement (no movement) at the nut and the bridge. These vibrations have frequencies corresponding to the fundamental "pitch" of the note, and its overtones.

  1926. musictheory 2018-01-14 02:00:16 xiipaoc
    Wrong sub -- try one of the physics subreddits. Because this is a physics question! OK, OK, so. You have a string. You pluck the string somehow. What happens? Well, you can solve a differential equation and get the resulting motion of the string. I don't want to get into the actual math of solving the equation, but it's your standard wave equation with two boundary conditions: the displacement at each end of the string is 0. So with this, you can figure out the *general* motion of the string, and it turns out that the general motion is a sum of sine waves, each with its own frequency that corresponds to the length of the sine wave. These are called the *normal modes* of the string. No matter what's going on with the string's vibration, it's always going to be a sum of the normal modes, and, again, the normal modes happen to be sine waves where the ends of the string are 0. A complete sine wave has a part that goes up and a part that goes down, crossing 0 in the middle, so the first normal mode is actually just half of a sine wave, with no nodes. The second normal mode is actually the complete sine wave, with one node in the middle. The third normal mode is 3/2 of a sine wave, with two nodes. The fourth normal mode is 2 sine waves, with three nodes. And so on. When you pluck the string, you set it moving from some initial position with some initial velocity at each point, and you can use that to solve for the precise balance of normal modes in the string's motion; the string will continue vibrating in those normal modes with that balance forever. Well, not forever. There's friction. There's air resistance. The string isn't perfectly linear. Stuff like that. But if you had an ideal "perfect" string, no friction, no air resistance, all that, then yeah, once you set the strings to vibrate in some arrangement of normal modes, it would continue vibrating in that arrangement of normal modes until you stopped it somehow. So, if you gently stop the string at the point 1/3 of the way over and pluck the string, you choose a set of normal modes where that point stays at 0, and it turns out, from the normal modes of the string, that all of the normal modes with the point at 1/3 staying at 0 also have the point at 2/3 staying at 0. There are no lopsided normal modes in a perfect string, and while a guitar string isn't perfect, it's close enough! That's the simple "that's the way it is" explanation, without the math. If you want to explore this more in depth, [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_vibration) can help you out. By the way, these normal modes are why strings sound so nice and clear to us. The normal modes of the string very closely follow the overtone series (not perfectly because, you know, the real world gets in the way). See, a sound of constant pitch at frequency w also has components at frequency 2w, 3w, 4w, etc., and these are the overtones of the sound. A string with its first normal mode at frequency w will have its higher normal modes at frequencies 2w, 3w, 4w, etc. as well. Except that the string is a physical object, so the normal modes don't have frequencies at *exactly* 2w, 3w, 4w, etc.; you have to account for string thickness, friction, all those things that get in the way. The deviation of the string's normal modes from the ideal harmonic spectrum is called *inharmonicity*. But strings are actually pretty harmonic. On the other hand, bells, cymbals, timpani, xylophones, all those instruments, they're *far* less harmonic. Timpani have a round membrane and the tension actually varies across the membrane (because you have the pegs at specific spots), so the normal modes are *far* more complicated than those of a string, with frequencies that aren't even close to harmonic. My freshman year of college, I had the great fortune of having a dorm room *right* next to the school's main church building, which rang its huge fucking bell at 8:45 every day for, like, 10 minutes, presumably to wake freshmen up for class (can't snooze *that* alarm). As I walked groggily to my 9 AM math class, I'd feel the many inharmonic notes of the bell's normal modes, which felt like a minor chord with an added fourth. Guitar strings don't pull *that* shit on you.

  1927. musictheory 2018-01-14 05:39:59 ldpreload
    If a physical example would help: get a flexible rope/cord with a weight at the bottom of it (an old USB charger or something might even work). Put the weight on a table and move the top end quickly in a tight circle. You can get the cord to wave around in a way where the middle of it is on the outside, the fundamental. If you spin it faster - possibly holding it lightly in the middle a bit to help - you can get it to spin in a way where it's in an S-shape, with the 1/4 and 3/4 marks on the outside on opposite sides. If you spin even faster you can get it into thirds. But you won't be able to get it imbalanced. There are mathematical / physics explanations, but I'd expect that the physical experiment and intuition will be a lot more helpful than a differential equation on a piece of paper. :-) (But it is just a differential equation, namely the [wave equation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation) in one dimension: the fundamental and the harmonics are solutions of the wave equation with fixed boundary conditions&mdash;that is, where the two ends of the string are fixed&mdash;and imbalanced things aren't solutions.)

  1928. musictheory 2018-01-14 05:56:36 65TwinReverbRI
    A time index would really be helpful here. The old joke is, it's Metallica, just play your open E string. Or, "all metal is in E". It's kind of true. The one that says 1985 his first lick is on D (assuming standard tuning here though they may be dropped down a half step or more) and that basically goes uses notes from D Minor - it starts with F-E-D (10-9-7) and then continues up a Dm scale moving the notes in alternation with the open string in typical "thirds" kinds of scale patterns. After that it does this little pentaronic-ish chromatic idea (10-11-12) that utilizes the "blue" note (11th fret) common to D Penatonic "blues" or "D Minor Blues" or whatever people call it. It's D minor pentatonic with an added b5 note. But he also makes the common addition in riffs like this of the chormatic note right below the D note. WHen the bends start that's all D Minor again - again, typical kind of fingering patterns "in threes" or "in fours" people use for scales. though it's a little more just interesting (and probably easy to play fast) groupings. When the drums kick in and it's the "song" lick - it's more of an E Dorian, with an additional C in it. With "rock" music in genral, you get Major, Minor, Major Pentatonic, Minor Pentatonic, and "Blues" (usually Minor Pentatonic with b5 added). You also get Mixolydian and Dorian a little less often and sometimes Major or Minor might "borrow" elements from Mix or Dorian for different sounds - though it may still be primarily in Major or Minor. With "metal" you get a little more Phrygian coming in (Symphony of Destruction). But basically here, he's playing "lead bass" like lead guitarists - minor scales and minor pentatonic (blues). Then the other part becomes more based on the song, which is still a basic scale, just happens to be a Mode this time with an extra chromatic note which probably comes more from the song itself than his "soloing" - IOW, if he weren't basing his solo at this point on the tune, it would have been more like the Dm stuff before. HTH

  1929. musictheory 2018-01-14 06:00:58 xiipaoc
    But that wasn't OP's question! OP asked about nodes on a vibrating string. When I took a class about this in college, it sure wasn't in the music department! In fact, I never had to solve a single partial differential equation in my music courses. More relevantly, the normal modes of a vibrating object aren't a priori related to tuning systems or harmonics. It just so happens that strings and air columns have vibrational modes that correspond to the harmonic series. When Pythagoras (or whoever) discovered that a string in a ratio yields harmony, there were actually two parts to that discovery: first, the physics discovery that a string's frequency is inversely proportional to its length, and second, the music discovery that certain frequency ratios have a particular sound. You don't need the string to do music theory; the string was just what was available at the time, because of the physics reason that the string's normal modes are close to harmonic. That said, I think understanding the physics of sound production is important for understanding music in general, but OP's question was about the solutions to the equations of motion for a string, not how it sounds.

  1930. musictheory 2018-01-14 10:48:10 aitigie
    That was a good explanation, but I want to add a couple things - The nodes & antinodes that you see are always there, even when you play open notes. You may not always be able to see them, though. If your open string is playing a 1Khz tone it's also playing 2Khz, 4Khz, 8Khz, etc. Because the resonant frequency is the longest wave that can fit on the string, all of its overtones (frequency doubling / wavelength halving) will also cleanly fit end-to-end on the string. The ends, which are always held still by the bridge/tuners, form two nodes. Others occur at 1/2 wavelength points along the string. Because the ends are still, the other nodes maintain position as well. The trick is to find a point where lots of different frequencies have nodes. You can hold the string still there, and it won't affect these frequencies much. Any frequency trying to vibrate there will be muted by your finger, though, so you lose a lot of harmonic content. That's why you can see the waves appear - normally they're overwhelmed by the more powerful low frequencies present on the string. **tl;dr the frequencies are of fixed wavelengths and therefore fixed distance between nodes ("still" points). Two of these points are enforced by the bridge & tuners, so the other nodes are trapped between them at fixed intervals.**

  1931. musictheory 2018-01-15 08:21:03 ASunCame
    Sometimes the vocal melody will repeat the same note, often while the harmony changes underneath. The chorus of Teenage Dream is an example. Of course the entire melody line isn't just one note, but there's a long string of the same note. It makes a nice contrast to the last part of the melody ("don't ever look back"), and the un-even rhythm also helps save it from being boring. One example I think is really effective is the verse to [The Chain Gang of 1974 - Sleepwalking](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rprf7LEraU4) (the one-note part starts at :42). The first half of the vocal melody line is contoured, so the second half (the one-note part) has a nice unexpectedness to it that makes it sound good.

  1932. musictheory 2018-01-15 21:42:15 PoutineFest
    Try r/harp, there’s tons of info and people willing to help you out. Your experience with string instruments will help, but IMHO, I’d say the closest crossover instrument is the piano. Instead of using a hammer to play the strings that are laid out in order, you’re using your fingers to play them directly. One large difference being that harpists don’t use their pinky, so composers group arpeggios and other runs in sets of four notes, not five. Many harpists have to borrow from piano repertoire when certain music isn’t available for the harp. Your music theory experience will come in handy when transcribing for the harp. Also depends on your end goal and plans- there’s classical repertoire that will ultimately require a pedal harp (more expensive, US$10K-40K) if you’re serious about it, but for folk/celtic/simplified classical music, a lever harp ($2K-$6K) will be just fine. Many have the idea that a pedal harp is better/more advanced than a lever harp, wrongly assuming so since most children begin with a lever harp and later advance to a pedal harp. This isn’t necessarily true- it depends more on your style of playing and the genre of music. Also: pedal harps generally have a wider range because they have more strings (up to 47), but lever harps afford you portability. Hope this helps.

  1933. musictheory 2018-01-15 23:13:30 Condor1984
    I learned to play the harp when I was in college. As you said it is the most beautiful instrument you can play. There are two types of harps, folk harp that doesn't usually has pedals and concert harp which has 7 pedals, one for each string to change the notes from neutral to sharp or to flat. The concert harp requires practice not only to pluck the strings with both of your hands, also need to learn quiet and efficient foot work to change the pedal and how to pre-plan the pedal change before the note occurs. Sounds complicated but not really, especially if you understand the theory part. Folk harp is simpler, you can focus on the fingering technique first, key changes normally use levers on the harp. One of the more challenging part of playing the harp for me was to minimize the buzzing of the strings when you move from one set of notes to others, and quietly stop the vibration of the strings just like using the foot pedal of the piano. You may want to start with a folk harp first and then move onto the concert harp. I started with concert harp and mainly play pieces with C major scale and then move on to other scales that requires pedal changes. You won't become Elias Parish Alvars or Susanna Mildonian overnight but you will love every minute of learning to play it. I know I did.

  1934. musictheory 2018-01-17 06:27:22 aa-epilectrik
    It's easier to make a whole new entry for each tuning and string configuration. Let me know number of strings and tuning and I can add it to the list.

  1935. musictheory 2018-01-17 07:49:43 ts73737
    7 and 8 strings are quite common these days. However there are many different alternate tunings for all of these different number of strings. Is it too much work to be able to program the ability to dynamically change the tuning for a specific number of strings on an instrument? E.g. a band I listen to is Between the Buried and Me and they play in C# standard 6 string (down 1.5 steps). The bassist plays a 5 string bass in C# standard as well. The band Periphery also play 6/7/8 string guitars, and play in a manner of tunings including standard, lowest string dropped a step, guitar down various number of steps. We are talking 12+ different tunings here. The band Animals As Leaders also play a similar amount of tunings to Periphery.

  1936. musictheory 2018-01-17 09:01:40 smorsey
    Very useful and neat! I hope you end up adding 6 and 7 string bass support (BEADGC[F]).

  1937. musictheory 2018-01-17 12:12:08 aa-epilectrik
    I went ahead and added 6 string bass, there isn't quite enough room for 7 string with the current layout. I'll adjust the container sizes at some point and add it to the list.

  1938. musictheory 2018-01-17 15:26:59 CheapPoison
    This is some good work. Could always use more instruments or variations. Edit: I just found out about removing strings, so you can make a 6 string bass into a 5 string one. So there were more options than I thought.

  1939. musictheory 2018-01-17 16:04:32 Slouching2Bethlehem
    Actually that chord is an A7. In fact, when I play it on guitar I'll slip in pull off on the C# played on the b-string second fret and it gives it a very interesting dynamic quality.

  1940. musictheory 2018-01-17 23:39:00 radioOCTAVE
    Thanks! First it sounds really cool. So as for keys, to me its like A minor with the notable exception of that big A major chord, which is borrowed from the parallel major key (A major). As for ways to end it, there are many. Personally I'd use the F major and descend this way from there F Em D with an open E on top - Dadd2 I suppose - with that big open 6th string D really obvious.

  1941. musictheory 2018-01-18 00:19:29 octatonic_formula
    I think the upshot of learning orchestration* is first *instrumentation*...knowing all the instruments, and their capabilities, and their use in the repertoire, very well. Also, learning orchestration has been described as achieving what you learn to expect from a piano: sustain--you have to write out pedal effects with sustained chords on appropriate instruments (especially strings); doubling -- the rich sound you get on piano, you have to create with judicious instrument doubling in various registers; And think of the orchestra as having 'three choirs' --three families of instruments with complete low to high register... in winds (bassoon through flute), brass (Tuba through trumpet), and strings (string bass through violin). *Rene Leibowitz, "Thinking for Orchestra"

  1942. musictheory 2018-01-18 00:58:33 paislienne
    And 5 string banjo?! :):):)

  1943. musictheory 2018-01-18 01:00:47 aa-epilectrik
    Ahh I actually need to modify the fretboard module before I can implement that drone string.. I've been meaning to do it. Next time I dig into the source code I'll get that one added.

  1944. musictheory 2018-01-18 18:09:11 Xenoceratops
    Maiden pretty much does twin guitar harmony in thirds. An E minor scale contains the notes E F# G A B C D (and you cap it off with the octave E). On the high E string, that's 0-2-3-5-7-8-10-12. Anyway, if the guitars are playing in unison, it looks like this: Guitar 1:|E|F#|G|A|B|C|D| :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- **Guitar 2:**|**E**|**F#**|**G**|**A**|**B**|**C**|**D** If we want them to play in thirds, then you have to shift the relationship by two notes. Guitar 1:|G|A|B|C|D|E|F# :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- **Guitar 2:**|**E**|**F#**|**G**|**A**|**B**|**C**|**D** So if you have the bottom line doing this... 0-2-3-2-3-5-7 ... then the top line should be doing this: 3-5-7-5-7-8-10 I suggest you go through the lessons on www.musictheory.net. It will be much easier to understand the language once you know your major and minor scales and intervals.

  1945. musictheory 2018-01-18 18:47:31 Jongtr
    Work from the chords. A melody will be based on chord tones - not all the melody notes, but the main ones. For a basic harmony, use the chord tone above or below the one the melody is on. E.g., if it's a G chord, and the melody note is B (3rd), harmonise it with D (above) or G (below). That's 3rds above or below, but it won't always be. If the melody note is D, then the harmony below is still a 3rd, but the next chord tone above D is G, a 4th. IOW, you can stick to diatonic 3rds (ie from the key scale) above or below all the way, but sometimes a 4th is better, *if* that's a chord tones. A great example of guitar harmony mixing 3rds and 4ths is [Jessica.] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRDivUb5EeA) (Easy enough to find tabs of that to see how it works with the chords.) Obviously the melody won't be all chord tones (arpeggio), but for passing notes just add the appropriate note from the scale. So if the melody (on the G chord) goes B-C-D, the harmony can go G-A-B, or D-E-G. The latter line obviously misses F in order to land on the G root. Here's where experiment can tell you whether F or F# might work instead. Always check these things with your ear, don't really on theory. The key might be G major, but F might still sound better than F#. You can also skip a chord tone (above or below), which will give you a 5th or 6th. So, from that B melody note on the G chord, you could harmonise with the upper G note, a 6th above. That gives you a much more "open" harmony. You hear 6ths in guitar harmonies in blues and 60s soul riffs. There are many other ways to harmonise. E.g., if the chord is static for a while, while the melody moves around, the harmony can also be static, holding one note. It can also move in the opposite direction to the melody. Obviously this all presupposes you already have a melody or riff you want to harmonise! If you're starting from scratch, just from a chord sequence, you have to create a melody too. But the secret is to imagine the chord sequence not as fixed blocks, but as a series of melody lines already harmonised. On guitar, you can regard each string as a "voice". As the chord shapes change, look at how some strings go up a fret or two (or three), some will stay on the same note, some will go down a fret or two. This is "voice-leading". Obviously the melody on each string is crude - one note per chord - but it's like a skeleton outline of how a melody can develop - and also how a parallel harmony line could develop the same way. If the chords don't change that fast - maybe it's one chord for 2, 3 , 4 or more bars - then a melody can move up or down between the chord tones ... and the harmony, of course, can do the same.

  1946. musictheory 2018-01-19 11:39:31 xiipaoc
    There are some problems with that description. The main problem is that there are *two different things* called "the harmonic series" and he picked the wrong one. Let me explain. Suppose you have a sound at a constant pitch. That sound will be some complicated waveform that repeats at frequency w, where w is the frequency of that constant pitch. That waveform can be broken up into components at frequencies w, 2w, 3w, 4w, etc. This is the *actual* harmonic series. Suppose you have a string at some frequency w. If you pluck it, you will create some complicated waveform that vibrates at overall frequency w. That waveform can be broken up into components at frequencies w, 2w, 3w, 4w, etc. This is *not* the harmonic series, but this is what the video was talking about. Why is it not the harmonic series? Because I lied. The components *aren't* at frequencies 2w, 3w, 4w, etc., not *exactly*. That depends on the materials, the friction, the thickness, the shape, all those things. It's pretty close, because vibrating strings happen to have mathematical properties similar to the periodic waveform of the sound at constant pitch, but that's not some mathematical law; it's just why we put strings on our instruments in the first place! Air columns can have similar components, so we have wind instruments too, which tend to be long tubes to take advantage of those harmonics. But plenty of instruments have completely different sets of frequencies. Timpani, for example, have completely different spectra. The overtone series is a mathematical phenomenon. The spectra produced by instruments are a physical phenomenon that happens to have a similar solution in some cases.

  1947. musictheory 2018-01-19 13:00:55 Phrygiaddicted
    say, when you pluck a string, a displacement then goes from where you plucked, to the ends of the string... then it will reflect back, since the string is fixed at both ends and of finite length. basically, because of this, when the waves reflect back and forth, they interfere with each other based on the distance and time it takes to travel, that they will interfere with each other producing a [standing wave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave), [this image somewhat shows this nicely](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transient_to_standing_wave.gif), note how once the reflection reaches back to the end a stable pattern starts to form, and fits an exact integer multiple of cycles to the length's total. [more music specific](http://hep.physics.indiana.edu/~rickv/Standing_Sound_Waves.html) and so, the frequencies these waves can exist at (without interfering destructively) are precisely the multiples of the fundamental frequency (the length of the entire string) of course, there is *some* deviation from that mathematical ideal, as physical properties like tension and such will change the speed that the waves travel on the string dependent on frequency and so on. non-harmonic frequencies (roughly) simply *cannot exist* over a sustained period. open tubes, since the waves do not reflect from the open end, will then only produce *odd* harmonics. pretty much all this is just the physics of *standing waves* there is no coincidence, the harmonic series *is* the overtone series... the difference is the numbering (1st overtone = 2nd harmonic), and as the same amplitude of a higher frequency requires more energy, it tends to taper off significantly, but we are still sensitive to these small amplitudes as hearing is essentially logarithmic in response to power and there's other filtering/resonance funkiness going on the ear that make us more/less sensitive to different frequency regions. your room even has harmonics, as your speakers produce sound that is reflected off walls. ever noticed how you can move slightly and suddenly the bass is much louder/quieter? this is because of cancellation/addition at a node/antinode of the standing wave formed in the room... obviously though, that's more complex and 3 dimensional, but the same concept. bells are a notable example that have alot of harmonic distortion, but they are of course, not simple near-1 dimensional oscillations like on a string, tube, or metal keys and the vibrations of a bell are *way* more complex.

  1948. musictheory 2018-01-19 13:49:34 TheRandoxm
    How much mathematics do you know? Do you know calculus? If you do and you want to know more on this topic, search Music: A Mathematical Offering of Dave Benson and read Chapter 1 and 3. I recommend this because this book is free. If it's too advanced for you, there are other books that require a lesser mathematical background. Search them on Amazon. Basically, they come from solutions from a type of equation called the [wave equation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation). The vibration of string and wind instruments can be approximately described by the [wave equation of one dimension](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_vibration), which results in overtone series. For drums, it follows the [wave equation of two dimension](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrations_of_a_circular_membrane), so the frequencies they produce are less regular.

  1949. musictheory 2018-01-20 13:48:02 cloudcitymg
    Many musicans notice keys have different "colors" (not talking about synesthesia) . C# is commonly a darker scale. As far as strings go, open strings resonate more and generally have a more lively tone. So keys that use the open string notes a lot may have a different sound

  1950. musictheory 2018-01-20 23:23:14 Jongtr
    You've got the right idea about interference between the sound waves. The beats you hear from a minor 2nd is the frequency difference between the two fundamental frequencies. E.g. the difference between the 5th string A (110 Hz) and the Bb above (116.5 Hz) is 6 Hz or cycles per second, meaning you'll hear beats at 6 per second when they're played together. The higher the notes are, the faster the frequencies, so the faster the beats of the difference. When you get above middle C, the beats start to get too fast to hear them as such, and the interval just "clangs". But you're not right about the increasing distance - e.g., when a minor 2nd is expanded by an octave to a minor 9th, that's a much more unpleasant dissonance. Any note a m9 above a chord tone is known in jazz as an "avoid note" (with the exception of a b9 on a dom7 chord). Compare the sounds of these three Am(add9)shapes: x-0-2-4-1-x 5-7-x-x-0-8 5-7-x-5-x-7 The B-C m2 in the first one is clearly dissonant, but (IMO) not unpleasant. Raise the C by an octave as in the 2nd one (creating a m9), and that B-C is much more harsh. You might want to use the first one, but probably not the 2nd one! The 3rd one inverts the m9 into a C-B major 7th. Again - although a major 7th is technically a "sharp dissonance", you should find that a very pleasant sounding minor chord, the 9th adding a "poignant" colour. Its dissonance is softened more if you add the higher E: 5-7-x-5-5-7, because E-B now gives you a P5. Major 9ths are different, partly because major 2nds are less dissonant than minor 2nds, but mainly because we normally have other chord tones between. Compare the difference between C-D (x-3-x-x-x-3-x) and C-G-D (x-3-x-0-3-x); C-D sounds OK, but the G in between helps stabilise it, and - in a way - "make sense" of the 9th, because it forms two highly consonant stacked 5ths. Then compare the two places you can add E (x-3-2-0-3-x and (x-3-x-0-3-0). The former obviously provides a stable foundation for the top D to sit on; the latter reveals a juicy M2 between the D and E, at the same time as both are strongly consonant with the lower C or G.

  1951. musictheory 2018-01-21 07:47:06 StarkFists
    What are you going to play the horn voicings on so you can hear them first? A guitar? That's works okay, sort of complicated if you're not a really proficient player. Maybe a DAW, or notation program? It's doable, I've done it more than once, but it's tedious as hell and it takes too long to draft ideas that way. Any voicing that sounds good on a keyboard will expand easily into larger settings - big band, orchestra, wind band, string quartet, whatever. That's how big band music is commonly written, as far as I know. Basie and Ellington were pianists, and any horn player composers/arrangers of note certainly know how to do basic harmonic manipulation at the piano. I've never spoken to an arranger that didn't do a major portion of their work at the piano. Obviously you need to understand range, transposition, timbre, etc., but for any of that to matter you've got to have some good chord voicings to give the band.

  1952. musictheory 2018-01-21 10:30:06 aurora14
    So as pointed out, "in tune" is more of a human construct. Noe you could say that the diatonic intervals were decided because of how simple they are mathematically, whatever. You could debate what in tune means for a very long time and get nowhere. Thankfully we don't really need to go there. Pythagorean tuning, what we tend to use when we tune strings, uses these simple ratios. A result of two strings being exactly these ratios is sympathetic vibrations. One of those is when you pluck a G string, and a G string on another instrument starts to vibrate. Basically the sound wave, which is energy, travels through the air and since it's the same "length" (or a perfect 5th from) the other string, it vibrates too. My guess is that your G string is also sympathetically vibrating your D string, if they are perfectly tuned together according to Pythagorean tuning. Note that the G makes the D ring, but the D rings as a D, which creates another property. Ghost tones. They have many names but I use that. When two notes of any interval are played together, some magic in the interaction between the two frequencies causes a 3rd, lower tone to be produced. This ghost tone is much more easily heard when notes are tuned in Pythagorean. In fact they have to be perfectly in tune in order to hear the ghost tone. My guess is your string is vibrating another string, and the two vibrating strings are producing a 3rd pitch that's barely audible but causes you to think that the first string is shimmering. The composition and length of the string also influences this, so you may have a string that is particularly loquacious when it comes to this.

  1953. musictheory 2018-01-21 11:41:38 xiipaoc
    > there is also a fainter sound much higher in pitch like a natural harmonic There shouldn't be. Tinnitus? On the other hand, there *are* sounds like this when a string is in tune with *something else*. (The exact frequency of G is... whatever we want it to be, really; we generally want A to be 440 Hz but we can easily pick some other standard.) You might be playing the note in tune with your room, which would likely cause a ringing. Bathrooms and rigid shower boxes are especially prone to having big resonances like that. I once had a boss who spoke with this bass voice that made the conference room ring whenever he spoke at that particular pitch. The string could even be in tune with the D string. What happens there is that the D string's fourth harmonic is a high D, and so is the G string's third harmonic. So that third harmonic, which is naturally part of the sound, could excite the D string to vibrate at that same harmonic and therefore make it louder. The G string could also be in tune with the B and E strings, but that's a bit more difficult in equal temperament -- the high B is the 5th harmonic for the G string, 4th for the B string, and 3rd for the E string. Generally the phenomenon of a sound causing an object to start vibrating is called *resonance*, and a frequency at which this happens is a *resonant frequency* for the object. By the way, try to watch a video of Narciso Yepes playing something. He's got this [special guitar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-string_classical_guitar_of_Yepes) with extra strings. Why? It's not so that he can play the strings -- it's to get extra resonance! Some notes in the upper strings make the lower strings resonate, but some don't. The added strings make it so that more notes resonate.

  1954. musictheory 2018-01-21 21:33:51 adequatebeats
    I have typed out an excerpt below from the book 'Creating Sounds From Scratch - A Practical Guide to Music Synthesis for Producers and Composers'. Maybe this is what you are referring to: > Critical Bands > A simple yet effective way of adding depth and color to a sound is by exploiting another deficiency in our ears: the inability to detect two separate frequencies when they are close in frequency. Without getting too deep into the physiology of this effect, the cochlea -- the primary organ of the inner ear -- is where a sound is divided into its component frequencies and then sent to the brain for processing. Although there is roughly a single nerve cell for every audible frequency (more than 20,000!), these cells are grouped into sequential frequency bands across the spectrum, forming what are known as critical bands. > When two frequencies fall within a critical band we do not hear them as separate pitches but rather as a vibrato-like oscillation between the two called beating. When two frequencies are just within the critical band, the oscillation is fast; as they get closer together, the oscillation slows. The rate of oscillation is equal to the difference between the two frequencies: 440 and 441 Hz will produce a beating of 1 Hz; 440 and 450 will produce a beating of 10 Hz. > Beating is particularly useful for assisting with tuning. When matching one string to another on a guitar, for example, the player will hold down a note on one string that is meant to be the same as an open string. Listening for the beating to slow down and eventually disappear makes matching two frequencies by ear simple.

  1955. musictheory 2018-01-22 05:28:01 65TwinReverbRI
    Sure, the notes! And the chords. And the progression. Just a bit of advice: I would avoid statements like "haven't developed that far yet" becuase it could be inferred from a statement like that that you see earlier music as "inferior" or something. It is "reminiscent" of "Classical" guitar in that it's played on a nylon string and that it uses arpeggios in a manner not unlike typical guitar preludes and etudes in method books, which I'm sure Lifeson played, and were the inspiration for this. It uses "rock" chords and progressions though. While Lifeson is brilliant, it's much more of a "rock guitarist trying to sound classical" than a well-informed classical composer. It's clear there are inspirations from other places (possibly their Canadian brethren, Triumph, in Rik Emmet's use of Classical Guitar). I'm not saying that myself to "lessen" the quality of the piece - I think that was wholly his intent - to do something classical like but that used contemporary rock player chords - especially what had coalesced in his playing through all his various influences. One of the more "pop" elements is the use of a bass line that moves from the root to hte 5th of the chord. That's kind of uncharacteristic even of classical guitar prelude/etude like pieces. But we could absolutely consider it a "Contemporary Classical Guitar Prelude" - which is what it is - it's certainly a prelude to The Trees. But I'd say it's a "contemporary" sound.

  1956. musictheory 2018-01-22 06:10:38 65TwinReverbRI
    You know, I've always thought of it more like this: 0 0 2 2 0 x Asus2 That's easy enough to play on the fretboard: 5 5 7 7 5 x But, if you use that shape on the 6th string, you end up with just a minor Barre chord. The only way to get that 2nd in there (without it being a high one like on the 1st string) is with the "Andy Summers Shape". It certainly does give you a stacked 5th sound - and something like "Message in a Bottle" is clearly more of that than "Every Breath You Take" IMHO. But it was kind of like "I want that sus 2 sound on a 6th string chord form, what do I do?" Bam, this is what you do. Sure it's add2 instead of sus2, but it's the only shape ya got! They are easier BTW in dropped D tuning on the 6th string ;-)

  1957. musictheory 2018-01-22 09:20:26 banjalien
    If your music isn't going to publishing house I don't see too many reasons to switch. I use Finale for final scores but I can't say I like/enjoy it. My fiancee who does arrangements online and for her string trio switched from Finale to Musescore and thinks it works great. I haven't tried it. I think all of these notation programs have limitations. For example, Logic pro's notation program does some things great but some things it's just dumb with. Use whatever enables you to do the fastest/best work for the job.

  1958. musictheory 2018-01-23 00:34:15 nmitchell076
    Having the 5th of III let's you have a really nice 1-7-6 melodic string though

  1959. musictheory 2018-01-23 04:28:51 gopher9
    > So instead of an open string with 2 nodes on the ends is a real vibrating string an extremely squiggly line with a bunch of mini-nodes? No. A *sum* of waves doesn't have nodes in the places where single waves have them. The [sawtooth wave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawtooth_wave) is a good example how a sum of harmonics creates a timbre.

  1960. musictheory 2018-01-23 04:37:02 DRL47
    It doesn't have to be a string. Unless it is a pure sine wave, any note has overtones (harmonics) also present. Some overtones are louder than others, which is what makes the timbre (tone quality) of the note. For example, flutes have very few overtones that are loud enough to hear. Oboes have lots of louder overtones, especially the odd numbered ones, which gives them that nasal quality.

  1961. musictheory 2018-01-23 04:52:33 whereameye
    A good start would be to stay in key, and stack thirds. It usually sounds good in the same octave. Since the intervals vary, they may end up being major or minor thirds. So if you are in A minor and your first guitar is playing A B C D E, play the same thing on the second guitar, but starting a third above. So the second guitar would play C D E F G. That's definitely a Maiden sound, they use a lot of thirds. Another easy way to harmonize is playing an octave up. These are simple ways, the crazy thing is that there are no rules. You can go out of key, switch between 3rd, 4ths, 5ths, octaves, tritones, whatever sounds good. I've recently started experimenting with nondiatonic harmony and sometimes it's easier to put theory in the back of my mind and really try to see what my ear likes. Edit: I want to add, sorry I'm not familiar with too much Judas Priest but I can tell you what a couple other bands tend to use. Slayer uses a lot of perfect 4th harmonies(same fret, on the next highest string) Death does the opposite. A 4th below. So same fret, but on the next thicker string. I'm a fan of this one, it can sound pretty wicked, especially if you play some notes the same as the original, but play some a 4th below. Sounds like the song "splits up" for a bit

  1962. musictheory 2018-01-23 05:55:14 9Epicman1
    Ahh I see the high peaks and small peaks of each period. So there is no way to display them in a context of a string? Just sound traveling through air?

  1963. musictheory 2018-01-23 07:31:13 Jongtr
    > is a real vibrating string an extremely squiggly line with a bunch of mini-nodes? In a sense yes. A vibrating string contains all its harmonic partials. That's where its *timbre* comes from - why it doesn't just sound like a sine wave. When we stop a string at a node to produce a harmonic, we are simply preventing the larger vibrations. It vibrates in fractions, and each fraction still contains its own partials. That is, the fundamental, the pitch we hear, is represented by main side-to-side (non-squiggly) movement we see, but there are smaller moves within that, which certain lighting conditions or camera mechanisms can reveal. There are several youtube demos demonstrating this; here's a couple https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA6hsHTyk0I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L9AOPxhZwY&t=25 - and a more scientific description: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qrLfiybeOU Where you pick the string makes a difference to its timbre, because you excite more upper harmonics by picking closer to an end.

  1964. musictheory 2018-01-23 07:42:38 palapiku
    You can play harmonics on any stringed instrument. Lightly touch the string at the node of a particular harmonic while plucking the string. The fundamental and any harmonics that don't have a node in that position will be extinguished. This is a very common guitar technique, especially on the 12th fret (first overtone). Play some natural harmonics to familiarize yourself with how they sound. If you simply pluck an open string, the sound of those harmonics is still there. If you listen carefully, you will hear them. Try doing it on the low E of a guitar (or bass guitar, if you have one) with the fourth overtone (G#). The node is over the 4th fret.

  1965. musictheory 2018-01-23 09:02:14 ljse7m
    The best way to "see" where they are in a live setting is to get a dark room and a strobe light. As you start with a low rate and gradually go up you will see each of the harmonics as you go through all the frequencies with the strobe light. When the strobe cps is the same as the note or harmonic cps you will be isonlating the harmonic at that frequency. Its easiest to see on the lower partials of the harmonic series but you can see any of them if you can be precise enough. You can also use an oscillerscope and isolate them and you can see each one in isolation and that woud be easier (in some ways) to snap a composite with time lasp (again tricky) but if you play around with it, you will be able fo visualize how the string does it. They are all in the string and you can see the dimishing amplitude as you get to the higher partials. Have fun. LJSe7m

  1966. musictheory 2018-01-23 09:24:43 9Epicman1
    I'm gonna try this out today. I'll probably just use my phone's flash as a strobe light. Also gonna use my guitar low e string- would lowering it down enhance the effect? Cps is cycles per second right? I'm guessing it would have to be really low then. I would think that a light flashing 440 times per second wouldn't even look like it was flashing.

  1967. musictheory 2018-01-23 14:33:26 Type_ya_name_here
    Well I like building and using 4 note chords. Each note within the chord works like a voice within a choir (bass, tenor, alto and soprano), which ever note you decided to be the micro melodic tone will be the Soprano. With a G11 chord, you might have B as the bass note and F as the soprano note (depending on where you’re going and where you’ve been). For chord addicts like me this is a lot of fun finding the same chord in different places on the fretboard (different string sets and areas of the fretboard).

  1968. musictheory 2018-01-23 18:11:22 heidavey
    Admittedly, it was partly a joke (a la "Lick My Love Pump" by Nigel Tufnel), but I do like improvise on D dorian on the Sax (which, being an alto is actually F... erm...) and then I was going to say Shostakovich String Quartet no 8, but of course that is in C minor, not D minor... great tune though! So, let's go with Blue in Green and So What by Miles Davis - those are both D dorian (being modal jazz pieces); both on Kind of Blue.

  1969. musictheory 2018-01-23 22:49:14 FenderES6137
    So are most riffs only made of the relevant chord tones and not pentatonics?I'm talking of indie rock (the smiths, Babyshambles, Arctic Monkeys) rather than classic rock. Also did you mean that pentatonic notes are used to string chords together, i.e. to go from C major to F major you would use E (for example) to make it run more smoothly ? I greatly appreciate your replies and knowledge and will analyse the note choices of my favourite guitar parts

  1970. musictheory 2018-01-24 18:32:58 Jongtr
    "Never"? Not true. What you mean is that those notes are *most familiar* as the Bb major scale (or G natural minor). (Not Eb major, btw. They could be Eb lydian, but that's harder to achieve than C dorian.) So if you're not careful - if you just string together various notes and chords from that scale - then *most likely* Bb will sound like the keynote. To write in C dorian, you have to make sure Cm sounds like the key chord. Without a G major chord (to act as minor key V), that means using Cm at the beginning and end of any section, and repeatedly elsewhere. It means using a Bb major chord sparingly, if at all. It definitely means not following F or F7 with Bb. Everything always has to come back to Cm, and you can't move away from Cm for too long (even one bar is pushing it). However, plenty of music has been written in dorian mode, so it's not hard. Here are some examples, some of which you may know: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BakWVXHSug (E dorian) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylXk1LBvIqU (D dorian, moving to Eb dorian and back) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v13JAf6Oohc (A dorian) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIx_HbmRnQY (C# dorian) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19N9H1JXvko (D dorian - moves to mixed mode in the bridge)

  1971. musictheory 2018-01-25 21:25:50 TrebleStrings
    Open strings actually are not avoided at all. Sure, violin and viola students (not cello and bass, the latter of which is not a violin family instrument but a viol) are often told to avoid them by high school orchestra directors who don't even play the violin, but then we mature as violinists or violists and realize that a lot of the advice said orchestra directors give us is not what someone who specializes in violin pedagogy would advise. There are many times when you have no choice or it is just silly to go out of your way to not play an open string, and there are times when the composer expressly calls for the open string. Many double stops and chords cannot be played with all strings stopped. A sympathetic vibrato on an adjacent string when possible helps a little, which is the only option for an open G string (C string for viola) since there is no fingered alternative. Fingering choices should always be about what is most efficient, not about tone. All of the great violinists use open strings when it is the better choice, and teaching students to avoid them like the plague after we first delayed teaching them to use their fourth finger as an alternative only hurts them in the long run. It is better to teach the fourth finger from the beginning for violin and viola students, as is already done with the cello and bass, so the student is comfortable making the most efficient fingering choice.

  1972. musictheory 2018-01-25 21:53:08 chriswrightmusic
    Since "note" comes from " notation" it is quite easy to define. A note is a graphical representation of where sound is to be played in time. Pitch bends or overtone effects (including string harmonics) are seen more as ornamentation by music notation rules. Remember, too, that the Western notation method was really only intended to record traditional Western music. Capturing the nuances of traditional Chinese music would prove very difficult using Western notation. For more on Western music notation's origin, I did a quick video [linked here](https://youtu.be/Igoh5kEqj3Y).

  1973. musictheory 2018-01-26 02:30:21 gtfo_mailman
    Well, in the piece I'm writing the orchestra changes quite a bit each movement between. For example, II is wind orchestra while III is choir + string orchestra. I'm wondering if it's acceptable to call it a symphony even though it never uses the full symphonic orchestra at once. I think that, from what I've seen, sonatas are more often than not, accompanied.

  1974. musictheory 2018-01-26 03:34:39 TrebleStrings
    Thank you, but I have been playing the violin for 26 years and reading English for 29 years. I don’t need clarification. It shouldn’t matter whether you are talking about open strings or not. The point of a musical instrument is to play it, not just tune it. So intonation should be defined by how an instrument is played, not how it is tuned, and it is therefore silly to try to make a distinction between open and stopped strings. Part of the determination of whether a finger is properly placed is whether adjacent open strings vibrate. If you play a D on the A string, the D string vibrates. The intonation of the open strings and the intonation of stopped strings therefore must be compatible. http://stringsmagazine.com/perfect-fifths-a-few-thoughts-on-tuning-your-viola-violinists-cellists-invited/

  1975. musictheory 2018-01-26 10:39:15 65TwinReverbRI
    "Beloved"? Solfege "evolved" from the system developed by Guido. Quick history lesson: Before about the year 500 (fall of Rome) the Greeks used letters from their alphabet. It began with something like "Gamma" and ending with something like "ut" or similar, and that's where get the expression, "it runs the gamut" - the gamut was their entire scale. Around 500 ish, Boethius used letters A - O to run the gamut. Around 590 ish, Pope Gregory (where we get the word Gregorian Chant - and Gregorian Calendar I think) used letters A-G, then a-g, then aa-gg, etc. In around 1025 ish, Guido d'Arezzo comes up with a teaching tool - "the Guidonian Hand" and a hexachord system. He notices some chant starts on what we call C, then D, then E, for each of its lines. So he takes the first syllables for each word, which are Ut, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La. Now in this heaxachord system, there was no "B" and he used a "hard" and "soft" hexachord to "mutate" to get what we would basically call F Major and G Major - the former giving you a Bb and the latter giving you a B natural. The words for these - "hard" and "soft" as things like "molle" and "dur" - and the reason why in German "B" is Bb, and "h" is B Natural, evolved out of this system. It's also why many non-English languages use Ut Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti (Si). I've asked Spanish speakers (musicians) about tuning on guitar strings - and I had a Spanish speaker come in and ask to buy a single string when I worked in a music store, and they use the "syllables" - because that is their "letter" or word for the note. They're not, TMK, called "A" - it's La (this may have changed more with English spreading like the plague, but there you go). So in the same way we use Italian for many musical terms, we use the "solfege syllables" for musical notes - a tradition which in academic institutions that are slow to evolve has stayed around for a long time. In Moveable Do, it works just like "one" as the tonic note. "So" is 5, or the root of V. But here's the thing: "Ti" which sounds like "tee" is the Leading Tone that leads up to "Do". Now, when we put an F# in, we say "Fi" - because the resolution of Fi to So mimics the resolution of Ti to Do - IOW, raised notes that act like leading tones to diatonic notes take on an "eee" sound. Even in the "Mi" to "Fa" it's there. So "eee" sounds equate to half steps. We do a similar thing with "ay" sounds - "Le So" is b6 to 5 - and any lowered note takes on this "ay" sound - b3 is Me (may), b5 would be Se (say), b6 is Le (lay) and b7 is Te (tay). The only exception is scale degree 2 which already has that sound. So it actually makes for an elegant system. Now let's compare this to numbers: Firstly, all solfege syllables are one syllable. "Seven" causes a problem. Secondly, chromatic notes are still one syllable. With numbers you have to say "sharp five" or "flat six". Thirdly, while "everyone" knows numbers, we have "quatre" and "uno" - again an extra syllable - more in other languages. Do you know what the words for sharps and flats are in those languages? look it up. So while "do re me" is more recognized and similar across non-English (and German) languages, numerals are more different in pronunciation and not as consistent - IOW, it's easier for us to learn something we've already heard our whole life when someone forced you to watch Sound of Music or listen to the song in grade school, than it is for some other languages to convert to English numerals (and here in America we certainly seem to want to impose on everyone else to learn our stuff rather than the opposite which is kind of lazy and egotistical and narcissistic). While "sharp x" might give a consistent sound for the "ti do" resolution on other scale degrees, solfege does it in a single syllable. Actually pretty brilliant. BTW, 3 is not higher than one. You can have an E below a C in music for example. Mi - Do could be either way as well, but it eliminates this kind of one-sided thinking by not using a numeral. So there may be some things you're missing about Solfege. And I don't know that it's "beloved". It's practical. It's elegant. It's tradition. It's not without flaws though - in languages where "Ut" MEAN "C", like in French, Moveable Do is I imagine quite confusing - because in the key of F Major you're calling G "Re", which you've learned it as the note D. It would be like me singing in F Major and calling all the F notes "C"! So assigning number does in fact eliminate that problem. So for English speakers, Solfege with Moveable Do is not unlike numerals, but has all the benefits mentioned above. Fixed Do is IMHO a little silly, because we might as just well use letters, aside from the single-syllable words there's no real benefit. I imagine this is true in other languages as well, because "Do" (or "Ut", etc.) is already fixed. It is their letters, so we might as well use ours. We do use numerals for referring to scale degrees, so it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. But I think most logical people don't "love" it - they just know it's another approach that has certain pros and cons and when the situations is such that those pros make it the more effective system, it's the one they use. But you do have to remember that different languages use different things, and some people are taught moveable systems and others fixed systems - which also have their pros and cons - so personally I see it as picking the right tool for the job, and not something I think is superior.

  1976. musictheory 2018-01-26 13:18:07 mortiece
    Duke university string school music theory teacher here. I am using this video to talk about harmonics tomorrow. Thanks for posting!

  1977. musictheory 2018-01-27 00:35:50 ljse7m
    You will have to experiment as there are many variables to get a vey clear immage. I suggest you start to try to find the first 2 or three Partials to get a feel for it and to see how your equiptment looks on the simple ones like the octave and the fifth and the doublle octave. Remember that the wave will show up in two dimension so to speak. YOu will not see the " loops" with the high and low side of the waves but only a slice of the duration of the strobe flash and it may not be "centered" with the loops but just a bend in the string the size of the phusical wave of the string. here are some links that demonstrate it on the tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArPdQ-bxlqU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G0OlnIdPXo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maJluxhtPns These are a couple of visualizations but personal experimentation is fun and educationational. I found that playing wih an oscilerscopw with one input from a tone generattor or a microphone of a fundamental on the x and anther with variable notes from the guitar that are harmonics will give a circular representation with interesting loops starting with a circle for a unison and two loops for an ocxtare theee for the fiffh etc. but you aould nees a repair man with a scope, twoo mikes and tao sound sources. I used a generator for the fundamental and a microphone for the otehr and if you have tao generators you can sliide on over the other and "tune" in the harmonics to get perfect figures on the scope for each of the harmonics. but you can also use the guitar for the movable notes and "bend" the notes to adunst the microtones necessary for perfect tunint or a mike with a violin or cello or bass to shot the other notes. It was fun and I learned a lot about how waves workedd together when I did this decades ago. Have fun. It really gives you an insight as to the 12 tone equal temprament system and the relationship to the natureal overtones of musical notes. an dhow they are different and how they are similar. I fouund dit to be useful for understanding the principles of orchestration and how comples it gets when you start mixing the sine waves of a generator and the acoustic eaves of the instruments as each instrument has an emphasis of the various partials that combine together in additon to the pure sine waves. LJSe7m

  1978. musictheory 2018-01-27 10:10:20 dbulger
    Great, thanks for your understanding! I'm still tinkering, so it might not always be line 97, but I'm sure you'll find it. All fifths, like a cello? Five fifths adds up to a major seventh more than the usual interval between the top & the bottom strings. How do you not have a floppy bottom string or a broken top one?

  1979. musictheory 2018-01-27 10:30:02 -Shanannigan-
    As you said, it's definitely a niche. It's a 6 string acoustic bass guitar tuned CGDAEB. The low C is like the first fret of the low B string on a 5 string bass, the high B is like the B string on a guitar. Or essentially the CGDA is like a cello tuned an octave down, and then two more strings. I'm using classical nylon strings for the bottom four (.080 .062 .044 .034). For the top two it was admittedly a pain to find the right strings that were light enough and long enough. I found a classical guitar trick to use fishing line, and that worked perfectly (.031 and .022). The tension is pretty even across all of the strings, and surprisingly my bass seems be a lot more resonant in this tuning. I got the fishing line idea from [this guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgB_yl1vsmo) who uses the same tuning but an octave up from mine.

  1980. musictheory 2018-01-27 20:47:58 leonardearl
    While I agree with others here in saying that your task sounds inherently contradictory, I think looking at pre-tone Schoenberg might be instructive. Works like the *String Quartet No. 1* and *Verklärte Nacht* are gorgeous and very expressive while dangling over the edge of tonality.

  1981. musictheory 2018-01-28 07:27:27 crommo99
    It is not impossible. It is a learned skill, and like any other skill, some people simply seem to be good at it quickly. The tragedy is that for whatever reason, perfect pitch seems to fall under the umbrella of “shit that’s so difficult it may as well be impossible”. Actually all that’s missing is an applicable method- probably because people have no idea how audation actually occurs. Like most mental imagery and memory related functions of the mind, understanding is murky at best. Most music teachers themselves cannot do it, let alone construct a pedagogy aimed to help students do it. My own experience is to scaffold your own practise by making it easier for yourself, and one really important and underestimated way to do this is to start transcribing instruments with tonal differences between notes. Piano, string and cylindrical bore instruments do not have a marked tonal difference between notes, only broad registral timbral differences. My advice is to pick an instrument with a break, such as the clarinet, or my first instrument, the saxophone. I’m convinced that my own perfect pitch is directly related to my earlier attempts at transcribing saxophone. The severe difference in timbre in the middle between C# and the D over the break gave me an extra helping hand and was an early set of training wheels. And be prepared to make a lot of mistakes, as with any skill.

  1982. musictheory 2018-01-28 12:15:43 xiipaoc
    Yes, this is a reasonably good idea. Perfect pitch is when you hear different pitches as independent entities -- like, if you hear a D and an E, you know that's a D and an E -- while most people (who aren't tone-deaf) would just hear this as a major second. So what can you do? Develop *pitch memory*. You probably already have this. If you try to imagine a particular note in your head, especially if you play an instrument where the different notes sound a bit different, you'll probably imagine it pretty close to the pitch you're looking for. For example, the open B string on the guitar has a particular sound; if you're a guitar player and you want to think of a B, you'll probably hear that sound in your head and get it right. Matching it to your vocal range is also a good idea, since different notes *feel* different to sing. I've been studying maqamat recently, and when I see a low C on the staff, I know what that feels like to sing so I can hear it in my head without a reference pitch. I'm probably off by up to a whole step in either direction (though I can usually go down to the low G, which sits near the bottom of my range, so I'm probably not too flat), but that's close enough. That said, this is unreliable. You're likely to get within a note or two, and if there's any background noise, forget it. It's useful for coming up with a pitch out of thin air, but it's not very useful for hearing pitches that are played. You certainly wouldn't want to use it to tune.

  1983. musictheory 2018-01-28 13:32:05 fuchsializard
    Let me start by saying the first paragraph of your post sounds like a bunch of garbled up nonsense, but that's okay because you're new. So here's the breakdown: Start with learning your minor pentatonic and major scale. Practice them in every key until your fingers fall off. When you start tackling modes, learn the 3-note-per-string versions. they are laid out in a way that you can see how they all connect, it's good for stretching your finger, and it's easier to count intervals. Also, only pussies use the "box" modes 😂 Don't worry about arpeggios or transcribing or any of that crap yet. A great guitar player I know said "Charlie Parker never transcribed Charlie Parker." not in the sense most people think of as"transcribing" at least. Don't be, as Frank Zappa puts it, a "wind-up monkey" guitar player. I would definitely put a huge emphasis on learning chord structure! Remember: scales=chords and chords=scales. If you know what intervals make up a chord, you'll know which intervals make up the scale for that chord and vice versa. There's all kinds of good backing tracks on youtube for blues, jazz, funk, rock, ect ect. Definitely practice with those. And if there are any local open jams in your town, go to them! You will learn a lot faster playing with other people than anything else. Hope this helps.

  1984. musictheory 2018-01-28 20:01:39 romericus
    “The difference between a competent choral singer and an instrumentalist is that we are constantly tuning and checking ourselves against other singers or instrumentalists with whom we are singing” Please consider editing this. It makes instrumentalists sound like mere button-pushers, when in reality, we also listen carefully and make micro adjustments constantly. Which I’m sure you know, as you mention the violin’s capability earlier in the paragraph. Either you think string instruments are the only instruments with micro intonation capabilities, or you know that brass or woodwind players *can* do it, but don’t. Or, to be more generous, you’re probably thinking about the piano, which is admittedly inflexible with pitch—between tunings, anyway.

  1985. musictheory 2018-01-28 21:34:07 Yeargdribble
    **Theory** There's so much focus on common practice period theory and virtually none spent on contemporary/jazz theory in most programs unless you're specifically studying jazz. Someone can have graduate degrees in music and have a deep understanding of period counterpoint, but not be able to spell a CMaj13#11. For many, they literally can't spell any chord bigger than a 7th and don't know how to read jazz chord symbols at all. Meanwhile, there's intense focus on idiotic things like avoiding parallel/direct 5ths/8ves and fussing about different types of aug6 chords. Both of these have so little practical value. This type of thing should be reserved for graduate level classes for those who give a shit about period music. The fact these overly rules obsessed ideas get focus in lieu of even basic jazz theory is mind boggling. Most students drink it in not knowing better and not even understanding why they are obsessing about parallel 5ths. And ultimately, unless you're writing period chorales, it doesn't matter. Instead they could be learning about the same fundamental concept behind them (good voice leading) in a much more practical context. I've laid out my thoughts before about how understanding tritone subtitution actually makes aug6 chord easier to understand... and tritone subs are a much more relevant and useful concept than aug6 chords for... pretty much everyone. The thing is, obviously if you're going to be a performer, the jazz theory stuff is super important, but even for teachers I think it's important. For band and choir directors, you *will* end up programming some music with bigger harmonies. Even if you avoid all jazz, 9th chords and just generally other large chords show up constantly in contemporary music. Understanding how the voice leading works there helps you direct your ensemble to bring out those pieces of movement. Or if you need to cut a part (choir directors often do), then do you know which chord members are most important to keep the quality of a chord? Many don't. This can lead to balance problems and other things in ensembles. Why would you not learn the full language of modern theory? And I don't mean post-tonal crap sitting around writing matrices or avant garde stuff exploring negative harmony... but actual practical stuff. Since being out of college (where I drank the Kool-aid and thought I was learning very important stuff) and playing with lots of groups, I'm finding that many people with no formal training have a better *functional* grasp on theory (and usually a better ear) than people with graduate degrees in music. Of course, the reason this problem exists is that it's built top down. PhD programs expect a certain amount of specific theory knowledge, so graduate programs try to prepare for that and so undergrad programs are geared toward grad programs. Ultimately, undergrad theory is designed to prepare you for working on your doctorate in ivory tower music... not the practical theory that working musicians and teachers need to know. Most theory programs literally stop about 100-200 years ago. They pretend jazz doesn't exist and don't even really cover most romantic concepts. They stop conceptually somewhere around early Beethoven. It's also particularly sad in a way that in the US jazz isn't part of the compulsory music theory ed. Jazz is *the* unique style of America (origins wise) and yet academia seems to think ill of it. There's an overly strict dichotomy between classical and jazz in the academic world and there shouldn't be. Can you imagine another subject you'd study in college where you stopped learning about advancements 200 years ago? Science? Math? It's ludicrous. **Performance** Performance programs tend to focus on preparing people for jobs that don't exist and it ties to the same problems above. The focus is on classical stuff. Maybe it makes sense for strings where there are more orchestral positions available and no expectation for wider stylistic ability, but for winds there's still a focus on orchestral rep for auditions. This sucks because those [jobs don't exist](http://www.trumpetjourney.com/2013/08/31/trumpet-job-numbers/). You literally have greater chances of being a professional athlete. But there's no reason for this problem to exist. There *are* jobs... just not in the extremely narrow spectrum that students are prepared for. These days there's just not room for super specialized people because most very good players *can* do it all. Wind players are expected to be able to play in pop/jazz styles. Woodwind players are expected to double. You're leaving a ton of money on the table if you focus entirely on classical music to the point that you constantly have to say, "I can't do that" when out in the real world trying to take gigs. There's also a unique problems for piano programs. The focus is on very difficult rep, prepared over several months, and memorized. But in the real world nobody is going to pay to hear Rach. Nobody is going to expect you to memorize, and nobody is going to give you 3 months to learn anything. The reality is, particularly for those who have a classical only background, you're going to be doing accompaniments. This means you'll often be given a large stack of music and a very short deadline. The focus should be on sightreading, efficiently learning large volumes of music quickly, and effectively triaging when it's just not possible to learn it all. Stuff like simplifying nearly physically impossible string reduction accompaniments should be covered. Effectively using practice time to juggle a dozen pieces of music that need to be learned in a week should be covered. And hell... being able to follow a conductor or soloist are obviously important, but may pianists have very poor rhythm skills and even worse skills working with other musicians. Also, being able to lead a group while playing piano is a very useful skill a tier above that. And these are just the skills for people who play classical only. So much of the work I get is because I can comp from a chord sheet or by ear without sheet music. Being stylistically diverse is extremely useful for pianists. Understanding basic contemporary theory and knowing how to comp are super important. I work with people who have been playing literally 5x as long as me who couldn't comp three chords in the key of C without sheet music telling them what notes to play. People with advanced degrees (in piano pedagogy no less). I also know players who are great sightreaders... so long as it's hymns or very classical octavos. Give them something with swing, or syncopated pop rhythms, or large jazz chords and they fall apart. Stylistic versatility is so important, but lessons are focused on polishing Chopin up to an unnecessary degree of nuance that virtually nobody will notice and less will care about. **Why?** The biggest reason why all of this crap is a problem is because the people teaching people to perform... have never performed. Sure, they played in concerts at their university. They had a lot of experience playing on a platform provided for them. But virtually none of them have gone out and tried to make a living playing their instrument. They have no idea what skills are actually useful. Most of them were trained in performance... couldn't get a job in it, and so they pursued higher level education. And where does that lead them? To a professorship where they teach a new generation the same ignorant tripe that they learned. They are literally failed performers passing on misinformation generation after generation. I think most of them never even stop to realize that they are failures in that capacity. It's just assumed that performance majors because university professors who pretend that "classical concert pianist" is a real job (it's not... for all intents and purposes it does not exist). It's literally the blind leading the blind. The ones not teaching at a university and just giving private lessons and passing on that same "jazz is stupid... reading is unimportant... memorize this really hard piece" mentality. It's made worse in piano culture because of the dick measuring contest of recitals where teachers want to show off students. Plenty of piano students can play a handful of very impressive pieces by memory, but can't sightread the easiest music or prepare anything in under a month. And the more successful someone is as a performer, the less likely they are to teach, so it just gets worse. A person doing very well performing has a busy schedule that makes teaching a large studio difficult. Someone doing some moderate work as an accompanist at a church or school has some room for students. But who has the most students? A person who never performs a lick. They are literally just full time teachers completely divorced from the concept of actually playing their instrument functionally. Unfortunately it's just easier to teach students which button to mash like a trained monkey than it is to teach basic theory, or especially jazz and improv. So there are just a ton of factors that influence the fact that those who are teaching are usually doing a very bad job of it. And honestly, very few are doing it out of malice (though some literally are succubi looking for self-aggrandizement). Most just don't realize they are terrible teachers. They are just teaching what they were taught. They aren't aware there's another world out there. They haven't considered that those who taught them to perform were not actually successful performers, and if they never got jobs that required them to sightread well, they never realize how important that is either.

  1986. musictheory 2018-01-28 23:13:07 FwLineberry
    It's just bending the string up somewhere between a half step and a whole step. There's echo applied to the guitar, so it sounds kind of smeared. On piano you're probably closest just using Eb.

  1987. musictheory 2018-01-29 04:15:20 douyou4
    Thank you! I’ve found your “E string” explanation quite interesting! I’ve got a proper library whom not allow me to excess the tuba’s range (it’s a sampler, kontakt library) And here, the tuba is not playing a melody line :-/

  1988. musictheory 2018-01-29 07:25:39 65TwinReverbRI
    If it's CFC, and you tuned it DOWN A WHOLE STEP, then all of the chords too would SOUND down a whole step from your chord chart. The shape listed for a chord like "C" would now sound like a Bb chord. So you could just play the chords as written, and they'd simply sound a whole step lower (or whatever interval it's tuned up or down). This would make NO difference if you're playing by yourself. It only becomes an issue if you're playing with someone else, like a guitarist because when you say "C" they're going to say "that doesn't sound like my C" and you're going to have to figure out the transposition. An alternative to this is if possible, just play the chord shapes a whole tone higher to counteract the whole tone tuned down. That way your shape for "C" is still the same shape, but higher up the neck of the instrument, and still sounds like a C. Another alternative is for you to transpose yourself - if you read a chord chart that says C, and you want it to sound like C even though you're tuned down, you just play a chord X amount higher than you've down tuned - if you've tuned down a whole step, then you have to play a chord that's a whole step higher - so you'd play a D chord to get a C chord sound. But if you're by yourself, as long as the strings say in the same RELATION to each other - C-F-C; D-G-D; A-D-A, etc., the chord charts will work and give you the proper relation between chords as well - they will just overall sound higher or lower than originally written. If you change the tuning of one string to C-F-Bb, it's going to change all the chord shapes. Since you tuned the C down to Bb, you have to "compensate" by playing any note on that string one whole tone higher than the chord chart indicates. Guitar is mostly tuned in 4ths so any chord shape a guitarist could play on the 6,5,4, or 5,4,3, trios of strings would work in this tuning (they'd sound a different chord though because the guitar is tuned to either E-A-D or A-D-G for those trios of strings). I'm not sure if you even need to go off a chart. IOW, you just read the letters for the chords: C - Am - F - G and there's your chord progression. All you need to do is play the Sanshin's chord shapes for those chords. As long as you play the Sanshin's C, Am, F, and G chords, you've got the right chords (or, depending on the tuning, the right relationship between the chords). I would say, it's actually really close to an Appalachian Dulcimer or Lap Dulcimer. These have 3 strings - the melody string is a double course (two strings tuned to the same note). You can either play it with a "noter" which is a stick you use on the melody string pair only usually - you move it around to play a melody while the other two strings play open drone notes. The other way to play it is to finger chords on all three strings. The instrument has diatonic frets (sometimes more) so it is often tuned so that the melody string gives you a diffrerent mode - so you can play in Dorian Mode, or Ionian Mode, and so on. So it sounds a lot like the C-F-C versus C-F-Bb tuning. Dulcimer is often tuned D-A-D for Ionian Tuning (same as the Major Scale). D-A-A gives you Mixolydian. D-A-C (which is similar to the idea of C-F-Bb up a whole step) is used for Aeolian tuning (Minor Scale). So you might want to look into the Appalachian Dulcimer and see if there are enough commonalities to help you out. See here to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_dulcimer Have fun!

  1989. musictheory 2018-01-29 20:04:10 PlazaOne
    > For that matter, was it that happened in the twentieth century that encouraged jazz musicians to experiment with different scales, and how did the pentatonic scale - with all its universalist baggage - figure in this? The Belgian gypsy-jazz guitarist [Django Reinhardt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_Reinhardt) probably. His fretting hand was badly burned and he lost the use of two fingers, meaning he had to re-learn how to play. Very few chord shapes are possible with just two fingers. But a pentatonic scale can be played on guitar with two notes per string, whereas a 7-note scale would normally require three notes per string.

  1990. musictheory 2018-01-30 00:26:01 sleepingwizard
    Ah, I should have mentioned, the guitars are tuned in drop-C, so open , 1, & 6 on the the lowest string correspond to C, C#, and F# respectively. I'm already using power chords, which is where the G# comes from (power chord on the first fret in a drop-tuning). Thanks for the advice!

  1991. musictheory 2018-01-30 02:57:12 knowledgelover94
    Here's my advice on practicing modes. Don't practice one scale from different starting notes (c d e f g a b - d e f g a b c etc). Practice each mode from C so that you understand the intervals of each mode. (Once you've understand that, then do them in other keys. Lydian- C D E F# G A B Ionian- C D E F G A B Mixolydian- C D E F G A Bb Dorian- C D Eb F G A Bb Aeolian- C D Eb F G Ab Bb Phrygian- C Db Eb F G Ab Bb Locrian- C Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb You probably know pieces in Ionian (major) and Aeolian (minor). Here's the first tunes I can think of that use the other modes Lydian- Simpsons theme song Mixolydian- (can't think of any right now) Dorian- Serpentine Fire (earth wind and fire) Phrygian- Debussy String quartet (1st movement) (Locrian is hardly ever used, so I doubt anyone will have an example of it)

  1992. musictheory 2018-01-30 05:59:43 65TwinReverbRI
    The pattern is easily playable on the 7th fret with the 5th string minor barre chord. Yeah it will have a different sound, but maybe that's not a problem.

  1993. musictheory 2018-01-30 11:26:59 Phrygiaddicted
    yeah, i think i have what you're getting at now. thing is (at least in my mind), i don't hear 12TET. when i hear 400 cents i dont think "hey thats 4 semitones", i think it's a major third (5th harmonic) but wobbling a bit. (and only think it's wobbling a bit because i know what a *real* major third sounds like ;)) in this way the spelling reveals exactly how i hear it. the E really does turn the Ab into a G# (sound wise) and that's fine because 800 cents is neither an Ab *nor* a G#... so it can get away with pretending to be either. probably this is the "higher level" you are talking of, but honestly maybe "higher" isnt the right word: it feels incredibly basic. and tbh: i think this occurs for everybody subconsciously or... quite frankly... temperament wouldn't WORK. because 12TET is emulating 5-JI. that is it's purpose and the whole reason we use it (because it's "close enough", and solves the huge pain in the ass that JI/meantone tuning is). its kinda like talking to someone with a lisp. it is a "little bit off" but it doesn't mean you can't understand what they *mean*. this is why kinda enharmonic modulation even works... sortof a "ha! fooled you!" joke. their/they're/their. all sound the same. but you know which one is meant at any time *in speech* without disambiguation because of the context. >in terms of Western harmony see though: harmonics are a *fundamental property of sound itself*. no imposition of any culture's theory is really required. it's self-evident. i actually find the way we learn music through the "veil of semitones" really obscures the *very basic* concepts behind how notes are actually related. tuning a string to JI *by ear* is actually quite easy even for an amateur. you just have to listen for when the beating stops. no need for a tuner or to know theory: just move it until the bad thing goes away. because the harmonics of the string give us a natural template to stop when we are ontop of it and say "THERE!" you barely have to teach a toddler to sing pentatonics. the pentatonic scale is pretty much *universal* across **all** cultures. and it is just the collection of the 5 most closely harmonically-related notes (such that not only are they all related to the tonic, but also to each other) (C A G E D.. in that order) this is why we don't really use the 7th/11th harmonic and above in music much. because they don't "play nice" with the 3 and 5. and even getting the 5 to play with 3 is a hard enough time we have to resort to 12ET to fudge a workable static solution (at the expense of thirds being a bit ... naff) so.. yeah... caveman would hate the aug triad too... imo. the utter lack of augmented triads in pop music (and tbh, almost everything) is my support for that ;) and to be honest, the ambiguity alone probably enhances the dissonance rather than counteracts it. ...man this went on a bit didn't it xD fun though.

  1994. musictheory 2018-01-31 05:18:00 MessianicAge
    Bb7/D Ebm11 Abm7 is definitely right for the first part. Next part is right except for three things: 1. instead of Eb13/Bb it's actually Bb9sus4 (so on a guitar, the frets would be, bottom to top with an x on each muted string- 6 x 6 5 4 x - the notes being Bb, Ab, C and Eb) 2. instead of the second Emaj7#11 chord you listed it's actually Ebm11. 3. Bmaj13 should say Bmaj6- whenever you add a 6 to a major chord, it is called a 6 but when you add a 6 to a dominant seventh chord it is called a 13. So basically the entirety of the part starting at 2:15 is as follows: Abm9 / / / | Bb9sus4 / / / | Bmaj6 / Emaj7#11 Ebm11 | / / / / | Abm9 / / / | Bb9sus4 / / / | Bmaj6 / Emaj7#11 Ebmaj7 | / / / / |

  1995. musictheory 2018-01-31 20:28:12 rajeshravi777
    Maybe not, but explaining what each chord is fundamentally by breaking it down to every note contained in it with respect to every string and fret on the guitar most certainly does.

  1996. musictheory 2018-02-01 06:53:32 KoalArtichaut
    Hey ! First of, you might wanna post this to /r/composer : compositions critique are more frequent there than here. Otherwise, i think your voicing in the Fm chord is a bit muddy, thirds that low tend to sound like that. Also, order your string section Violin - Viola - Cello - Double Bass. And i think its a bit repetitive. Try to expand on the idea you have. But it's a good start ! Keep writing.

  1997. musictheory 2018-02-01 08:18:50 Likeadize
    Hey, it isn't actually meant to be a "loop". I put the repeat the bar symbol on there to make it easier when writing it and forgot to remove them. It was intended as the intro to the piece. I definitely should try to add more colour (9's, 11's etc.) on the string instead of just "doubling" the notes that are there already. But thank you for your comment, and I will take a look at the things you posted!

  1998. musictheory 2018-02-01 14:04:51 Morgoth714
    I'm not an expert, but I believe it depends how "big" you want it to be and what ensemble you're writing for, but there are standards. Generally the wind section consists of anywhere from 2-5 trumpets, 2-4 trombones (the lowest usually being a bass trombone if there are more than 2), 1-2 alto saxophones, 1-2 tenor saxophones, and a baritone saxophone. Optional flutes, clarinets, horns, and basically any other wind you want can be included, but isn't standard and may be specific to one band. The rhythm section consists of electric guitar, piano, double bass (or electric bass) and drumset. Optionally a vibraphone, other percussion, electric keyboard or other keyboard or string based instrument may be included, but again is not standard. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head but it sounds like a medium sized big band with multiple (maybe 3-4) of each trumpets, trombones, and saxes. Sounds like a standard rhythm section as well. The guitar definitely takes a big leading role in this, which is not unusual but not always common either.

  1999. musictheory 2018-02-02 01:07:04 LongDickOfTheLaw69
    I'd start by learning how to understand keys. Then learn the pentatonic scale. On guitar, it's typically taught in five positions with two notes per string that are fairly easy to memorize. Then learn the major scale. On guitar this is usually taught in seven positions, using three notes per string. Then start working on arpeggios. This would be playing only the notes of a particular chord in ascending or descending order. It's a little more complicated than the other steps, but once you have the major scale down as a foundation it's much easier. You can begin composing and improvising guitar solos with just the pentatonic scale, but the other steps will help you develop more options.

  2000. musictheory 2018-02-02 07:32:38 65TwinReverbRI
    Guitar sounds an octave lower than written. If you write Middle C (C4), when a guitarist plays that note it will sound the C an octave below that (C3, or the C in the 2nd space from the bottom in Bass clef - 5th string 3rd fret) Thus if you want the guitar to sound a Middle C, you have to write C5 (C in the 3rd space, which is played 2nd string 1st fret) Vocal music is the same as piano with the following general exceptions: Tenor voice parts are often written in Treble Clef. Typically when this happens it sounds an octave lower than written. As a side note, you will sometimes see a little "8" under the treble clef for Tenor parts written in treble, and you'll also see them for Guitar as well now. But eve if you don't you should assume that both sound an octave lower than written. In a pop song, sometimes the vocal line is transposed so a pianist can play the vocal melody within hand's reach - so in common "Piano/Vocal/Guitar" style piano arrangements, the vocal part may be dropped (or rarely, raised) so it's playable while you play the chords as well. The answer to the rest of your questions is a little more involved. The simple answer is that originally, there were a lot of clefs and they were all moveable - there's French Violin Clef, which is a G clef that is on the first line of the staff. You're probably aware of Alto and Tenor clefs as well. The reason for all these different clefs and why they were moveable initially had to do with keeping the range of the voice or instrument on the staff lines - French Violin is tuned higher, so making the clef lower on the staff to compensate meant more of its notes could fit on the staff. Same for Tenor - they sing lower than Alto, but their clef is placed higher on the staff to compensate - so more of the notes they sing are on the staff lines. Over time, we gradually accepted using more ledger lines (which used to be less common) so keeping the instrument on the staff was less of a necessity. So we gravitated toward Bass and Treble clefs as we know them on the Grand Staff as most instrument ranges would fit on them. Alto clef is really only used by Viola anymore. It's used in older vocal scores but most Alto singers now read in Treble clef (and just read a good number of notes below the staff!). Tenor clef is used for Bassoon, Cello, and Tenor Trombone (or Trombone in general) when the music goes so high that writing in bass clef anymore is impractical. Again, Tenor vocals used to use Tenor clef too, but that's fallen into disuse as well and they tend to read Treble, but sound an octave lower. Instruments with "contra" in the name - like contrabassoon or "Contrebass" - orchestral Double Bass - sound an octave lower than written (which includes Electric Bass as well). This is "understood" and nothing else is necessarily indicated for them. As such, Double Bass for example can also go up into Tenor Clef, though really it sounds an octave lower. But again all this is to keep the majority of notes on the staff - if we wrote the Double Bass in sounding range, it would all be ledger lines below the staff. And for these instruments that switch clefs, switching to the Tenor clef when they get higher in their range (or the Viola will actually go from Alto to Treble when it gets up high) help keep there from being too many ledger lines above the staff. There are a few instruments that sound an octave above written pitch. We do have "transposing instruments" - like Bb Clarinet - when you play a C on it, it comes out sounding like a Bb note. This was done so a clarinettist can pick up an Eb, Bb, A, or C clarinet, and when they see a "D" they finger a D - the resulting pitch varies but for them, it's a D - that way they don't have to learn a bunch of different fingerings. That's exactly like what we do with a capo (or when we tune down to Eb) on guitar - you still play a shape for a G chord, but with a capo on the 3rd fret it comes out as a Bb chord - and most music still writes it as a G chord and lets the capo do the transposition (just like we let the clarinettist pick up the Eb clarinet and the transposition takes care of itself). So the reason you may not have run into it is that many people will argue with you if you say that "Guitar is a Transposing Instrument" - it "is", but it transposes by Octave rather than some other interval (which some people nitpick and say that's not really a transposition). As a result, it's sometimes not listed along with other instruments that transpose to other notes (but they sometimes will list Tenor voice and Double Bass because those are more "classical" instruments). HTH

  2001. musictheory 2018-02-03 09:14:25 andycavatorta
    A twelve string guitar edit: I know this sub is for music theory. But timbre really does matter. Timbre changes harmony in complicated ways because much of timbre is harmonics. For instance, this is why the piano isn't tuned in 12-tone equal temperament - the harmonics would make 12-tet sound out of tune. I think we don't talk about timbre enough in relation to music theory. Fun fact: a 12-string guitar has only twice as many strings but is 10 times more likely to be used in a song featuring a wizard.

  2002. musictheory 2018-02-03 09:23:56 HiThereSociety
    French horns and a twelve string acoustic guitar. Add some timpani drums and you’re in Mordor.

  2003. musictheory 2018-02-04 06:53:11 65TwinReverbRI
    I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you're asking if you play the same fret on the same string, such as the Low E on the Bass, as you do on a Guitar in dropped C, what happens... The simple answer is what you've already said - it's a Major 3rd above the letter name of the note - C up to E. Even in Drop C, the guitar still sounds a higher pitch than the Bass though, so it's a minor 6th above - E (bass) up to C (guitar). So the chords produced by the pair will always be a relationship like X+Maj3rd of X on the bottom. This would be fine if you only play Major chords on the guitar, but if you were to play say Fm at the 5th fret and then play the Bass at the 5th fret as well, it's going to make an A - while the chord has an Ab in it. It's probably not a sound you want. You could invent a system where if the chord is minor, you just play a fret below the note on the guitar, and if it's major you play the same fret. That would work OK but it would always put all of your chords in First Inversion, which simply means the 3rd of the chord is the lowest sounding note. Again, that's fine sometimes, but it might not be a sound you want all the time or in all your music. I suppose on some level it would be unique, but on another level it could be "the bass player doesn't realize the guitar is tuned down" and people will hear it as wrong. Another thing to consider is you might note play a chord whose root is on the 6th string - for example you could play (assuming the guitar is standard but tuned down to C) a D chord with an A in the Bass if the root of the chord is on the 5th string. If the bass then plays the same fret (9th fret) it's going to sound a C# against the D chord - which again may not be a sound you want. Matters get complicated further if you're in "Drop D Tuned Down a Step" which would make the low string C, but the 5th string G instead of F - so it depends if it's standard but all tuned down, or Drop D tuned down. Any chords with roots on the 5th string will cause yet a different - and likely unappealing result. But otherwise, the Bass note will be a Minor 6th below the Guitar note (note, not necessarily chord).

  2004. musictheory 2018-02-04 07:20:26 LukeSniper
    Are you asking "what happens if I just play the same frets/strings on both instruments?" You get minor 6ths on the bottom string, minor 7ths on every other string. It's just a bunch of parallel harmony. It *could* sound cool, but if your approach is "just play the same thing and see what happens" then it sounds like you don't really give a shit. You should be aware of what notes you're playing and how they relate to each other.

  2005. musictheory 2018-02-04 11:02:13 65TwinReverbRI
    No. Because it's nothing but a string of chords. Does: DFDFDFDFDFDFDFDF have any coherence? What about: ASDGFHEIOCVOGBEJKLA? It's not clear from your post whether the Roman Numerals mean major or minor chords. As written, assuming the key of whatever the I is, which let's say is C Major, you'd have: Em - Bo :: - Dm - C - Em - Bo If you're using a "case sensitive" system, then you have: E - B :: - D - C - E - B Look, nothing's going to have coherence without a I in there. I is your Key. Progression like III - VII - III - VII if it's Eb - Bb - Eb - Bb aren't going to sound like they're in the key of Cm - which by using "III" and "VII" you could be implying. If you want to write a piece in E, E is I, and there needs to some stinking I chords in the progression. If you want to write it in Am, then Am is i ("I") and there needs to be some stinking i chords in the progression. If all you use is "not one" chords, then it's not going to sound like that key, it's some other key, where your 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 chord is actually one. Back to coherence - music is not about chord progressions. Did you know you can't copyright a chord progression? You know why? Because they're about the least important thing in the piece. Thousands if not millions of songs use the same chord progression. What makes them different are the other things, like melody, feel, and HOW the chords are played - not simply which chords are played in which order. ANY chord progression could be coherent if you use some other musical element to tie it together logically. Though I will say that there are some chord progressions that are common enough that they have their own functional logic to them, and those are "more coherent" on their own because we're so familiar with them and kind of know what to expect. And the real question here is, how many songs have you learned that use the chord progressions above? If the answer is none, you're doing the wrong thing to learn about songwriting. You learn songwriting from learning songs, just like you learn to speak by listening to other people speak - not by throwing together random letters and words and hoping something coherent comes out.

  2006. musictheory 2018-02-04 21:14:16 BlueBokChoy
    EDIT : I derped the sharp sign. Should say F#minor Thank you for this long explanation. Unfortunately, some of it does become like pearls before swine (I haven't looked at established chord progressions much\*), but a lot of it is eye opening and makes me realise more things to consider when trying to understand the music I like. I guess I made two mistakes/assumptions when trying to understand this : Ignoring the idea that notes that go across octaves can change/show the actual key of a song (F# minor\*\*), and the way chords change in a chord progression can make it easier to see which notes are being used. Also, if I get confused with this sort of stuff, using a keyboard definitely helps confirm what I think I'm hearing a bit easier than my guitar, because the sounds are a lot more defined, wheras on the guitar unintentional bending of the string and being slightly out of tune or out of intonation makes things harder to understand. All of this does make everything a lot more confusing and complicated when trying to figure this stuff out, but then again, I never did imagine that trying to learn stuff by ear was going to be easy... just that it would be doable after I spent lots of time playing music (about 11 years now). \* I'm a self taught hobby musician, and I wasn't really interested in the folky chord based music, and chords in metal tend to just be power chords (0-7-12) or 0-7-13 or 0 - 6 - 12 chords. I started getting into learning modes and chord progressions relatively recently. \*\* The key is F# minor right? I fully appreciate that you're trying to get me to understand the larger world in making the transcription, but I don't feel confident enough to be absolutely sure I've figured it out right. Thanks again for your time and patience.

  2007. musictheory 2018-02-05 03:36:59 jwiesemann8
    I appreciate the information. I was just curious if other musicians have done it in the past. I'm basically trying to get around having to tune my bass to drop C because it is a 4 string bass, and they seem to not be as pleasant in a drop tuning compared to a 5 or 6 string bass. I've also looked into the digitech Drop pedal which may be the route I'll go just for the ease of writing bass lines connecting with my guitar riffs.

  2008. musictheory 2018-02-05 05:03:31 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, some people who don't know much about music may have done it. Some may have even gotten record deals. But it's not anything that's widespread at all. What you need to do is go up to a higher string guage for your bass - for example, you could put a 5 string set on it, and just throw out the high string, only putting on the lowest 4 strings. Of course, as much as bass strings cost you might be able to find a used 5 string for that!!! But seriously, when you tune down the strings you have on there now they're going to get "floppy". But if you put a higher gauge string on there (even without going as thick as the lowest string in a 5 string set) you can tune it down a little more and it'll still be like playing the normal E on a lower gauge set. Just make sure that the nut slot is wide enough to accept higher gauges than what came on the bass. You should be able to go up a couple of numbers at least.

  2009. musictheory 2018-02-05 09:35:19 LukeSniper
    If you're trying to play the same notes on both instruments, you'll need to play 4 frets higher on the E string and 2 frets higher on the others (on the bass)

  2010. musictheory 2018-02-05 19:54:49 King_Crad
    There's multiple perspectives on this topic, which I'll try and recount without butchering them too much. Hi-Fi aestheticians say that recording technology has got to the point where the human ear is incapable of perceiving such minute differences, e.g. if you recorded a particular performer on a particular violin with a particular recording set up, using that set up every time would yield results so similar that the difference is unnoticeable. Lo-Fi aestheticians posit that, as the commenters have, it is physically impossible to recreate the spectral envelope of that specific string attack, or one specific drum hit etc. No-Fi aestheticians are audio anarchists. They have no time for such issues.

  2011. musictheory 2018-02-05 20:56:05 le_sweden
    Leaning songs will help a lot with that I think. Some people here might recommend learning a bunch of scales and practicing major, minor, etc, all twelve keys, bunch of stuff. But for someone starting out I wouldn’t worry too much about that. Getting to a level where you can have fun and play along with songs you like should be #1. Start with what kind of music you like and want to play. If I wanted to play blues rock I’d focus on learning 1-4-5 progressions and the blues scale. But again, just learning how to play songs is a great way. When learning songs don’t rely just on tab, but don’t be afraid of it either. Use chords as well. The bass is the, well, bass of the voicings. You’ll often be outlining the harmony by playing the root of the chords. Understanding what chords are happening and how your notes relate to them is huge. For example, if you look up a tab and you’re playing first fret lowest string, and the chord is F, then you can say, I’m playing the root of the chord here. It’s okay to have a fretboard chart out and relate notes one by one until you start to memorize the notes without the help of that. But again I can’t stress the importance of actually learning to play songs. Otherwise you’ll get burnt out with all the things there are to learn in music theory.

  2012. musictheory 2018-02-05 21:26:21 Jongtr
    There are some subtle debates about this, but the fretting system on a guitar is certainly based on equal temperament, to concert A=440. So yes, you can and should tune a guitar to piano. (Top E string is the E in the centre of the keyboard, btw.) The debates I mention concern the ability of guitarists to bend notes - to adjust the pitch of any string they fret. The act of merely fretting a string increases its tension by a small and variable amount, potentially pushing it sharp. Some claim they can align their tuning with just intonation in this way (with good enough ears, they probably can). But the point is you *start* from the presumption of ET. That's what is marked by frets, whatever you do with the strings after that. There are guitar designers who produce fretboards with staggered or "wiggly" frets in the attempt to make a guitar's intonation "perfect" (i.e. usually according to some kind of just intonation based on one key). It's true that stretched strings suffer "inharmonicity", which is the reason all guitar bridges are "compensated" (set at an angle, sometimes staggered) - that suggests that frets should somehow be compensated in the same way. But - given the vicissitudes of the fretting process - the adjustments are way too tiny to be practical. (There is real science behind those "compensated" fretboards, but there's a lot of myths about guitar intonation too.)

  2013. musictheory 2018-02-05 21:54:55 JanuaryNi
    This is because on a piano, each note is a different key that you can play, i.e. E, F, F#, G, G# On a guitar, you play these 5 notes all on the E string by pushing down the first fret (F), the second fret (F#), etc. What happens when you want to play an E Chord, which on a piano is E, G#, B and both E and G# are on the same string? It's impossible to play two different notes on the same string simultaneously, so instead, each string plays a E, or a G#, or a B (the notes which make E major), depending on which of those notes it's closest to (E remains E, A becomes B, G becomes G#). The chord does sound different with these different inversions, but you are harmonizing correctly (assuming you're playing with a band or a recording), which is the important part. In case your own example makes more sense, use the C chord - a chord comprised of C, E, G. On guitar, the A string becomes C (third fret), the D string becomes E (second fret), G remains G, and B becomes C (first fret). Do you know how to play a C scale? That can also help you understand why notes are arranged differently. Another interesting and related fact is that there are many ways to play the C chord (i.e. 8-10-10-9-8-8 or you can play x-3-5-5-5-3). The C chord I assume you know (x, 3, 2, 0, 1, 0) has C, E, G, C, E. 8-10-10-9-8-8 is C, G, C, E, G, C and is another common way to play C as a barre chord. You'll notice some difference in how the chord sounds based on whether C is at the top of the chord, at the bottom, or if you have an E or G at the top or bottom. You can change these, depending on which song you're playing, or if you simply develop a preference for one chord over the other.

  2014. musictheory 2018-02-05 23:08:45 Jongtr
    Just to clarify: pianos *are* equal temperament - in that they're not in any other kind of temperament, or in [just intonation] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation). What LukeSniper was referring to is [stretch tuning.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stretched_tuning), which is a subtle adjustment to absolute equal temperament. Aside from inharmonicity (of real strings, as opposed to digital samples), there is the interesting psychology of octaves, whereby people seem to prefer octaves tuned very slightly wide to ones that are exactly in a 2:1 ratio. In any case, stretch tuning on a piano obviously affects the extremes of range more than central register, so it should be negligible in comparison with guitar, which fits the central range of piano. Then again, many guitarists like to tune their 6th (and maybe 5th) strings a few cents flat, especially if they use light strings, to compensate for the effect of fret pressure. As well as fret pressure, if you play a string loud it will go sharp to begin with, and then settle down to pitch, because the wider the transverse movement, the more the tension - the "twang effect" if you like. (Of course that affects piano too, but piano strings are under greater tension so tend to move less than guitar strings.) To put it simply, there are so many variables affecting intonation - *and* the way we *perceive* intonation (equal temperament itself being "out of tune" of course) - that's it's not worth worrying about! Use a tuner, or tune by ear to the relevant piano notes, and you'll be fine.

  2015. musictheory 2018-02-06 00:54:03 LukeSniper
    It's a physical effect of the string. Basically, the higher order harmonics are sharp because the shorter sections of the string those wavelengths occupy are less compliant (flexible). It's hard to explain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inharmonicity This really only becomes a problem in *super* high harmonics, ones that are often beyond the range of human hearing... but not in the bass strings! The octaves are tuned slightly wider than equal tempered so that they *sound* in tune, but they're really "not" (I put that in quotes because tuning and intonation isn't a perfect thing)

  2016. musictheory 2018-02-06 03:33:03 Eddieisfiction
    My favorite progression like this is when you have Ab D# and C. And they are all major 7ths. I personally think it sounds bass ass on a guitar. By the way it’s the major 7th without the 5ths. So 3rd based. Example 0 0 5 5 3 4 <—- low e string. Ab major 7

  2017. musictheory 2018-02-07 12:19:39 all-thethings
    I was a mod there until recently and can attest to this virus attacking thing on these sites. I turned JavaScript browsing off on my phone and no problems there anymore, though. Someone had posted about viruses, and it might be that the layout and formatting make sites more vulnerable to external attacks. Agreed about voicings though. The chords are fine (if in the wrong place); getting the treble notes (high string notes) at the right time would be more important than getting the exact voicing, though. The original (not the one you linked) has a very strong bass that would cover the notes that aren't picked in the acoustic version.

  2018. musictheory 2018-02-07 17:33:32 Jongtr
    The player in the video is fingerpicking, so he doesn't need to hold down all the strings, only the ones he is picking. In fact, he does hold the complete shapes for most of the chords, as far as I can see (which are the same as shown on the chord site) - except for one of the F chords, where it looks like he just holds the middle 4 strings. (On the other F's, he plays the usual 6-string barre - which is a very difficult shape for a beginner.) If you want to play exactly what he does, you would need to learn those right hand finger patterns. Basically, the thumb picks the bass strings and fingers pick the treble strings, and his patterns are fairly standard. But you can invent your own patterns, or just strum the chords - it's still the same song! If you play those same shapes and it doesn't sound right, it may be that your guitar is not in tune. He is tuned to standard EADGBE, so check your guitar with a tuner.

  2019. musictheory 2018-02-07 23:30:39 perrinzorron
    I mean, I even find pleasure listening to the 6 guitar strings played from string 6 downwards

  2020. musictheory 2018-02-08 06:52:25 65TwinReverbRI
    There are "expectations" we are conditioned to, er, expect. For example, when we hear a V7 chord at what we understand to be a cadential point, we expect to hear it followed by a I chord. But if it instead goes to a vi chord, we're "surprised" - that's a "Deceptive Cadence" And the reason it "works" is vi shares some notes with I, so the "expected resolution" is still partially present, but there's a "wrong note" - but it doesn't sound "bad" - just unexpected. But this is a device Mozart liked a lot and a lot of his phrase endings, or endings of pieces, will get to the end where you expect the final cadence, he'll do a deceptive cadence, and then repeat the last bit for the full cadence. After you hear this enough, it becomes "expected" and it loses its effect. And after you've heard enough, you're actually relieved NOT to hear it! There are also "stock" chord progressions - Andalusian Cadence, 12 Bar Blues, "Doo Wop" progression, the "Axis" progression - and some of those are more common in certain styles than others. While music is what you make of it, there are "specific ways of doing things for specific results" - there are just millions of different specific results. Just for example, you're not going to hear a chord progression like C - Eb - Bb - C in a Jazz piece probably - it would be excruciatingly rare. You're probably not going to hear IIm7b5 - to V7b9 - to ImM7 in a Country music song (though I heard a rapper in a Country music song the other day so who knows where that's heading). The way you understand music is by PLAYING music. Learning to play it, and paying attention to what's going on (analyzing the music). Then remember what kinds of things make what kinds of sounds and using them for your own purposes. You can't just open a dictionary and start choosing random words to write a novel (well, a "modernist" novel you could, but that's a different issue). You have to understand the syntax and grammar of the language. And you do that by learning to speak the language - first by ear, then by learning to read and write. I'm still not exactly sure it's of any actual use to know what a direct object is. Learn music the same way - learn to make the sounds of the language - by learning to read and repeat. THen you can learn to write it as well - even if you don't know what a "secondary dominant" is called. It's like an adverb - you just use it to modify or "strengthen" another word. If you do this, music will make sense just like when we string a bunch of letters together to make words and sentences. The music itself is the absolute best resource - listen to it, learn to play it, analyze it, and take what you like and use it for your own purposes. That's how people do it (the people making music, rather than those on forums trying to figure out how to make it based on reading about it rather than playing it!)

  2021. musictheory 2018-02-08 14:34:02 MessianicAge
    Sight-read classical music. Sight-read chords. Sight-read single-string studies where you're having to make insane leaps on one string. You would be surprised how well those three things work (especially the third one).

  2022. musictheory 2018-02-09 07:44:51 pianistafj
    I’d add to this, try to listen to different and smaller groupings of instruments. A few wind serenades, string quartets, brass ensembles, etc. I feel like these expose you to more interesting uses of instruments than your garden variety symphony. Listening to a lot of music like Mendelssohn ‘s Octet for Strings, Tchaikovsky’s Serenade in C for String Orchestra, or Stravinsky’s Octet for Winds will put more interesting or creative combinations of instruments in your mind’s ear.

  2023. musictheory 2018-02-09 08:03:19 weewoahbeepdoo
    Fun orchestration exercises! Pick out piano pieces and orchestrate then for ensembles. Try various ways to draw focus to melody/harmony, mood, timbre, or what have you. I have a lot of fun orchestrating Schoenberg piano pieces for string orchestras. Or Chopin preludes or nocturnes for full orchestras. Adlers book is pretty concise as well.

  2024. musictheory 2018-02-10 01:41:41 65TwinReverbRI
    If the Oscillator is set to its "zero" point, when you play a Middle C on the keyboard, it's going to sound a Middle C frequency (assuming there are no octave shifts in place, etc.). No, one oscillator is not a simple Sine wave - it depends on the type of synth. Some let you choose which waveform the oscillator will be (Sine, Triangle, Saw, Square/Pulse, Noise, etc. are the usual suspects) and some are fixed to be a specific waveform (Saw only for example). It might be possible to that you're confused about what MIDI messages are or do - when you play a key on a MIDI controller, it doesn't make any sound. It only tells the software synth to make the sound. So in other words, let's say you tune the oscillator to 100 cents sharp (which is one semitone higher). When you play Middle C on the controller, a C# will sound. But only the C#, not the C you're playing on the keyboard AND the C# - the C you're playing on the keyboard makes no sound. It just sends an "instruction" in the form of a MIDI Note Message - which tells the VST which note to play and for how long. But by tuning the oscillator up or down from "neutral", it adds or subtracts that amount from the pitch the message tells it to play. The MIDI message is like "play the 5th string open" on a guitar. That's an "A" note - but what actually comes out depends on how the string is tuned. It it's tuned to A, yes an A will come out. If it's tuned to Ab, then an Ab comes out. So even though your brain might be thinking "I'm playing the string that is an A" or "I'm playing the key that's Middle C" what comes out totally depends on the tuning.

  2025. musictheory 2018-02-10 22:31:17 triggSer
    The last one should be a VII° for sure, it's just a voicing for the Dominant V (Bb7b9) which leads back to Ebm. Melodywise it's a cool progression if you voice the chords accordingly and make them 4 voiced chords, adding the seventh when fitting - Gb Ab Gb F on the high end (e.g. on the B string in case of guitar) Db D Eb F (the same F as above, fist 3 on the G string, last on B string), they move towards each other which gives a pretty cool sound. The chords would be Ebm7, F°, (edit: ofc u guys are right that it's) Cb, D°

  2026. musictheory 2018-02-11 12:27:48 stitchgrimly
    The intro chords (tuning DADGBd) are 000230 x32010 (with 1 ^ 3 on the b string) then 000230 x33010 (with 3 ^ 2 on the d string) Note both E strings are tuned down to D. This is how I play it and it sounds great. The album version is tuned down another step iirc. There are two ways to play the verses as he did it differently live/solo (eg. the Massey Hall album). The album version has the first three chords in the verse as xx0230 xx0560 xx0780 I think. I've never really figured out the choruses properly but I *think* it's G7 Cadd2 Em7 and into the riff. The ending is different. Something like D5 Cadd2 Em7 then harmonics on the 7th and 12th frets.

  2027. musictheory 2018-02-11 12:59:53 MessianicAge
    I think it's just a tremolo. I think it's the whole string section doing a tremolo.

  2028. musictheory 2018-02-11 22:00:05 leonardearl
    Avoiding parallel fifths and octaves is about maintaining the independence of multiple voices. So, it applies to all instruments in some way. String quartets are essentially chorales in how they're written. However, if you want to reinforce a voice, you can add another instrument in unison or parallel octaves, with the understamdng that that voice won't have it's own sound. We call this doubling and it is essential to orchestral writing. In the case of the piano, you almost always want at least two independent voices, the bass and the melody, though many pieces have more. But because octaves are relatively easy on the piano and add a lot of strength to the notes being doubled, they are an extremely common doubling, especially in the bottom range of the piano, where the very lowest notes aren't very clear individually, but can help support a bassline if played in octaves. Fifths are less common, but typically they occur when one hand is playing chords and there is little concern about the independence of the inner voices, so they're all voiced as parallel.

  2029. musictheory 2018-02-12 07:16:05 65TwinReverbRI
    So here's the problem: guitarists tend to rely on "patterns" and "shapes" and pianists are traditionally taught to read music. As are all other musicians. And this is where guitarists waste years by reading tab - because the knowledge is not transferrable to other instruments. It even prevents you from talking to other musicians. So I guess my first question, is, do you know where your notes are on the guitar? Every single note, all over the fretboard? If I say, 3rd string, 9th fret, do you know what note it is (and how quickly can you tell me?)? What about if I say play Middle C - do you know where that is? What about if I just say "play all the G# notes you can find?" - can you do that? When you say you know your theory, do you know what NOTES are in an A Major scale? What about what chords are in the key of A Major? Do you know how to form all Major, Minor, Diminished, Augmented, and at least all types of 7th chords, if not 9ths and so on? IOW, if you know what notes are in an A Major Scale, you should be able to play them on any instrument assuming you can figure out what you need to do to produce the notes. Piano is easier because the mechanics are done for you (unlike a Sax or something where there's blowing and fingering to consider (ok readers, get your minds out of the gutter)). So all you really need to do is know where the notes on the piano are. If I say "play a C chord" you need to be able to know what notes are in a C chord - not just a "shape" you play on the neck - but what NOTES are in a C chord. If you know that, and you know where those notes are on the piano - and the guitar - you can play a C chord - in many different potions, inversions, voicings, etc. You can play Piano/Keyboard by "shape" and "pattern" but it does the same kind of damage you're now experiencing with translating your knowledge from guitar to another instrument - by using things that are particular to only one instrument (shapes, tabs, patterns, etc.) those are not immediately translatable to another instrument. But NOTES are - a C is a C on piano and a C on guitar, a C chord contains the same notes on both (you know, generally, not specifically) So that kind of knowledge is easily transferrable. So you can start piano: 1. By Ear 2. By "pattern" 3. With Lessons It all depends on how serious you are about learning it. There's nothing wrong with all 3 of the above because they all have their uses - but they also have shortcomings. So you're doing yourself a disservice as a musician if you're limiting yourself by trying to take shortcuts. If you don't read well, and you're looking to get better, I would seriously recommend formal lessons on both guitar and piano. Or at least do piano and the knowledge will also translate to guitar (since you're already more familiar with guitar). Just make sure you get lessons with someone who understands the style of music you're interested in as playing Bach Minuets might not be all that applicable for what you want to do (but it would still be informative). You also might consider taking some group lessons if you have a local community center, music store, teaching studio, or college that offers them. A lot of times these are less expensive and just like an 8 week course, so you can get the "basics" and then move on to private lessons later.

  2030. musictheory 2018-02-12 11:37:07 10ioio
    By bending the note a semitone up you’re creating tension that wants to resolve back to the lower note. The listeners expectation for this resolution can be played with to express emotion. Plus it sort of sounds sort of sounds like wailing or crying which is kinda something the blues aesthetic goes for. Another big thing is that “blue notes” are a big thing in blues obviously and those sound cool because they’re not really in the scale but the work when used right (I think they’re basically considered alterations to the dominant). And the blue notes are all half steps away from diatonic scale degrees so it’s pretty reasonable to approach them by bending the string for this kinda “crying” effect.

  2031. musictheory 2018-02-12 21:27:41 CrownStarr
    To elaborate on why people are saying leaving out the fifth isn’t that important, there’s basically two reasons, music-theoretical and acoustic. Musically, the fifth is usually redundant because among the most commonly used chords, the fifth is always the same: major triad, minor triad, maj7, 7, min7. The only exception is diminished and augmented chords, but they’re less common. For example, compare Emaj7 (E G# B D#) to Emin7 (E G B D) to E7 (E G# B D). The Gs and Ds vary, so if you leave one of them out, the resulting chord could fit multiple names (is E B D an E7 or an Emin7?). But if you leave out B, you can still tell them all apart. And acoustically speaking, the fifth is the second overtone in the harmonic series. If you don’t know what that means, the tl;dr is that anything making a musical sound (be it a string, a vibrating brass instrument, vocal cords, etc) produces not only “the note” being played (say E), but also a whole bunch of softer, higher pitches called overtones that help define the timbre of the instrument. The fifth is the most prominent overtone for the vast majority of instruments, so when you play E G# D, there actually *is* a little bit of B in there, believe it or not. A quick way to test this, if you have an acoustic piano handy. Hold down a B without playing it - this lifts the damper off the strings so they can resonate freely. Play the E an octave and a fifth below it as loud as you can but let go of it, no pedal. After the loud E fades away, you’ll hear a faint B ringing. That’s because the B overtone from that E vibrated the strings of the key you’re holding down. If you repeat the experiment with an A# or a C, the ringing will be much quieter, if you can hear it at all.

  2032. musictheory 2018-02-12 23:47:16 RushAgenda
    As mentioned several times, the use of chromatism in the bass line is what makes the song special. The song already has a strong melody, with a distinct climax, and the bass line compliments this melody. What you end up with is a counterpoint with a melancholic, longing nature, due to the chromatism. A trick to achieve this effect, is to take use of the diminished chord and it’s ambiguity. Remember - one diminished chord (C dim) can be interpreted as three other chords as well (Eb dim, F#dim and Adim). Each of these other chords can function as leading chords toward a new tonal center. You can listen to the same effect in some classical pieces: Borodin (who loved chromatism as a concept of melody): Nocturne, from his 2. String quartet, and the introduction of the Polovtsian Dances from Prince Igor. J.S.Bach explored chromatism in many of his pieces. Listen to the prelude in A minor from Das wohltemperierte klavier, book 2. Or his fugue from his Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue (BWV 903). Maurice Ravel: Piano Concerto in G, the 2. movement. And in popular music, from the top of my head: - The Beatles: «Because» - Alan Parson Project: «Time» - David Bowie: «Life on Mars»

  2033. musictheory 2018-02-13 13:30:31 Baby_Chickens
    I’ve composed in a LOT of different styles, from fugues to bitonal string pieces to jazz to fast video game music like what you’re talking about. My advice would be to find a few composers whose styles you like or think would fit what you’re trying to accomplish, and listen to as many tracks as you can that sound like what you want to make. Listen through a song once, then listen actively a few more times. Try to pick up some specific aspects you like - instrumentation, rhythms, sound effects, patterns, scales, modulations, whatever. Next, open your digital audio workspace (FL, Logic, etc.) and go for it. Maybe make or choose instruments that sound like they’d be in one of the pieces you listened to. Pick a scale and write a riff in it. Build from there. That makes it sound easier than it is, but it’ll be easier than you think. Source: programmed my own game, did this exact process for writing situationally-specific music. Absorbed a lot of Moondog and Junichi Masuda in the process. Specific tip: remember that a good way to write video game music that isn’t distracting but is still worth listening to is to have specific parts loop (with some minor changes) on a short time scale, and have the entrances of different instruments/parts/melodies/sound effects be drawn out across a longer time scale to build tension and release without making the music the focus of the game. That is, unless you *want* to use the music to distract users, making the game more difficult. In that case, make it loud, fast, and constantly in flux. Depends on the situation, but you should always think about the interplay between the music and its setting.

  2034. musictheory 2018-02-13 23:38:10 xdidusayheadshot
    Hahahahaha I’m sorry, I love John’s music, but I wouldn’t classify Why Georgia as complex. Its just a Gadd9 —-> D——> Gadd9—-> C then if you grab a guitar the strumming part is Em7 D/F# G Cadd9 which is basically putting the pinky and ring on the third fret for B/E string then fret an Em D G and C. It was worth a shot though :) I’ve been doing that B/E string third fret strumming when I first started playing guitar sounds awesome

  2035. musictheory 2018-02-14 08:13:11 FingerNinja1970
    Well hey there! I play guitar too and I transposed it down an octave and got X53220. I took the liberty of adding the A (2nd fret) on the G string which is the 5th from the D. The 5th tends to just reinforce the root without altering the whole color of the chord. Anyway, if I have this right, it seems like a DmMaj7add9. And the funny thing about 'minor major 7ths' to me is that it's the cheeseball chord that gets played during the pause between scenes of a bad soap opera :) I love creepy, Halloween chords ..

  2036. musictheory 2018-02-14 15:46:26 arveeay
    To accurately notate a specific guitar chord voicing and string usage, you will need to use tab or a chord box matrix... there's no add12. The chord name doesn't specify the voicing order, or even always specify the precise notes. E.g. 13s imply but don't require 9s, and generally mean skipping 11. 11s generally mean avoiding 3.

  2037. musictheory 2018-02-14 15:50:16 archofmusic_dot_com
    On a guitar I do this by playing something using the Low E string as the bass. Then I'll play the same riff one string higher using the A string as the bass. This is the easiest way I've found to modulate. It's helpful that the regular tuning of a guitar (E, A, D, G, B, E) is the A Suspended Pentatonic Scale and that E and A hold a perfect 5th relationship with each other.

  2038. musictheory 2018-02-15 03:25:43 DFCFennarioGarcia
    Usually you only find these when analyzing very messy alt or diminished chords. Like say you have C Eb Gb A/Bbb B/Cb C - it's something a jazz pianist might very realistically play (generally with some type of 9ths, 11ths and/or 13ths added as well) but then you try to fit it into a traditional music-theory context and what do you call that B/Cb note? It's not really the 7th because a full-diminished chord with a Major 7th is wacky and you already have a 7th in that A/Bbb note - sure, it's enharmonically a major 6th but again that's weird, you wouldn't think Root, b3, b5, maj6th in most cases, you just think full-diminished and then you're thinking in tidy stacked minor-3rds rather than thinking in both major and minor intervals at once. So in that case if you want to add a half-step below the octave calling it the diminshed 8th makes sense, you'd think Root, b3, b5, bb7, b8, etc and it communicates that the b8 is a whole-step above the bb7. The diminished 6th is a little tougher, I can only really see it in passing-tone situations or in very dissonant contexts. You'd have to be extremely averse to notating different versions of the same scale degree to write a Root, b3, b5, bb6, etc but I'm sure it's been done. You might also be specifically trying to avoid having your player make it sound like a minor with a #4 and really want to make sure they play it as a diminished triad with an extra tone. I'm not sure either one is that common of a concept outside of advanced theory class, most piano players for example would rather see the simplest enharmonics written out, I imagine. For string players who think in pure interval shapes on a grid like I do, though, they can make sense.

  2039. musictheory 2018-02-15 14:39:55 ajarndaniel
    The A string is a perfect fourth above the E string.

  2040. musictheory 2018-02-15 14:40:11 ajarndaniel
    And the A string is higher in pitch than the E, so it's a fourth.

  2041. musictheory 2018-02-15 21:42:00 DRL47
    There are two E strings, the other is a fifth (and an octave) ABOVE the A string.

  2042. musictheory 2018-02-16 22:59:39 all-thethings
    Besides timbre and related acoustic-related properties (resonant frequencies, structure, string length), other factors like dynamics, speed (strumming takes longer than playing the notes all at once), direction of sound (soundhole on guitar faces away from body, sound board on piano either faces toward or parallel to body), and voicing (are you playing the same notes?) may factor in to why the two experiences are so different. (This is likely not an exhaustive list, but these should be considered before comparing the things you can't control.)

  2043. musictheory 2018-02-17 06:19:00 65TwinReverbRI
    FWIW, and IMHO, and YMMV, I find analysis "most useful" as a tool for *comparative analysis* which ultimately leads to being able to (or not) define and categorize musical elements. Schenker-ian-esque-ish "reduction to the point of similarity" does in fact show us something in that regard - that works that can be reduced in that way are all essentially part of the same basic style. Ultimately though, it's pretty clear that Debussy and Haydn were doing different things (at least some of the time). Now putting aside the argument of whether we *should* compare them or not, at least through analysis we can see that Mozart for example is much closer to Haydn, and say Ravel is much closer to Debussy on the whole. We can also say that "blue notes" weren't a common element in music prior to X and such a date and certainly not within the stylistic vocabulary of Beethoven but they certainly exist as a quantifiable element in a lot of music and particularly in specific styles. Where things get a bit more out there is when we get into "analytical" things that are more interpretive and less quantifiable. For example, the use of a dissonance or a "sigh" motive in Monteverdi, the ever-present Appoggiature in Schubert, and the Blue Note "wails" in Blues music - well they might all be there for different reasons, but there is - or there can be seen to be, maybe for valid reasons - a reason for their appearing in all of these different styles. Admittedly, they all do serve a similar expressive touch to all the music, and they are all "dissonant" or "musically onomatopoeia-ic" and seem to defy any of the other stylistic differences between these styles of music. But I do recall a situation I personally was involved in where the question had become "why did Mozart use Sonata Form in this Symphony" and the answer that I was being coerced to give would be something along the lines of "the simultanous return of the primary theme coupled with the return in the primary key makes your brain have an orgasm" or something of that nature. My answer was instead: Every motherfucker back then wrote Sonata Form most typically as the first movement of a Symphony. In short, he did it because it's what you did. That's like asking why did he choose to write a symphony in 4 movements. Or using major and minor chords. Or using a string group as the core. It's what people frickin did. Or else it wouldn't be called a "Symphony". What interests me is when Mozart chose NOT to use Sonata Form for a first movement. Or when he chose NOT to make one 4 movements. And why. That is far more interesting then "making up reasons" that have nothing to do with actual compositional choices. Sure, there might be something to the whole Sonata Form and why it became so universally adored in the Classical Period and beyond, and sure there might be some psychological hocus pocus going on. But that ain't why X composer chose to use it. "I'm going to write a rock song". Ok, grab the Drums, Bass, and Guitar, and start singing. "I'm going to write some EDM" Ok, fire up the DAW and turn on the looper and play with your filter knob. Analysis allows us to first define elements and concepts, and then see which of those things are common or not common across various styles, ultimately leading us to be able to define styles, set sylistic guidelines, etc. and to say whether a piece adheres to those or not. But after all that, I should mention that defining these elements that may not be so obvious are often things that composers *subconsciously* do as part of their working in the style. So Beethoven might not have been thinking about the stuff that Schenker (or whomever) points out, but Beethoven sort of "does it anyway" becuase of the style he worked in. So while some analysis can seem like a bit of reverse-engineering and even not applicable from the compositional perspective, it can shed light on stylistic trends that a composer might not really have any awareness of or control over, just because of the time they lived in or style they worked in, etc.

  2044. musictheory 2018-02-17 06:54:46 65TwinReverbRI
    Couple of things here: 1. Get a teacher. Seriously. If you're serious about it, you need someone to help you. 2. There's a difference between playing an arrangement such as this, and coming up with an arrangement such as this. My recommendation is, if you want to be able to come up with arrangements like this, to get a teacher, and work on learning to play these types of things first, until you've played enough and gotten enough experience with what's going on through familiarity with playing and enough knowledge from your teacher to help de-construct what's going on, until you reach the point where you can construct them on your own. It will not happen over night. 3. Your ear, tabs, other people, online video lessons, chord diagrams, and reading notes are all TOOLS. Use whatever tools are necessary to make it happen. I have to play a gig tomorrow night and although I know the general layout of the song and have heard it my entire life and even played through it a number of times here and there, I have to learn "Immigrant Song" by Led Zeppelin. I could break out some sheet music and learn it from notes on the staff. But it was much easier for me to watch a 5 minute video lesson and now I have the song ready to go. Granted I really kind of already know it, but my point is that the right tool for the job at this juncture - since I need to have it ready quick - is for me to "confirm" what I think I remember with a video lesson which confirmed anything I thought I had so it's now I know I have it (though that doesn't guarantee I won't mess it up tomorrow...). There is nothing wrong with TABS. They are a tool and a useful tool and may in fact be the most useful tool in a particular situation (for example, TAB very quickly tells you which string and fret to play things on, which for chords with higher notes on lower strings with other opposite notes included, makes finding the chord shape quick and easy - where plain sheet music or by ear can make that really difficult to the point you may not even be able to find a working fingering - the tab makes you go "oh, that's how they did that"). 4. However, if you don't read standard notation I would encourage you to learn how to do so. It's an essential skill for all musicians, and the inability to do it not only continues to give guitarists bad reputations among other musicians, but hinders your ability to communicate effectively with other musicians. 5. The stuff he's doing is not "easy" and not even "intermediate" really - playing it can be intermediate, but coming up with it is again a different story. Did I say get a teacher already? I did? I'll say it again then, because that's actually how important it is. But if you do decide to try to go it alone, it's not easy, so don't expect success immediately. It's going to take time. A good instructor will cut that time so you can learn more quickly. Less trial and error, and more making music.

  2045. musictheory 2018-02-17 08:15:56 helippe
    Here's my advice, Emphasis on the 1! Every instrument played like it's a rhythm instrument. Use Syncopation. Drums tight, ghost notes, 99% kick, snare,hats. Bass locked to drums kick, use octaves and short phrases, guitar lines on 1 string, or 2 strings rhythm strumming. Keys, Clav w/wah , B3, Rhoads, or Synth. Horns or percussion is nice as well. Make every instrument find a small hole, in the groove. Keep parts sparse enough so there is room for other instruments. Build it up tear it down. Changing sections is where the power is, hit em tight and it will sound terrific.

  2046. musictheory 2018-02-17 08:48:53 ElKrukador
    Take a chord progression you've written and play it all on the 6th string using each chord's root note instead of the full chord. You'll end up with something like a bass line. Even in it's stripped down form, however, you'll still be able to sense a progression of root notes, and I think it's pretty common for those that compose on monophonic instruments to hash out progressions in this way. If the player wanted to hear how other notes in the chord might sound--perhaps they could use a simple arpeggio pattern to sense the overall effect of the chord. That isn't to say that MANY people don't turn to a piano or guitar to tinker with their compositions aside from their main instrument, but it's certainly possible and one of the cool things is that these alternate approaches often lead to unique composition choices that might not have been made on a polyphonic instrument--a technique you could get a taste of by writing a song and restricting yourself to single note lines.

  2047. musictheory 2018-02-17 15:59:34 hackerthom
    One violin is one string vibrating on one resonant chamber inside of a larger resonant chamber (the room). Twelve violins is twelve strings resonating on twelve resonant chambers, inside of a larger resonant chamber, and also to a lesser extent with each other.

  2048. musictheory 2018-02-18 02:37:04 ljse7m
    its the combination of the micro Pitch differences of each instrumnet as welll as the vibrato fifferences being played together. No two violins sound EXACTLY the same so when played ensemble, the resulting waves combine to give an ensemble color mix of all the violins as well as the where the individual sound waves begin and and do not coincide exactly with the nodes of the waves of the other violin so the indivudialistic sound of each instrument and its particular trength of each partial if the overtone series of each violin that give it its unique sound being averaged togeher so that you get a more generic "violin" sound by some of the partials being cancelled out. of evened out that produes the ensemble sound. Somewhat related to the difference of the 6 string guitar and the 12 string guitar but in the guitar case there are only two sets of strings and some of them are octave strings. so it sounds more like two guittare, one an octave higher than the other than a single guitar. LJSe7m

  2049. musictheory 2018-02-18 13:32:33 beardguitar123
    You should learn the difference between major and minor. You should learn major, minor and diminished arpeggios. (Sweep them, tap them, pick them, rake them, string skip them). You should learn how to write a minor third harmony. You should learn how to write a decent break down. This will be a good start.

  2050. musictheory 2018-02-18 15:39:48 ajarndaniel
    > There are two E strings, the other is a fifth (and an octave) ABOVE the A string. Where did the goalposts go??

  2051. musictheory 2018-02-18 15:41:40 ajarndaniel
    The low E string is an E. The A string is an A. E to A is a fourth. I'm aware of the circle of fifths; we were talking about guitar strings.

  2052. musictheory 2018-02-18 21:31:24 xiipaoc
    Hm, this might inspire me to learn React. The applets are pretty nifty. Regarding the content, one thing I liked was that the vibrating string was described as actually vibrating as opposed as having the *shape* of a sine curve. A lot of these explanations of overtones confuse the e^ikx component of the vibrating string with the e^–iwt component, but this one really focused on the math rather than the physics. Very nice. The only quibble, the only thing I thought was kind of lacking, was at the end how the chord is built. The explanation mentioned three waves being combined when a piano makes three notes, but it did not mention the spatial component, since those three notes don't all come from the same place, which means that the sound is going to be different depending on where you're standing, with different phases for the three components, different amplitudes, etc. It's a very minor quibble that you could argue is outside the scope of the explanation in the first place, but I felt it was worth mentioning at least.

  2053. musictheory 2018-02-19 08:10:36 65TwinReverbRI
    I've found over the years that students often "want to do" something that they have no clue how to do, or worse, don't really understand has nothing to do with their degree! So the first question is, are there guidelines for your project? And "arrangement" is more of what I'd expect from a Composition Major, and even a "transcription" still falls more towards that, or a musicology degree, etc. I'm stuck in this too with Advising - it's tough when a student comes to you excited about something - if we say "it's a great thing, but not what you should be doing for this project" they don't really take that as seriously as they should. So since I have the internet between you and me, I'm going to tell you what your Advisor really wanted to say: "This is not what you're supposed to be doing". I would think a "Music Theory" project would be more of an Analysis than a "composition". If you're going to "write" something, usually it would be something along the lines of realizing figured bass, or maybe adding a missing part to something that a part was lost from (say, a string quartet whose 2nd violin part was lost to time that you write) - a "reconstruction". IOW, what "means a lot to you" may not be in any way appropriate for your project. I have this happen with my Electronic Music students all the time - the point of the final project is to demonstrate all the things you've learned during the semester - not bring in your latest beat (which is boring piece of repetitive crap that uses no more editing than looping parts, and no other things we did the entire semester) or your metal band's demo song (ditto). You should be - I would assume - looking for a project that will allow you to demonstrate what it is you've learned over the course of your degree. Unless arranging was a major part of that, I wouldn't do an arrangement.

  2054. musictheory 2018-02-19 19:24:55 Xenoceratops
    I encourage you to pursue the string quartet arrangement on your own time. I checked out the tune, and it's a good candidate for an 18th-century-style string quartet arrangement. You would need some counterpoint. You could take it further with some compositional know-how, and there is already plenty to talk about in terms of cadences and form, so I don't know what your advisor's apprehension is about. However, I assume that your advisor has his reasons. I'll try to take this a bit further though: I don't think there is much need for a string quartet arrangement of an Irish trad tune. I mean, it's nice, and if you want to pursue it then you absolutely should, but you could accomplish much more for that music in other ways. I would recommend you write an analytical paper instead. If you browse around www.mtosmt.org, you will notice a distinct lack of writing on folk music. This is the case for all music theory journals. Ethnomusicology publications have a fair bit on Irish music, but their academic bent is focused on the social interaction of people with this music. You could describe different kinds of dance tunes, their rhythms, etc., talk about harmony and modality, look at form (compare to [Caplin](https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Form-Functions-Instrumental-Beethoven/dp/019514399X)'s theme types and approach to form), discuss mutability, orality and improvisation, describe different ornaments and examine how and where they are used in a melody, and tie it together with some analyses. That could be a really solid research paper which you could use later to get into graduate programs and maybe develop into an article and/or thesis. Theory has applications beyond composition. Try doing it for its own sake and see where it takes you.

  2055. musictheory 2018-02-20 01:04:47 theoriemeister
    Yes, the Neapolitan can be tonicized via a secondary dominant (or dominant 7th). However, the bII chord is often preceded by VI, which naturally functions like the V chord of the Neapolitan, so you don't need to label that VI chord as V/bII. But when the bII is preceded by a dominant 7th chord (rooted on scale step 6), then you definitely need to label it as V^7 /bII. Check out Chopin's Mazurka in A minor, op. 7/2, mm. 13-14. What I find cool is when the the Neapolitan is followed by its V^7 . This *back relating* dominant 7th chord is *enharmonic* with the Gr^+6 , and serves to return to the tonic key. See, e.g., Schubert's String Quartet in D minor ("Death and the Maiden"), D. 810, I, mm. 328 (which also uses a *minor* Neapolitan chord!).

  2056. musictheory 2018-02-20 15:52:41 shiquorlits
    I made [this](https://i.imgur.com/iAgFk2a.jpg) for memorizing scales/modes in terms of intervals. Designed for a five string bass.

  2057. musictheory 2018-02-20 16:15:19 Gayboysloth
    Major scale (Ionian mode) first. https://www.guitarcommand.com/major-scale-guitar/ Then I'd learn minor scale (aeolian mode) https://www.guitarcommand.com/a-minor-scale-guitar/ It's best to remember them by the formula instead of specific finger locations because the frets change depending on where you're playing on the neck. Keep in mind the B string is tuned a semitone lower, and the high E matches. After that just learn whatever modes you want. also the harmonic minor and melodic minor scales are very useful. Here are the formulas: https://www.guitarmasterclass.net/wiki/index.php/Modes_-_The_Theory_%28lesson%29 https://www.google.ca/amp/s/onevoiceinc.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/5-8-overview-scale-formulas/amp/ If you're feeling frustrated or bored with music, maybe look into getting a synthesizer or something? That's what I'm probably gonna do

  2058. musictheory 2018-02-21 18:43:59 Jongtr
    These are great (pending the change of some of the sharp keys to flat enharmonics ;-)), but I think it would have been better to have labelled the piano octaves according to their usual numbers. Middle C is C4, which you have as the first note of the octave labelled "5". Piano middle C is played on guitar as fret 1 on the B string. It's written differently on notation, because guitar transposes by an octave. I'm assuming this chart is more about matching the sounds rather than position on notation. IOW, although the C below the treble clef is C4 (yellow) in your chart for both instruments, it *sounds* as C3 on the guitar. The sound of C4 is the blue C, in octave 5. As you can see, that makes perfect sense as "middle C" on guitar as well as piano, because it's (more or less) in the middle of the range, just as it is on piano. The range of guitar sits across the middle range of piano. Guitar notation transposes because we only use treble clef, so we drop the treble clef to sit astride middle C. That's a very simple change - just renumbering the piano octaves. (A footnote explaining octave transposition may or may be useful). The enharmonic issue is a trickier amendment, but also more important. You really need to change the "A#" major scale (and similar ones) to Bb, because you need to have one of each note letter. That would mean an A# major scale would have double sharps. Bb major is Bb C D Eb F G A - much simpler. You can go as far as C# major (7 sharps (enharmonic with Db major, 5 flats) , but not beyond to G# major etc. Flat keys likewise can go as far as Cb major (7 flats, enharmonic with B major). Of course, I realise you've designed it for your own benefit, as it makes sense to you. This is just advice to make it relevant for everyone - because you are putting it out there for general use - to convert it to standard theory language. (Enharmonics are definitely a pain for charts like this, because ideally - in the main chart, not the scale charts - every sharp note should appear with its flat alternative, which makes the whole thing messier, less pretty to look at. Unfortunately, that's the way it has to be. As a guitarist and teacher myself, I'm well aware that guitarists tend to prefer sharps, partly because tuners always show sharps not flats, and partly because we're almost always playing in sharp keys because the chord shapes are easier. But it's a very unbalanced way of viewing music.)

  2059. musictheory 2018-02-21 23:58:26 timsea81
    Thanks for your reply. So do brass instruments play a *single* overtone from the series as opposed to the series of overtones that occurs with a vibrating string? If I understand it correctly, when a string is tuned for concert A for example, the sting and surrounding air both vibrate not only at 440 Hz but also 880, 1320, 1760, etc. Is that not the case with the sound coming out of a trumpet? Also, if I understand your explanation correctly, each valve position can play three notes at various options: the fundamental over 3 octaves, the first overtone (P5) over 2, and the 3rd overtone (M3) in one octave?

  2060. musictheory 2018-02-22 01:06:52 stanley_bobanley
    **Fretboard harmony** is the name of the subject that deals with the application of music theory concepts on a guitar. You can read more details online. The CAGED system (or any method that helps you memorize note positions, chords, scales, etc on the fingerboard) would be a pre-requisite to that course in school. Among other rudimentary theoretical knowledge you should have. For a reference on what constitutes "rudimentary" theory, check out this [Royal Conservatory syllabus](https://www.rcmusic.com/sites/default/files/files/S44_TheorySyl_2016_ONLINE_RCM_V2_F.PDF). Obviously won't need all of the information there, but a very early fretboard harmony problem might look like: **Play cycle 4 ascending triads beginning with a root inversion on string set 1-2-3 in D major**. To break down what you need to know here: * How to play in D major *generally*. What are the diatonic chords of D major? * How to play a D major chord scale on the top three strings of the guitar * How to play all the inversions of every triad type that naturally occurs in the D major scale (since you might need them). * How to quickly compute root movements by 4ths.

  2061. musictheory 2018-02-22 01:43:19 m00kystinks
    In really though does matter because music theory is way for make communication easier and is easier when everybody knows using same conventions. You understood what I said just fine, I’m sure, but I’m also sure that wasn’t the easiest read and certainly not the easiest route to understanding, and as a result impedes communication. This is why note choice does matter. Besides, there are cases in which they are not the same note. For example, a seasoned fretless string player will often play a D# as very slightly higher than an Eb, because they have different functions. Obviously there are other situations but in images like these generally I see C# and F#, whereas I see Eb, Ab, and Bb. Going from experience those are the most common. Although I suppose for completeness’ sake both enharmonics could have been used.

  2062. musictheory 2018-02-22 12:05:01 lunrSabr94
    Hi there :) So let's see how we can apply theory to make a song out of this progression. 1. Figure out the notes in each chord. 2. Find the chord name from those notes. 3. Relate them to a key. 4. Use 1-3 to understand how to build a song around this progression. Let's do this right now! **1, 2** First, a quick refresher on chords: to make a chord, you take a note, the note a third away from it, and the note a fifth away from it. That is, you play a major/minor scale (to make a major/minor chord), and take the first, third, and fifth notes you play. And that's it! Now let's relate that to the notes we're playing. I usually start by finding the notes that form my first and fifth, and go from there. The first chord has the notes D, A, D, and E. The D and A form a fifth, and the D occurs twice (i.e. it's pretty strong in the chord), so this looks like it might be a D chord. Let's check the last note to see if that's true! That chord would usually have its third - an F or F# - to make it minor or major, respectively, but instead we have an E (the second note), making it a suspended chord, specifically a sus2. So, the first chord is a D^sus2 (the opening sentence(s) of [this article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_chord) describe suspended chords nicely - I'll also talk about how suspended chords affect the song in step 4). The second chord has the notes A, E, A, B, E. The A and E form a fifth, so it might be an A chord. Usually an A chord would have a C or C# for a third, but instead we have a B (again, the second note), which means this is another suspended chord - specifically, an A^sus2 . The third chord has the notes C#, F#, A, B, E. This chord is a bit harder to figure out, since the notes are so different. I played this chord on the guitar and noticed that the lowest note, C#, is followed by an F# which is its fourth. But if you look at it the other way around, F# to C# is a fifth! Sometimes the root (first) note isn't the lowest note, and that's ok - it just means the chord is [inverted](https://www.musictheory.net/lessons/42). If F# is the root note, then C# would be our fifth and A would be our minor third - an F#^min. The B and E just come from letting the two highest strings ring open, so it makes sense that they're just additions to that chord. B is the fourth of F#, and E is the seventh of F#. Without the B, this would be a minor seventh chord (a minor chord with a minor seventh added to it). So with the B (the fourth note), we can say it's an F#^min7(add4) . The fourth chord has the notes B, E, G#, B, E. E and B form a fifth, and G# is the major third of E, so that's an E^maj chord in second inversion (i.e. the lowest note is its fifth - the B). If you take a look at the fingering shape of the chord, you'll notice that if you play the E string open you just have the usual E chord :) **3** *So what does all of this mean?* Ok, so let's put all of our chords into a progression: D^sus2 - A^sus2 - F#^min7(add4) - E^maj We now want to find our key, so we can use that as a base to put more things into the song. The key isn't immediately obvious from the progression we have written down, so try to play it on the guitar again a couple of times and see which chord feels the "most like home." To me, the A^sus2 chord felt like it was the root, so let's try to see if that's actually true, theory-wise! Let's try the A major scale: A B C# D E F# G# All of the notes in our chords are squarely in that scale, so that's a good sign! Also in the scale, a D chord would be the fourth chord in the scale, so let's give it the roman numeral IV. A would be the first chord, so it would be I, F# would be the sixth chord so it would be vi (lowercase because it's minor), and E would be the fifth chord so it would be V. So our progression becomes: IV^sus2 - I^sus2 - vi^7add4 - V So the progression doesn't start in the chord that makes the key (i.e. the I, or A), and that's okay! And yes, the key is A major for sure. **4** So let's talk about what makes this progression pretty! (warning: this will be generalized and watered-down; the point is to convey a basic sense of what chords do to your song, and is basically me making up feelings and such to make my point ^so ^pls ^don't ^hang ^me^thx ) Usually the IV and V chords cause tension that drives you towards I, which is home. Music basically works by keeping you home for a while (through the I chord), taking you through other chords for fun, then taking you real high up where it's tense (IV and/or V chord), maybe keeping you there for a bit, then dropping you back down to home. Some songs might start off at home, or start of tense, or end without taking you home, or maybe even somewhere else. Your progression starts off a bit tense, then takes you home (IV -> I), but then takes you somewhere a bit solemn but familiar(that's what a vi does), then takes your breath away for a second (V is the chord that causes the most tension). The most basic, subconscious expectation that we have is that a V goes to a I (try it on your guitar! A^maj -> E^maj -> A^maj). Instead, in your song, we go from V to IV, which just changes the feeling of tension instead of resolving it. However, after that IV we resolve the tension with a nice I, so it's all good, but the cycle keeps on repeating. So what does the ^sus2 and ^7 parts of the chords do here? The ^7 just enriches the sound of the chord and makes it fuller and more colorful. The ^add4 adds tension and a bit of dissonance to your vi chord, which makes for a particularly 'sad'/'lost feeling' when you get to that chord from the I that's before it. The more interesting thing is the ^sus2 ! Instead of the IV and I having a defined major/minor flavour (play a major/minor A and you'll see what I mean), the chords just skip that entirely and have this open, 'airy' feeling instead. To me, this means that the IV feels like it's hiding its tension from the listener, and the I is hiding its homey-ness and familiarity, and instead both of these chords dance around each other without an obvious tension/relief boundary (which I personally love). ====== So know you know two important things: what your key and chord progression are, and why they make your song sound the way it sounds. So let's build on that! What do you want your intro to be like? If you want an intro that would ground your song a bit more, consider just reinforcing your key by only playing your I chord in it. You can play the A^sus2, but you can also play an A^maj to really get the key rooted into the listener's head. Or you can make it interesting and open with the IV^sus2, then end the intro with a V - I^(sus2?) , then go into your progression. Or you can even add new chords in there, e.g. your intro can be I - III - I - IV or something like that. Now that you know your key, you can go anywhere and do anything! What do you wanna sing on top of this? Although the chords might seem strange, singing anything on the major scale will work fine, so there's nothing unusual there. Although, one interesting thing you can do over the suspended chords (the IV and the I) is sing on the minor scale! And then, go back on the major scale for the other two chords (vi and V). Basically, now that you know your key, you can add any chords you want from it to build out the rest of your song, and you can just write your melody from its scale. You've also learned about suspended and inverted chords, so you can use that in the other parts of the song on any chord, and see what you can come up with. Good luck! *phew that was long*

  2063. musictheory 2018-02-22 12:12:47 RocketCheetah
    If you're looking for practical examples, off the top of my head I can think of [Shotstakovich's 8th string quartet](https://youtu.be/-0nKJoZY64A). Unfortunately, I can't recall exactly where the double sharps happen, but they are there.

  2064. musictheory 2018-02-23 13:01:47 pianistafj
    I would count 1 & 2 & ... There’s no need to really count beyond an eighth as they’re subdivisions. It’s like double tonguing on a wind instrument or tremolo on a string, you only really think down to the 8th or maybe 16th in really slow music. I’m not sure it would be all that productive in teaching to make a student count down to the 32nd, unless you’re working in articulations— and in that case use the articulation sounds that fit your instrument.

  2065. musictheory 2018-02-23 21:10:30 sychosphere
    Id say there are 3 aspects of learning intervals. First one is knowing the actual notes. i.e you know a sixth from C is A and a flat third from G is Bb etc. To learn it id try to write chords, think about them and say notes while practicing scales / arpeggios. Its not the fastest way but it worked for me. I also sometimes help myself by visualising the fretboard in my mind when in doubt. 2nd one is know the formula on the fretboard. You should learn visually where each interval is in relation to root note. i.e major sixth is on the same fret but two strings higher from the root note on G string. Try to learn formulas for all root notes. Id suggest caged system or watch some tom quayles stuff regarding that. He talks a lot about it. 3rd one is ear training. You work on it everytime you conciously listen to what you play and pay attention to intervals. Id suggest some apps (cant help you with that tho) since playing on guitar and trying to "guess" the interval is pointless. Hope it somehow helps you ; )

  2066. musictheory 2018-02-24 03:11:37 casseio
    This. Might be out of place on r/piano but after tuning my cello countless times I just think about the pitch of each of the four strings, then shift higher or lower from the closest string.

  2067. musictheory 2018-02-24 15:29:47 Xenoceratops
    The harmonics in a distorted signal are not perceived as new "notes" but as part of the timbre. In tube distortion, the voltage exceeds the tube's ability to accurately reproduce the waveform. An increase in signal amplitude clips the peak of the signal and makes it closer to a square wave. (The more it is clipped, the closer it gets to a square wave.) Solid body electric guitars produce a triangle wave because the waveform of a vibrating string is a triangle wave. A solid body reflects rather than absorbs the energy of the vibration. This means the body does not interfere with the harmonic structure of the string (as opposed to the sound board of a hollow body or acoustic, which absorbs energy). Consequently, the sound of the amplified signal from an electric guitar is pretty close to that of a naturally vibrating string. A single note/pitch/frequency under distortion has a different timbre from multiple notes. As soon as you have two or more frequencies you get intermodulation distortion, which produces combination and difference tones. This, combined with waveform clipping, introduces pink or white noise to the signal. This is the reason that complex chords or even intervals that do not have a simple whole number ratio sound muddy on distorted electric guitar.

  2068. musictheory 2018-02-25 02:40:13 french_violist
    Yes. From years of playing guitar and viola. It just happens gradually. Though you can develop it, by “practicing “ without your instrument, for viola for instance it’s going through the score and visualising the fingerings and string crossings.

  2069. musictheory 2018-02-25 09:18:12 Perusurper1000
    So, that’s natural then. I own a 12 string extended range string instrument that’s tuned from B00 to G6... when you try to identify intervals in these octaves, you learn quick that the intervals become harder to recognize. That being said, I have a counter to your question. How much do you play in the C0 to C1 and C7 to C8 ranges? It took me a long time to learn how to utilize these ranges in improv, and I think that they are a whole study unto themselves... Just imagine if you had a hypothetical C10 to C11 range, or a C000 to C00 range? The point is, yes, certain octaves are so beyond the ability of human hearing that interval recognition is incredibly hard to impossible. Is this genetic? Idk, certain octaves aren’t even used in music because the notes with sound indistinguishable.

  2070. musictheory 2018-02-26 03:35:29 DANYALDANYAL
    In the last ten years in hiphop the producer Cardo can be credited with bringing it back. He sampled Loose Ends - Hanging On A String for Wiz Khalifa and set off a chain of type beats. Love that sound

  2071. musictheory 2018-02-26 10:02:21 Beeeitch
    I completely agree with u/65TwinReverbRI. I just want to emphasize the importance of his first method of "just going there." I've found that a undeniably "jazz" feel comes from modulating WITHOUT any sneaky borrowed chords or anything like that. For example, a long string of seemingly "unrelated" maj7 chords (like what you might find in an R&B loop) is an extreme case. Basically, sometimes a sudden key change can sound real neat and juicy, especially if the first chord in the new progression is not the tonic of the new key.

  2072. musictheory 2018-02-26 15:23:34 adrianmonk
    Just a guess, but maybe it is because they are thicker, and as you strum downward, if your pick hits the thick string first, it would be relatively easy for it to pass over the thin string without making (much) contact. Whereas if the thin string comes first, it won't deflect the pick enough to cause that problem.

  2073. musictheory 2018-02-27 04:06:35 saberkiwi
    I don't have an answer, but I have similar experiences. There are certain chord voicings on the piano that I can pick out note-for-note if I already know them, but only in specific keys. For instance, Billy Joel's "Angry Young Man" — he has a riff at the beginning of the tune that's repeated between most verses, and I can pick those out in the original key, but not always in other keys. I think it *must* be like muscle memory of a sort. I imagine that because we are a verbal species, lyrics are imprinted easily; because we listen more to intervals than to set keys, melody comes easily. Definite pitch... I dunno. Maybe string players have a higher familiarity with it, since there's much more precision in exacting their pitch with every note than, say, a pianist, who can lean towards being more tactile/visual with their playing.

  2074. musictheory 2018-02-27 05:30:18 65TwinReverbRI
    Yes, it's for strumming direction - especially on things like a 12 string guitar. When you strum downward, you'll get the thinner string first, which "sounds out" better. Of course, that means upstrokes have the opposite effect but since on average, players do more down strokes then upstrokes (and play many more passages down stroke only) your more likely to catch the octave. Personally, when I play a 12 string, I use a really thin pick so that it catches both strings on the upstrokes as well - or at least has better odds at catching both strings of a course!

  2075. musictheory 2018-02-27 10:51:19 DJ_Ddawg
    What type of chord charts did they give you that was a nightmare? I’m in the top jazz guitar spot for my High School band and I Mostly use drop 2 Chord Voicings on the bottom and middle four string sets for 7th Chords and also to create Extensions. I also use triads and am getting into Quartal Harmony. Granted I’m in the theory class our high school offers and Harmony wise I know the most out of my class because I really studied the subject to be able to understand and analyze what is happening in a standard.

  2076. musictheory 2018-02-27 11:24:25 BeckettTheMan
    At the time the Jazz band teacher had shown me gross 6th string voicings that I would never use in a jazz environment, even now. Also you are correct in creating drop 2 and d string root voicings. I currently form my chords by the 3rd 7 and drop the root and 5th as it's not necessary, then play the extensions. Right now I'm working on sight reading and working out the kinks in my jazz playing and intervals, lots and lots of interval remembering. I religiously practice them, and considering you obviously have experience in the environment I'm trying to get into, any tips would be great!

  2077. musictheory 2018-02-28 00:25:00 m3g0wnz
    This is probably the best explanation of what my insistence on dotted eighths is about. A string of dotted eighths is very likely a polyrhythm and not a syncopation; the beat is actually changing.

  2078. musictheory 2018-02-28 01:51:48 happymeal98
    Yeah, your two examples are spot on. I've learned instinctively over the years to voice my chords like the latter, or wherever the added 9 or 11 made the most sense. Just, in my mind, I've always just called it a C2 or Cadd2 because of the functional harmonic purposes. Although, sometimes in finger picking, I've used the former, hammering on to the 2nd fret for the 3rd. Could work, though, if you're just doing a nice muted riff, emphasizing the M3 on the D string with a hammer-on. The jazz stuff is still the next level for me, but I intuitively could imagine why you'd drop the 5th first.

  2079. musictheory 2018-02-28 04:38:29 HotspurJr
    You're right. At the last second I rewrote those chords with the G on the high e string, rather than leaving it open, and didn't recognize that there was no longer an E in the first one. Sorry about that error. I would a) probably never play the chord I called a "Cadd2" and b) was calling it that to differentiate them because of the way the OP was talking about them, to call attention to the specific difference he was asking about. That was intentional.

  2080. musictheory 2018-02-28 06:59:16 Hexspa
    I used to think the same. Listen to "Something About You" by Level 42. There's a major 10th harmony between the verse and prechorus. https://youtu.be/E-zP66eSLto?t=52s You can't call it a third. Naturally, extensions are, by definition, open-voiced. I respectfully advise you not to over-transpose. Of course, know they're octaves and can nominally be interchangeable but the various absolute values of octaves very much matter in music. Even most guitar chords don't use consecutive thirds below middle C. The main exception is, of course, the open C. Even then, your ear is drawn to the upper voices. Use your octaves! And like I told someone else, I don't think you can play a 1-2-3-5-7 on guitar - at least not practically. That's a mu major and even, who was it - Larry Carlton? - determined it was impossible to play on guitar for the session. You hear all that crap with keyboards or maybe independent voices like horns, string ensembles, and voices. If you want to play Jazz, or even anything besides rock, start thinking of the first and second (my favorite) 3-string group. So E-B-G and B-G D. This will make voice leading much more necessary and that'll make you sound instantly professional. Lastly, it's all about the third and seventh. Don't worry about roots and fifths unless in a Rock or solo situation. One more thing: learn some piano! It's been helping me so much. There's no way it can't help you understand voice leading, improve your ear, and give you more compositional flexibility what with the 10 fingers and all.

  2081. musictheory 2018-02-28 14:59:37 7flat5
    Guitarists read from treble clef, so you can transcribe as you would for any other instrument that reads from treble clef (like a violin, for example). The guitar sounds an octave lower than written, however, so you will often see guitar music transcribed using tenor clef (treble with an 8 at the bottom). I would start by taking a look at scores that have been composed with the guitar (or lute) in mind. [Here's a short piece by Carulli](http://ks.imslp.net/files/imglnks/usimg/8/85/IMSLP241349-WIMA.adf9-Carulli_Allegretto.pdf) We see the melody with beamed 16th notes and sustained bass notes are notated with the stems down to distinguish them from the melody. The last two bars of the piece are examples of voiced chords. Assuming that the piece is written for guitar using a standard E tuning, the last 3 sororities are G major (open G string, open B String, and 3rd fret of the high E string), and another G major voicing (3rd fret of the low E string, 2nd fret of the A string, open D string and open G string). If you are looking into transcribing a second where only block chords are being played, and the guitar doesn't have any melodic responsibility at the same time, you might want to notate using lead sheet style notation with the chord above the staff and one measure of the notated strum pattern followed by subsequent measures of slash notation. Are you familiar with how to read as a guitar player? Those who don't come from the classical tradition (me included) often don't have the best reading capability. As a jazz player, I'm seldom asked to read anything more than the occasional diad. That being said, learn how to read in a few positions is a worthwhile skill. [Here is a good book to start with](https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Studies-Guitar-Positions-Multi-Position/dp/0634013351/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1519800989&sr=8-1&keywords=guitar+sight+reading&dpID=51Dnxc7BWsL&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch)

  2082. musictheory 2018-02-28 19:35:21 nbuddha
    There's a few reasons, but most likely is that the note is near to a chord tone, so we want to hear it resolving to that chord tone. Like say you're playing a phrase over that Am progression, and you end the phrase on G note, but the underlying chord progression ends on the Am chord when you finish your phrase and play a G note. Am chord is A, C, E - no G note in there, so while you could end the phrase on the G, your ear is probably going to hear that note as wanting to move somewhere. Given the G is just a full tone (2 frets) away from the root note of the chord (A, obv), moving it up a full tone to the A will most likely make your phrase feel more resolved. Similarly, you could drop the G *down* three semi-tones (which is a full tone and a semi-tone; 3 frets) to an E note, which is also in the Am chord and again your ear will probably pick up a much stronger sense of resolution than letting the G note end the phrase over the top of an Am (A, C, E) chord. And it's the same with other notes/chords in the key (or any key): in my other reply I mentioned playing an F note (which is in the Am scale/key) over the Em chord (which is again a chord in Am - no out-of-key trickery here). That's going to sound fairly gnarly - you can try it by playing the open Em shape with an F note on top, 1st fret of the high e string: 0-2-2-0-0-1 Dissonant, right? So if you play a phrase that lands on that F note when the Em is the chord underneath, you're not likely to hear that as particularly pleasant. The F is 'in key' but is *right beside* the most stable note you could play over the Em chord (the E note). It's so close to that stable note that your ear probably wants to hear the stable note and not this dissonant flat 2nd. So tl;Dr again - chord tones!

  2083. musictheory 2018-02-28 21:27:18 tdrusk
    A lot of metal bands seem to play in minor keys, but add a sharp 7 for suspense. For example line 26 of this song https://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/tab/all_shall_perish/eradication_guitar_pro_753690 If that doesn’t open, most of the riffs involve the second string in a 2,3,5,7,8 pattern, but occasionally they throw in a 5,7,8,4 pattern. Is there a name for this? Are there times when it sounds better than others? (I’m assuming when the rhythm hits overlapping notes in the minor and harmonic minor scales). Just looking for some elaboration on this. Thanks.

  2084. musictheory 2018-02-28 21:53:40 JP200214
    The caged way of scales sucks. 3 notes per string is better

  2085. musictheory 2018-02-28 22:09:37 65TwinReverbRI
    Agreed - just keep reading. You know, I'm almost inclined to suggest you buy a beginner Viola book like the kind they use in School Bands (Standard of Excellence and similar). They're not horribly expensive. It's kind of funny but once we humans learn to do something well, we tend to both forget we started from the beginning with that skill and we're afraid/embarrassed or whatever to go back to the beginning with something that probably needs to, but we think we can "short cut" it. I'd say the same for Horn especially - you're right that there are different notations but I'd learn the current standard first rather than barrage myself with 2 or more at once. But of course, just reading reading reading will help. Try reading Viola in a String Quartet - the other notes will help you cross check what you're reading (or think you're reading). IOW, it's fine to work on Viola in isolation, but having the others as reference points is not a bad idea as well.

  2086. musictheory 2018-02-28 23:27:53 SquanchMcSquanchFace
    I mean scales for string instruments at least, like on piano, are meant to teach finger patterns as much as key signatures. Ideally you should be able to do or teach scales in 2 or 3 patterns. Sadly it’s often about just doing the task without teaching why.

  2087. musictheory 2018-03-01 00:07:19 SquanchMcSquanchFace
    That’s definitely how it should be done. I play bass and if I’m trying to play something in solo tuning pitch (a step up) on orchestral strings, I just need to know the fingering/intervals to transpose. A great way to show that on string instruments is doing major scales on the open strings going up the fingerboard, four scales with the same exact patterns and placements.

  2088. musictheory 2018-03-01 02:10:39 PlazaOne
    It looks like it’s possibly a geometric pattern, rather than a musical one. For example, on a guitar, starting at the eighth fret, move root note across one string, move root note down two frets, move root note back across to previous string, move root note down two frets, move root note up four frets, repeat. These type of patterns don’t always cycle back to where you want, which might explain the doubled bar.

  2089. musictheory 2018-03-01 02:23:51 BenjiMalone
    "Vocalists are the worst musicians; they don't know any theory because they are raised in 12tet culturally and their ears can easily transpose their voice to any key. It takes no talent or skill at all, and they think they're hot shit for no reason. Have seriously met vocalist music majors who don't understand time signatures or clefs... what? Have fun never singing pieces in 5/4 or 9/8 that use polytonal techniques. Like I can never play septimal sevenths on a piano or guitar, and you don't even consider the fact that you can embellish your voice to hit a better (or different) sonority. On that, anything is singing. When I *talk* it is pitched and rhythmic." "Music lessons are stupid. You need to get the instrument and teach yourself from minimal online sources and theory. If you are taught by someone you take on a whole load of biases that frame how you perceive and play an instrument." Soooo..... Vocalists need to learn on our own... But we're too dumb and cant learn... And yet it takes no skill... Lol! You are full of shit! I will admit that some singers are bad with theory. But for those of us who take it seriously, it requires at least as much skill as an instrumentalist. We have to pull pitches out of thin air. We can't just pluck a string on the 7th fret and get the same note every time. You have to work for that shit. We also have to read lyrics (I've sung in around 20 languages) and diction in addition to all the articulation that other musicians have to deal with. Not to mention navigating breath control, and the effects of weather and illness on our instruments. Also, what bullshit is this - "Embellishing your voice to hit a better sonority". Those words dont even mean anything.

  2090. musictheory 2018-03-01 03:58:00 financewiz
    I'd recommend listening to some Jazz string players to see how they dealt with it. A couple of cellists: Hank Roberts and Fred Katz. Hank played with Bill Frisell, Fred played with Chico Hamilton. Stuff Smith is one of the most famous violin players in Jazz. He had his own distinctive style. You can find others.

  2091. musictheory 2018-03-01 08:57:42 Here_for_points
    This helped me also, but I feel like the approach should maybe be taken a little differently or explained in a different way. How the shapes are connected and how they can be moved, encouraging more horizontal movements and learning your scale all over the fretboard. I learned the 7 shapes, and know that the aren't exactly applied the way people will explain modes. But I know they can all just be moved around accordingly. I feel like most people should be able to figure that out if it is explained properly. Perhaps this is because I prefer to visualize things with the 3-note per string method rather than the CAGED system.

  2092. musictheory 2018-03-01 10:13:22 view-master
    Unfortunately most guitar players learn those patterns and understand them as modes, but they really aren't. IOW they define it as a different mode just because that particular pattern doesnt have its lowest note on the low E string as the root of the scale.

  2093. musictheory 2018-03-01 20:26:34 woizeck
    counterpoint can most certainly be done with chords of more than 3 or 4 notes, and can definitely be done with post tonal harmony. if you think about counterpoint in the sense of building harmonies through contrapuntal lines which play off against one another (and not the harmonic rules of counterpoint, which are kind of a different thing), then it can be applied to almost any harmonic style or writing style. there are composers who are entirely focussed on line and contrapuntal lines in 20th Century music. someone like Berg for instance is very contrapuntal, and his music is often about picking out the harmonies from the various lines. you could even argue somebody like Elliott Carter is a very contrapuntal composer, particularly in his String Quartets because they are all about the relationship between the different lines of music and how they work together (or against one another)

  2094. musictheory 2018-03-02 00:47:22 legatostaccato
    ...i'm pretty sure no professional guitarist actually thinks about PATTERNS and shit anymore. it's been so long since they, started playing, that you just play what you hear in your head, and string changes can be done either for convenience or for the sound. i mean of course faster passages will be a bit more reliant on muscle memory stuff, but come off it.

  2095. musictheory 2018-03-02 05:22:29 65TwinReverbRI
    Some advice: Many people - young people especially - have not listened to much Classical music. They then hear Beethoven 5 or a Beethoven String Quartet and decide they want to become a composer. And of course, they want to compose a Symphony or String Quartet. In fact, you'll constantly see people post "hey, here's my very first composition, Symphony #1 Opus 1" or "here's my very first composition, String Quartet Opus 1". Some even go so far as to give their "compositions" subtitles... It's naive. Even Mozart's first piece was not a Symphony or String Quartet. And his Symphonies are pretty run-of-the mill until you get up into the mid 30s. But everyone wants to come out of the gate with Beethoven 5. It doesn't work that way. What you should start learning is music by other people first. You need to listen to everything you can get your hands on, and play everything you can get your hands on. And let's put it this way - if you can't play through a String Quartet at the piano, you've got no business writing a String Quartet. Learn to play music of others, then learn to take it apart and see how it works, and then try your hand at making your own music, using theirs as a model. Also, a secondary bit of advice: It's 2018, not 1820. Music has moved on since then. Composing music in a "classical" style is not unlike writing with the kind of prose someone from the Victorian era used (if you read books from that era, there's a "wordiness" to them that doesn't seem modern). Now you can certainly learn skills from learning to compose "ancient" music - but I find that people want to compose "Romantic Orchestral Works" - but if you're going to write out-dated music, why not write music from the 1300s, or 1600s, instead of 1800s. Or dare I say, the 1900s? There's this over-emphasis on Romantic Period works, styles, forms, composers etc. Of course unfortunately that music still seems to find a home in "epic film scores" but most of those aren't the level of a Beethoven or whatever - they're just pale imitations a lot of times - because the composers learn the clichés, but not the meat of what composing is. So if you want to compose in that style, do, but do so because it moves you, and do so intently, to master it. And honestly, your best bet is to work with a teacher. Beethoven and Mozart both studied with Haydn. Nadia Boulanger taught many famous 20th century composers like Stravinsky. There's no shame in taking lessons.

  2096. musictheory 2018-03-02 06:46:07 knowledgelover94
    Mmm, well thanks for sharing that concept with me! haha I was referring to Scriabin's Prometheus: The Poem of Fire. Awesome orchestral piece if you've never checked it out. I think there's some heterophony between the string and piano at one point.

  2097. musictheory 2018-03-03 09:13:12 65TwinReverbRI
    Look up the Tacoma Narrows bridge. The bridge was destroyed by resonance - wind gusts caused it to vibrate at it's resonant frequency. There are videos of it and people are always astounded when they see metal and concrete vibrating as if it were a guitar string. So you could have a conceptual "Bridge" instrument not unlike the Golden Gate Bridge or something, where you "played" it by driving a car across it or something. Speaking of cars, there are roadways where they have carved lines into the pavement so that if you travel a constant rate, it will play a song. While it's more like the car is the instrument and roadway is the "data", it could stretch on for miles!

  2098. musictheory 2018-03-04 12:07:29 timsea81
    The pattern of whole and half steps that define the diatonic scale is more intrinsic to the physical structure of harmony than the chromatic scale is. The former is a direct consequence of the harmonic series - the physical phenomena through which a vibrating string, reed, vocal chord, etc sends vibrations to the air at many different frequencies at the same time, where each vibration is a multiple of the others. Concert A for example is tuned to 440 Hz, but an instrument playing that pitch would also generate sound at 880, 1760, 3520 Hz, etc. Those additional frequencies are called "overtones." Our ears hear a doubling of frequency as the same tone an octave higher, so the first overtone is not a new pitch, but rather the same as the fundamental but an octave higher. The 2nd overtone however is a new pitch - one octave plus one perfect 5th higher than the fundamental. The third is the same as the fundamental but 2 octaves higher, and the next new tone to occur is the major 3rd. Put those 3 notes together and you have a major triad. If you build a major triad up from and leading to any note, you get that note's major scale. For example in the key of C you'd have: C-E-G G-B-D F-A-C Write them in order you get C-D-E-F-G-A-B The chromatic scale comes about when you do that in all keys and come up with all 12 tones, then re-write them in order. It makes more sense to see it that way on a chromatic instrument like a guitar, but the instrument we all have, our voice, doesn't work that way.

  2099. musictheory 2018-03-04 15:19:00 palapiku
    > This better matches the physics of tones produced by a vibrating string plucked at various distances. Maybe, but we *think* in scale degrees, not in terms of the underlying physics. When we think about A minor, we think of something closer to 1 2 3 4 5 6 than 1 3 5 6 8 10 11, and the notation reflects that. > Im a computer programmer by trade so As an analogy, what you are suggesting is like giving up programming languages and just using machine code because it better matches the underlying hardware.

  2100. musictheory 2018-03-05 00:25:16 Icommentor
    There are 2 points I’d like to make: 1: The vast majority of music that exists is built around scale patterns. If instead is was purely chromatic, we’d have a chromatic notation system. 3: I play several instruments but mostly guitar. String instruments make it harder to read sheet music because they are very chromatic. Guitarists often learn by themselves, at least partially, so on top of that they discover sheet music late, making it even more difficult to internalize. What I’m saying is that you would not think that notation was problematic if you were playing another instrument.

  2101. musictheory 2018-03-05 02:01:24 65TwinReverbRI
    >I can't really figure out what's is going on from like a Roman Numeral chord number POV. And why does this matter? How does it help you? >When I transpose the part up even like two semitones it doesn't sound like it works, it sounds like it only works in this very specific part on the keyboard, which is completely foreign to me. That shouldn't matter. It may be that you're just so used to this one, anything else sound foreign, but out of context, as long as the relationship is the same any transposition won't change the effect. >Is it some sort of Bb13b9aug5 chord? so the V of i, if Ebm9 is our i? There you go. See. You got it. So now you can call it a "V" of some sort. See, "naming it" explained it didn't it? Wait, no, it didn't it? Right, that's my point. Simply "naming" a chord or "figuring out it's Roman numeral might not be all that informative. What's "going on" is a common Funk move - and this happens on guitar a lot because it's easy for us to do, is a minor triad such as Bbm, typically voiced Db-F-Bb on guitar (one finger across the upper three strings) moves up chromatically to Bm. Now if you place Eb under the first (or Eb and Gb if you like) you get an Ebm9 (this is also commonly done as Eb9). When you slide it up, you can really put any bass note under it, but putting the Bb under it gives you your odd chord. Side note - actually on guitar, we can add the 4th string in as well, which is less common, but in this case it adds our Gb to the equation (you could also do Ab for other chord structures). What this gives you is a GbMaj7 moving up to the G Maj7, with an Eb then Bb bass. This "moving around a Maj7" idea is common in a lot of neo-soul neo-jazz, R&B funk style music. IMHO, a lot of pop music is like this - harmony is "incendental" and "resultant" of separate "streams" of music. One "stream" is the chordal stream - GbMaj7 - GMaj7 while the other "stream" is the bass stream of Eb - Bb. The "resultant" harmony is Ebm9 and Bbgobbledygook. So is it i and V? Sure. Is it tonic and dominant? Sure. But isn't more like "home" and "not home"? Really, it's more like a chromatic decoration of the upper parts with an alternating bass. So in some sense it's all Ebm9. To make this a little more clear, a similar common move guitarists do is take their minor triad, let's say Bm to make an E9 chord - and slide it up TWO semitones to C#m. Now if we hear that over a B note, we might be inclined to call that B13 or some kind of B13 (or simply C#m/B) but if you think about it for a second, the C#m chord gives you the notes of an E6 or E13 (if the D is kept present). So this "sliding up and back" between these two minor chords sounds like two "different" chords in the chordal stream, but from an E root standpoint (assuming this is on a funk kind of static bass vamp, like "Play that Funky Music") it's just another extension of the E7 chord. Obviously, in your example, it sounds more like two "different" chords and in each situation it will depend on how the bass line moves - does it hang on the note of the 5 or brush quickly by it, etc. as well as the duration of the upper chord. But that's the general principle of where this comes from - moving the upper chordal stream by X amount that is sort of "decorative" or "embellishing" the original harmony, and creating whatever coincidental harmony it creates with any other streams, like the bass line. Listen to the beginning of Sheryl Crow's "All I Wanna Do" - while the bass notes follow the chords, you'll hear this Maj7 up a half step to another Maj7 kind of idea. I guess I should mention that it's also an idea that's found in blues, where a player approaches their V chord from a half-step above, usually again with a 9th (but could be this minor triad portion). It happens all the time in turnarounds - there's a prominent one in "Tush" by ZZ Top, where the chords seem like Bbm going to Am. But the bass notes are C#-D. So it kind of looks like a Bbm/Db moving to D9. But it's a little easier to understand if you see the Bbm as part of an Eb9 chord - so it's really just a half-step approach to the D9 - the approach chord (the "V/V" if you like in this context) is just missing the Eb and G, and all we have is some other bass note. So it's "about" this guitar stream *implying* one set of harmonies, and this bass line that's playing another stream that has a note that makes some chord, but it's not the "whole story" if you will. If we put an A note in the bass of the approach chord, we're back to a similar idea as your original (so kind of like V/V - V in this case, where V/V is Vgobbledygook/V!) HTH

  2102. musictheory 2018-03-05 13:09:28 octatonic_formula
    Bb-Db-Eb has it's musical uses, like the string pizzicato lead in (notes Bb-Db-Eb) to the Dance of the Adolescents (Rite of Spring) https://youtu.be/FFPjFjUonX8?t=183 Bb-Db-Eb is also interesting, because, like the major and minor triads (interval sizes 4-3, and 3-4, as measured in semitones), its two intervals' sizes are a semitone apart (that is, 3-2...or intervals m3, M2). There's been research (Norman Cook, 2005) on 'interval microstructure' of chords with that pattern (5-4, 4-3, 3-4, 4-5), since it's a feature of some common chords (major and minor, root position, major six four chord, minor chord first inversion). Though C-Eb-F is a different beast, it could be included in that inquiry.

  2103. musictheory 2018-03-05 13:45:03 Operau
    But then lines/spaces are swapped. (I know this is just because it's what I'm used to, but that consistency makes reading string scores much easier, allowing me to do something like visually collapsing the staves by overlapping them)

  2104. musictheory 2018-03-06 06:08:22 65TwinReverbRI
    So this is going to be long, so bear with me, but I'll try to give helpful advice. Firstly, what you're feeling is common. I myself stuggle with a lot of similar issues. I think it might even be "natural". Secondly, let's clear up something that might help: On one hand you'll hear people say "there are no rules, it's art". That is true. However, almost all people who become interested in composing music do so becuase they've heard something that inspired them that they want to emulate. And it's likely they've heard LOTS of music. So you can't really go into writing music without any preconceived notions about what is "right" and "wrong". So on the other hand, there are "rules" - stylistic guidelines, "right and wrong", etc. Writing blues without blue notes isn't going to sound very bluesy. It's just going to appear that the write is naive if they think what they've written is "blues". So you can't use the "there are no rules" argument as a cop out. You can use it when you're writing music that is truly independent of any existing styles, and even make up your own. But that's not what most people want to do. Furthermore, some people want to do that, but don't know enough about music to know that all they're doing is simply writing pastiche, clichés, and derivative music that is just bad imitations of music they've subconsciously remembered. So a great example is Parallel 5ths. You'll constantly see people on forums like this going "I'm working on this piece and I have parallel 5ths is that OK". Well the long answer is, no, it's not OK if you're trying to write music that is stylistically similar to Classical music. So the problem becomes, this person has heard a Classical Period String Quartet, wants to write a String Quartet, and doesn't know enough about music to know that music has evolved past that, and writing a Classical style String Quartet is not only anachronistic, but really more of an homage. Music is a funny art like this because most modern Poets aren't trying to write like Shakespeare. They write in "contemporary" styles. But music - people still want to write music from 300 years ago, using the rules from 300 years ago, and in some ways, that's kind of silly. But it becomes even more silly if you start of a piece with Alberti Bass and a melody, and it's pretty clear you were influenced by Classical music, but then do things that are "wrong" - because here's what happens - your listen immediately categorizes your music based on what they hear (right or wrong) and form expectations based on that prejudice. If your piece does not meet those expectations, it's "bad". So, if someone wants to write 300 year old music, fine, but do it well. Learn the stylistic guidelines and adhere to them. If you want to write 100 year old music, or 1,000 year old music, or music that sounds like it came from the 1980s (like a lot of synth stuff now), fine. Learn the style and do it well. If you want to do an homage, fine, but understand the style. If you want to write music that "hearkens back" or "pays homage to" and those sorts of things, that's fine to, but you have too do it in a way where it sounds INTENTIONAL (which is tricky) otherwise it sounds "dated" or unintentionally comical, or just plain bad. Now, all of this sounds like I'm saying even more that you have to "follow rules" but that's NOT my intent. My point is that you need to LEARN the music you LIKE. NOT the music you THINK you're SUPPOSED TO like becuase you read it online, or someone told you etc. I see all these people on forums like this go "you should study Fux" when they ask for advice. That's just plain ridiculous. Sure, OK, there might be some times when that's applicable, but what you need to study is THE MUSIC. Fuck the theory. Fuck counterpoint. Fuck harmony. Fuck all that shit. LEARN THE FUCKING MUSIC! What do you want to sound like? Find some music that sounds like that and try to emulate it. OK, sure, you're going to have to learn what chords to make, or what is stylistic appropriate, but you know what? You already know the basics. And you can learn the rest FROM THE MUSIC. How many times do we see someone here go "hey, I'm going from an A to a Cm chord, is that OK? "what's the theory behind it" "where does it come from" etc. Who the hell cares (well, obviously these people do, but I often wonder how many are producing music rather than getting mired in worrying about if it's "correct" or not like you are). Who the hell cares. If it sounds good it is good. Dennis DeYoung didn't worry if the beginning to "Come Sail Away" was "classically correct". It's obviously intended to be "reminiscent" of classical music, but in a rock setting. No further explanation needed. But if you try to write a Piano Sonata like that, people are going to form a different opinion. So, what is it you want to write? If you want to write a Symphony in true Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven style, I'm going to say #1 to take the steps they did, and #2 immerse yourself in that music - studying it, playing it, reading it, and trying to write it. But always keep in mind, none of those composers first piece was Symphony #1. Or are you just trying to write songs that are "modern" songs? What composers or songwriters do you want to sound like? There are different approaches but the number one thing you can do is learn to play music on an instrument. The DAW can be an instrument, but you don't get the same kind of feedback you do when playing something like Piano. And traditionally most composers have decent to excellent piano skills. That's not a requirement, but it doesn't hurt. So don't feel bad - this is actually tough stuff - and it's a lot of soul searching. And it's not something that happens in a day - it's a LIFETIME for some people. There are composers who started in a style and discovered it wasn't for them, and totally changed direction later in life. In fact, I think there are more that have been "misdirected" by more "theoretical" things until they realized how restrictive it could be, and became better composers when they just let that stuff go and wrote what they felt. So I know it's tough, but it's something probably most of us go through. And it may be that those of us who are not successful probably haven't had that epiphany yet. So, what do you want to write? Can you give some examples of things that inspire you that you'd like to emulate? HTH - sorry not more concrete and more philosophical, but I think it's kind of important to get that stuff out of the way.

  2105. musictheory 2018-03-06 09:51:15 creepyzeke
    Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but I saw a band in Austin with an obviously well versed jazz bassist that was playing a couple dyads underneath a pretty prominent guitar part and it sounded great. A lot of other famous bassists play chords as well (Wooten, Claypool, etc.) As far as the frequency, I crank up my mids and the G and B on a 6 string on bass sound more like a baritone guitar than a bass. But yeah, I get your point that a bassist has to stick to his supportive role. Thundercat has a lot of other stuff with accompaniment, but yeah, he plays bass like it's a guitar a lot of the time. He play some chords under the piano in [this song](https://youtu.be/0vQKh52dcOs) but I'm wondering why it works. I'm a fan of NIN but I'm talking about baselines with chords. Those are super common chord tones in bass lines and I don't think it really competes with the vocals. Pretty much any Muse bass line (or jazz bass line for that matter) is a lot more complex but still provides a groove that matches the overlying chords and vocals.

  2106. musictheory 2018-03-06 13:05:45 creepyzeke
    Wait, that's an Eø7?? Could've sworn it was a Bb major. Is it inverted? That's a really good explanation though. I guess the only reason I think it sounds good is because I play chords on my highest two strings with the added range of a six string. So I guess as long as I keep chord tones other than the basic tonic, 3rd, and 5th in the guitar register, it ought to work given I'm not ruining a song with a lot of other stuff going on? Thanks, appreciate the time.

  2107. musictheory 2018-03-07 00:35:02 octatonic_formula
    > The center of the musical universe It's also just an expression, but it is interesting what you have to say. "Throughout recorded history" When, though? Up through Zarlino (Renaissance), I believe it was still about string lengths and wave lengths. I imagine it was around the time of Galileo (the father) that the harmonic series in music was discovered, but I'm not sure. But it wasn't throughout recorded history.

  2108. musictheory 2018-03-07 02:28:19 65TwinReverbRI
    The story about Pythagoras hearing the different sized hammers produce different pitches in ratios of pitch that agreed with ratios of their size is probably apocryphal. The meat of it has also been disproven in modern times. A hammer twice as big doesn't make a pitch half or twice as high, etc. It's possible Handel could have heard the story, but it's far more likely he was simply inspired by the ringing hammers of blacksmiths he encountered firsthand while out and about. Remember that we don't (AFAIK) have any direct accounts from Pythagoras himself, and everything we have is from his followers, which is why people often say "Pythagoreans" or "The Pythagorean School". But yes, Greeks used a Monochord to work with length Ratios of a fixed string, yielding two different pitches.

  2109. musictheory 2018-03-07 02:41:17 jazzadellic
    But it is easy to learn. You go to music school and learn it. The problem is most people think they should be able to master music theory on their own with no formal training. That's like someone assuming they should be able to learn astrophysics or string theory on their own with no assistance. And then they complain that the reason they can't learn it on their own using Youtube is the entire system is wrong and needs to be fixed. Then they suggest they are the one to fix it! Do you see the ridiculous nature of that idea? Music theory is a very deep, and complex field, perhaps almost as complex as math or physics. It's really like learning an entire new language. It's just always going to be super difficult to master it by yourself. That doesn't mean the system used to teach it is broken. I've never heard anyone with a degree in music theory complain that the system of teaching theory is broken and they need to fix it.

  2110. musictheory 2018-03-07 05:57:50 music-person
    There is exactly one middle C on a keyboard or pretty much any other instrument. Stringed instruments are different. I can play middle C in four or five locations on a guitar neck, depending on how many frets it has. It may be possible to play one note or a group of notes in one location, but easier in another, or with different tone (e.g. on a wound or unwound string). Tablature on its own really sucks. Not only do most tabs on the internet lack correctness, they typically convey nothing about rhythm or rests. Professionally-written tablature in books tends to be better (tends, key word). Most of the guitar music I have seen has both treble clef and tablature, along with chord notation above the staff and other helpful hints. Neither the staff nor the tab convey _everything_ a player needs to know, but each one has information the other lacks and together they at least have the potential to show the complete music. For music I have written or transcribed, I use MuseScore to notate the music using both lines. It is tedious, but it is the most accurate method I know for writing guitar music.

  2111. musictheory 2018-03-07 07:41:16 xiipaoc
    > I can play middle C in four or five locations on a guitar neck, depending on how many frets it has. Guitar music has a pretty convenient notation for telling you which string to use for any given note, though.

  2112. musictheory 2018-03-07 07:44:08 xiipaoc
    > standard notation completely lacks that when it comes to an instrument that has so many different ways to play nearly every note. ...You just put the string number in a circle if it's actually important. Most of the time you can easily tell from context what string you're supposed to play something on, but when the composer/editor wants to give you a hint or be more specific, the option is there. Oftentimes a barre fret or a position is indicated as well, so you know that the notes should be considered in that position. It's really not an issue to read notation on guitar.

  2113. musictheory 2018-03-07 13:23:43 japaneseknotweed
    If piano-as-piano was the only form of piano notation, I can see your point. But as someone who regularly plays SATB/string quartet scores on piano, the very thought makes me shudder. ;)

  2114. musictheory 2018-03-07 17:41:42 Marvinkmooneyoz
    guitarists are attached to standard arm position, you can swivel the arm around, have the thumb on a low string, the pinky on a high string, piano stretch style. same with bass, i get 12ths with my small hands on a standard 4 string bass

  2115. musictheory 2018-03-07 18:16:39 Xenoceratops
    There was a really interesting paper discussing this in the Instruments of Music Theory symposium hosted by the SMT history of music theory study group last year. [Abstract here](https://instrumentsofmusictheoryconference.wordpress.com/abstracts/) >David E. Cohen, Columbia University >The Tensed String, the Intent Ear: Combative Instrumentalities in a Founding Myth of Western Music Theory >If music theory has a foundation myth it is surely the legend of Pythagoras and the hammers. The earliest extant version of this story, contained in the Inchiridion musicês of Nicomachus of Gerasa (ca. 100 AD) emphasizes, as much as the interval ratios themselves, the unusual instrumental means Pythagoras devises to acquire the privileged scientific knowledge those ratios represent; it celebrates an epistemological status achievable only by virtue of a special kind of instrument. That instrument is not the monochord, with its variable string length. Rather, it is a specially constructed apparatus that uses proportionally related weights (as in the blacksmiths’ hammers) to vary—with notoriously erroneous results—not the lengths of its four strings, but their tension. >This unexpected and oddly inept substitution of tension for length represents (I suggest) an attempted refutation of Aristoxenus’s dismissal of quantitative harmonics. Aristoxenus conceived harmonics’ proper study as “the nature of the well-attuned”: the immanent logic of functional musical relations intuited by the trained and intently listening internal musical “ear” (akoê, phantasia). But he also at one point famously defines the musical note in terms of “tension” (tasis), a concept he clarifies by invoking the (unquantified) tensing and loosening of a string. >By casting Pythagoras’ mythical discovery in terms of quantified string tensions the legend appropriates this oft-cited and influential component of Aristoxenus’s theory for quantitative harmonics, thereby implicitly asserting the latter’s superiority. The myth thus dramatizes a fundamental and persistent tension within the field of music theory itself: the ideological friction between the mathematical and the functional, symbolically reducible to the contrast between two emblematic “instruments”: the tensed string and the intent ear.

  2116. musictheory 2018-03-07 21:15:01 Marvinkmooneyoz
    figured out how to play the 65331, mind you of rouse, it takes like three seconds to situation my fingers to do it, but im very new to clasical guitar, my hand felxibility and coordination for the isntrument isnt there, so a skileld player should in theory be able to work it into their playing, though obviouly not while making fast transitions. heres how i play it. Pinky, on the low Bb and optional diagonal across the fret to the low D as well, or the ring finger for the D Index finger, last bone segment, laying backwards, across the three 3rd fret notes, the F, Bb, and the high D Yeah, I know, totally rediculous <;) but i have small hands AND hardly any real practice getting my hand to be used to classical guitar, and i COULD get each not to play at the same time cleanly. For your last example, i did something different. low Eoctave up from oen string with pinky, ring finger for the major third G#, of the next three notes on the back of the index fingers last bone segment, and the high fifth with the thumb. again, rediculous, but this one is actually not that hard, more concievably worked into a piece with harmonic movement. the 688766, index, for the Bb, pinky on the F and the next Bb, ring for the D, then thumb for the last two , the high 6s, the F and the Bb. again im NOT claiming any easy elegance, but it is there, this really can be part of a guitar players body mechanics. your 022100 example i dont understand, that doesnt even require anything crazy to do at all?

  2117. musictheory 2018-03-09 03:42:35 65TwinReverbRI
    No. C6 as in C-E-G-A. IOW, A-C-E-G and C-E-G-A are the same notes but "two different chords". Rameau's sort of ground-breaking reveal is that chord structures like E-G-C and G-E-C are all inversions of the "parent" C-E-G chord. They all have the same root. Sometime before then, people considered an E-G-C not to be a "C" chord, but an E chord (a chord of the 6th). IOW, we moved from a concept that chords were "based on the bass" to "based on the Root". So "rootedness" is an important concept for Rameau and he spends some time IIRC why it's the "right" way to think about things (which was already happening in musical practice at the time) IIRC he develops this idea of "acoustical root" which he "proves" by going back to the monochord and divisions of the string and so on. Part of this explains why C-Eb-G is still a "C" chord, becuase even though the Eb is not part of the overtone series (not that he was invoking that, but to make a modern analogy) the strength of the perfect 5th C-G makes the C the best contender for the acoustical root (this is all by the way broad recollections and interpretation on my part so don't take it as factual/gospel - I'm not an expert on it). But the C-E-G-A and A-C-E-G chords produce a bit of a conundrum in that either the C or the A is a powerful candidate for the root, depending on the inversion. So it's sort of a "dual root" chord. It is akin to how today we might see F-A-C-D and say, "oh, F6". But in CPP music we don't consider "6" chords to exist so they have to be a ii^6 for example. But in modern music like Jazz, we might call it Dm7/F or F6 depending on the context, or in some cases it might be ambiguous. So yeah, that aspect of it was realized way back then - at least that's how I understand what Rameau was talking about there.

  2118. musictheory 2018-03-10 04:47:55 kAdki
    C means 'capo,' or just barring the string across the second (II) or fourth (IV) fret. It's more of a recommendation on how to perform that measure as opposed to something essential to the music.

  2119. musictheory 2018-03-10 14:58:05 MiskyWilkshake
    Well, the string-skipping, asymmetrical phrasing against the meter, lack of chord-tone focus on strong beats, weak phrasal tonicisation of the C, and his general tone all probably play a part.

  2120. musictheory 2018-03-10 19:07:49 Dirty_South_Cracka
    Get a soundcard, the free version of Komplete (Player's Edition), and a midi controller. Find a pad/string in the virtual instruments that rings out and has a long decay. Do something similar with a bass sound. Throw some slapback delay on the guitar and saturate the distortion. Land on the 1/3/5 A LOT. It's basically the recipe for a Joe Satriani album. There are some interesting licks in there too that aren't guitar or pads. Little Jimi-esque 2-note licks that cement the scale/mode he's in. They're not fast, just melodic. If you do a search on youtube for "guitar backing tracks", you can probably find tons of these types of background music. Not exactly what you're looking for, but I use this guys tracks for practicing : https://www.youtube.com/user/QuistTV/playlists

  2121. musictheory 2018-03-10 21:29:24 coastierapper
    4 notes per string try it edit: didn't see the link, it is the triplet accenting against the 4 notes per string which creates a multimeter feel. chorus and delay are obviously big parts of his sound. rest in peace to the legend of guitar himself.

  2122. musictheory 2018-03-10 21:37:29 KKD97
    hmm, i did some digging and found the book for this vid free download, page 8 https://kupdf.com/queue/allan-holdsworth-just-for-the-curious_59154e23dc0d60eb70e5e556_pdf?queue_id=-1&x=1520688920&z=MzEuNDguMTQ5LjQ1 its only 3 notes per string

  2123. musictheory 2018-03-10 21:39:56 coastierapper
    oh i watched this series and studied the book years ago. there's a quote in one of the videos where he explains by using four notes per string, you are adding more octaves creating a unique sound that three notes per string cannot achieve.

  2124. musictheory 2018-03-11 03:20:22 ljse7m
    Well, as to the exact date as to when the Harmonic Series was discoved is difficlt to pin down, but discovery and "use" of the series are not necessiarialy the same thing. To us a phrase ofetn quoted on reddit (over quoted and often in the wrong context!) "its OK if it sounds good" and to put that in context, here is something to think about. Pythagoras discovered the Perfect 5th ratio and I assumed that there was an aural connection to the music he was looking at as a sccientist. Wether he realized it or not, what he discovered was the first three elements of the Harmonic series. He may not have had the instruments to hear or otherwise that he had only isolated a "part of a greater whole". I have heard the analogy to the five blind men that discovered and elephant. One saw it as a tree trunk as he did not know it was an ear. Another throught it was like a wall as he only felt the side. ANother thought the tail was a rope, and so on. Then later when the Church musicisns started to compose music and from a historical standpoint, they continued in the same ignorance of the whole. Wether they realized it or not, the "rules of consonance and dissonance, was the disvovery, or realization, of the intervals from one note to the next built into the harmonic serise and when they evolved towards the Baroque period, they used the same tones of the harmonic series as chords and triads that are inherent in the series. The 7th element of the series, that out of tune m7th is the link that makes the natural progression of the downard gravity of the interval of the 5th and the ambiguity of that 7th element connects that transition from tonic to dominant as the context of the music allowse it to be either a consonant interval of a 6th OR the dissonant interval of the m7. I realize that it was just an expression, but you were so close to having it correct I felt obligated to point out that you are on the proper tract. When it comes to string lengths and wave lengths, what exactly are they if not related to the harmonic series. The open string of an instument will set up the matrix of the partials and the various lengths of the string produce the wave lengths that are either IN or OUT of sympathy with the matrix of the implied overtones of the open string. Also, since the first three notes that children all over the world, (at least the 4 continents that I have taught upon) sing the same basic tones which make up the notes of Mi Sol and La with the LA being a bit "sharp" (or a flat TI) so I am not sure but that is certainly a clue that some of the first tones sang since before recorded history also produced the same notes and these are three of the strongest compatable tones of the harmonic series of the implied root by the physics of the lung's shape and siize that will produce a strong "fundamental" Yes, you are on the right trail with the string lengths, but if you use those concepts you will see how they do NOT conflict with the Harmonic Series. in simple terms, haven't you even discovered some combinations of notes that just seemed to fit with tonality before you actually understood what music was all about? Even now, with your not understanding the way that I look at the harmonic series, you seem to understand and I strongly suspect that you can hear a tone that is out of sync with the established tonality when you hear it. Its my contention that as the composers of recorded history learned step by step how to include the higher partials of the harmonic series that Pythagoras unwittlingly stumbled upon so many years ago. An historical anaysis of the development of functional harmonic chord types, continues to clearly show the evolution. If you have difficulty seeing this in the music, i can explain it in more detail, but if you think about it, i suspect that you will see that what I am saying is a bit "out the box" of traditional pedagogy, but if you can find any false comparisons, I welcome your imput. I have yet heard an argument that logically refutes this context of how music evolved. There are of course other explanations that can be applied to "parts" of the whole of our musical culture but never any that either refuted this approach nor included all of the CPP and functional harmony as well as the earlier pre Baroque music. Again, i am only writing this as I think you may be able to understand it and I always weicome well thought out discussion about this approach. I have used it in teaching ear training as well as phisolophically working on the concept but I still like to verify the concept whenever I run across anyone that I think may be looking for an approach that explains accurately how music evolved. I will say that I don't pretend to be more of a music scientist than Pythagoras, but I do have the advantage of learning from him as well as all the other composers in recorded history have learned. I thank you for your reply. I hope I am stimulating your thought process. LJSe7m

  2125. musictheory 2018-03-11 04:33:58 schrodingasdawg
    > "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." This is how the word theory is used in the natural sciences actually, as opposed to: > scientists use theories to describe the "laws" of the universe. Things that will always be true, and even must be true. But this isn't how we use the word "theory." Actually, the word is neutral as to whether the theory is true or not. We're extremely confident that some quantum field theory is true (perhaps only with a limited domain of applicability), but don't have any empirical reasons to believe that string theory is true. Yet they're both theories all the same. The thing that distinguishes a theory from a law or a hypothesis is that a theory is a *framework*. It consists of many parts that all fit together and can be used to give an in-depth explanation of whatever is is the theory was formulated to explain. It's not immutable either, and is open to revision if the framework that exists is found to be deficient in some way. I think "music theory" is an appropriate and accurate name for music theory, considering all this. It's a framework consisting of many parts, which is meant to explain in depth how music works. It's open to revision (and must be, since music itself evolves), but that's okay, because theories often are.

  2126. musictheory 2018-03-11 04:58:13 phillaf
    Take a guitar, play a note, bend the string to a different note. You basically played all of the pitches existing between those notes on your way.

  2127. musictheory 2018-03-11 05:01:04 BlazingFox
    I'd been thinking about glissandos due to some other replies. I wonder if the effect can be heard harmonically if multiple string instruments glissando up and down extremely fast, so that the listener can't process that the notes are being heard at different times.

  2128. musictheory 2018-03-11 14:43:10 japaneseknotweed
    Yep. Mozart's horn concerto opening makes a dandy secondary theme for a string quartet...

  2129. musictheory 2018-03-11 16:09:39 aotus_trivirgatus
    If you watch the OP's video beginning at 4:05, instead of OP's mark at 4:55, Allan discusses playing scale runs using 4 notes per string.

  2130. musictheory 2018-03-12 00:32:38 CaptainSteelmeat69
    One of my early works had a slow movement that I was super proud of. Took it into the first rehearsal and the first thing everyone said was "why did you arrange the Ocarina of Time for string quartet?"

  2131. musictheory 2018-03-12 05:31:00 65TwinReverbRI
    [note: u/Juke777, see my comment about the word "key" in another post] In Common Practice Period Music, they can be one in the same, however it's most common for modulations to new keys to happen without a key signature change because the majority of key changes are to closely related keys that are either the Relative Major/minor (no signature change) or keys that vary by only one accidental (one "spoke" of the circle of 5ths). Key **Signature** changes tend to be more closely aligned with modulations (changes of key) at **sectional divisions**. For example, in a Minuet and Trio, it's not uncommon for the Trio to be in a different key, and since the entire section is usually in that key (though it may modulate within) it's given a new Key Signature. In most sonata form movements, it's unlikely for the key signature to change unless the change is drastic and for an extended period of time (or just makes the music easier to read). They start in the Tonic Key, which will be the Key of the Key signature, then modulate to the Dominant. The key signature typically remains and the extra accidental is written in. Just glancing through my Mozart 19 Piano Sonatas, I see no Key Signature changes easily spotted. Not all of them are Sonata Form, but they certainly go through various Keys. The only time a Key **Signature** is typically changed in these is in a Theme and Variations, which if in Major often has a Minor Key Variation in the parallel minor, meaning a T&V in D Major will have a minor variation in Dm, so that will get a Key Sig of 1 flat instead of 2 sharps. But aside from that, until you get to more advanced chromaticism of late Haydn, Mozart, and especially Beethoven, and then more extreme into Chopin and Liszt, et al, Key Sig changes are comparatively rare (though they can be found in later music more easily). >I think the scale or keys you are using stay the same, you are just centered on a different tonic. This is a traditional modulation. No, that's partially wrong. The only time the scale stays roughly the same is when you move from a Major key to the RELATIVE Minor, like C Major to A minor. The Key Signature will stay the same, but the notes will be roughly the same (G# will be introduced in A minor) but the Tonic has moved from C, to A. So it is a modulation. But, if you modulate from C to G, the scale changes, and the Tonic changes. But the Key Signature may not, and instead the necessary accidental (F#) for the key of G will be written in. This is also a modulation. There is another possibility, which is where the Tonic stays the same, but the scale changes to the parallel mode (Major turns into Minor, or vice versa). This is called a "change of mode", not a true modulation becuase the TONIC has NOT changed. The key signature might not change, but as I showed above, in some cases, like a T&V, it might. >When do they traditionally change scales? Just in different movements or just in completely different pieces? Forget scales. Common Practice Period is ABOUT Keys. It's "Tonality" which is ABOUT Tonal Centers, not "Scales". Or to put another way, they change scales when they change Key. So, virtually ALL CPP pieces modulate within the piece. They move from the Tonic Key at least to the Dominant Key. If not, they move from the Tonic Key to the Relative Key. Those are far and away the two most common types for simple modulations. However, some pieces may go through 4 or 5 or more Keys within the piece. And in those, it's rare for the Key Signature to change (again, except for later Romantic Period pieces, or more advanced chromatic pieces, like lat Beethoven String Quartets, etc.). Usually, movements are in different keys, but not necessarily. But pieces almost always (with rare exceptions for specific purposes) modulate within the piece, usually in conjunction with a musical section. There is one more thing that's different, but it's not part of CPP music. You can leave the Key Signature the same, not change any accidentals, and play the same note set, but with emphasis on a different note than the original Tonic. This is how modern "modal" music works. It's not unlike how we take C Major, then emphasize A Minor with mostly the same note set (with the G# as I mentioned above) but there are no accidental changes. So you would play in C Major, then move to say, E Phrygian. That would involve simply a shift of center to the E rather than the C which we'd do through musical emphasis. This is actually the way most pre-Tonal music was composed (I'm oversimplifying to make it easy). "Modality" pre-dates Tonality and there was "mutation" rather than "Modulation" per se. Emphasis moved from note to note within the Mode. What happened over time was that with mutation eventually accidentals started being introduced to make something more like a modulation, which eventually leads to Tonality. Now in the present, we've re-adopted some of these principles of Modality for some music when we want to use that (so it's not super widespread). I should mention that this kind of "mutation" in pre-Tonal music happened "sectionally" as well, often verse by verse or text section by text section (since a lot of it was vocal, sacred music). So that tradition just kind of carried over into the CPP. HTH

  2132. musictheory 2018-03-12 05:34:39 65TwinReverbRI
    Aha, here's your problem u/Juke777 - you're using the NOTES C D E F G A B. "Key" doesn't mean the "key" on a piano. Same word, totally different meaning. In the KEY of C Major, you play the NOTES C D E F G A B (C) and when you modulate to the KEY of G Major, you play the NOTES G A B C D E F# (G) "keys" are also the name for the things you press on a piano, or most woodwinds, to make a NOTE, but because other musicians produce NOTES in different ways (or we could also call them "pitches") - such as a guitarist pressing a "string" or a Trombonist using a slide, "key" is not a good way to describe NOTES you play.

  2133. musictheory 2018-03-12 17:14:10 Jongtr
    Depends what you mean by "theory". It would help to know note names at least (ABCDEFG, that's the beginning of theory - scary, huh?). Pretty easy to learn where all those are on the fretboard. The formula is this: half steps: | | | | | | | | | | | | | A . B C . D . E F . G . A Assuming you know the open strings (EADGBE), you can now work out any note on any fret on any string. The more you do it, the more you'll see patterns. The more pieces of the jigsaw you fill in, the easier it gets to fill the rest in. (Of course, you need to know the missing frets are "sharp" or "flat" versions of the note below or above .. sorry that's more theory jargon...) You'll find chord shapes will help - easy patterns to remember. You can know chord shapes without having to know the theory behind them (I'm sure you already know a few). Check out the CAGED system. (Then again, knowing the notes in each chord will help - whoops, theory again.) Of course, to actually *play* - using all that information - you need to learn some *music*. Provided your ear is very good, you can do without theory (in the sense of names for things). The music itself - melodies and chord sequences - is theory in action. The more you learn by ear, the better for your musicianship all round. (I don't mean you have to learn *only* by ear; you can learn songs from tabs, books, etc too. But you do need to use your ear to check everything - including your tuning.) Naturally, a few names for things is going to make the process a little easier. That's really all theory is: names for things. If you know chord names, that's already a piece of theory.

  2134. musictheory 2018-03-13 02:12:17 donald2000
    I can't say this is the *best* way to practice ear-training, but I know that for me personally, tonic-based ear-training (solfa or solfege), made the biggest difference for me. There are tons of introductions to solfege on youtube, and it truly isn't difficult to learn. [Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QgauSvYIyg&t=3s) a pretty good one to start with. I recommend singing the major scale with solfege a few minutes a day until you can do it forwards and backwards and jump around it pretty consistently, and then add the natural minor and harmonic minor scales. First with your instrument to make sure you're getting the pitches right, but then work towards being able to sing them without an instrument around Also, spend a few minutes listening to mp3s that play the I, IV, V progression (this sets up the tonic center) and then plays a note for you to guess. FunctionalEarTrainer and MyEarTraining are both great apps that have games with this, and you can set your level for how much of a beginner or how advanced you are. And finally, I recommend playing I, IV, V triads close together on different string sets to set up the key center yourself and then just sing the tonic until you can do that consistently (*and know what note you're playing!*). Then work on the 5 consistently, and then the three, then the rest of the major scale, and then the outside notes. If you happen to play guitar you can get the pdf's at my website [GoochGuitar.com](https://www.goochguitar.com/) under the lesson pdf's at the top. More importantly than anything though, is that you make whatever ear-training you do a daily habit. Best of luck!

  2135. musictheory 2018-03-13 04:13:00 ILoveKombucha
    For those learning, what SEEMS like a shortcut is often the long and hard way (the question you are asking here suggests you are looking for the obvious shortcut, and the result is that you will waste a lot of time and get inferior results). *What seems like the long and hard way is the shortcut.* Stop wasting your time and learn the rudiments of theory and how it applies to the guitar. You need to know all the notes, a variety of scales, chords (how to spell them, etc), how to put it all together in the styles you like. In order to apply this, you need to know all those notes backwards and forwards (automatically, no thought - just because you can slowly figure out that 8th fret E string = C doesn't mean much, you need to KNOW it automatically without thought) on your instrument. If you are starting from scratch, this will likely take you a few years. If you work insanely hard, you might be able to do it in a year or so. As a guitar teacher, I can say that the vast majority of students don't want to work hard at all, and frankly, most of them never get close. It's pretty laughable (and simultaneously sad) how little people are willing to put into it. You get out of it what you put in... IMO, if you aren't willing to work at it, why bother? There are easier (by far) hobbies. Practical advice: Even if you are fairly good technically, it would be advisable to pick up a variety of beginning guitar methods (particularly Hal Leonard) and simply work through them all. When you can do them all, then work through them again in different positions on the fretboard. Check out Hal Leonard, books 1 - 3, Mel Bay, Alfred's Guitar course... and anything else. Pick up a bunch of related "Easy" books, like Hal Leonard's EAsy Pop Melodies. Work through the books. You'll learn first position first (ie, first through 4th frets, primarly). As you learn it, do all the same melodies again in, say, 5th position. Then 7th. Then 9th. Then 12th. (Approximately). This will help you learn the entire fretboard while playing relatively easy music. (If you have to think too much about rhythms and weird chords, you won't be able to focus on learning the notes). If you do this, you'll find you have a rare skill among guitarists; you can READ music! Reading music, it turns out, is a shortcut for learning the notes on the fretboard. All of this *might* prove useful, no? :) Also, work through all these books while playing the chords and singing the melodies. If you have to, use a capo to bring the songs into a singable register (and sing the melody an octave lower if needed). This helps develop your ear, and additionally gives you a very useful skill (singing and playing). Keep reading more and more advanced music (but err on the side of easy music....). Sight read every day. Give it a few years man. It's not a race. But don't be like one of my students, who is literally 79 years old, and has been playing longer than you and I both have been alive (most likely - in the neighborhood of 60 years, let's say), and who doesn't know a lick of theory, doesn't know the notes on the fretboard, can't play in time to save his life, and who constantly complains about having to go back to basics. He feels that learning the rudiments would be a waste of time. The supreme irony is that by avoiding the fundamentals, he has wasted DECADES. I've had students that literally could outplay this guy after one year of work. Again, don't be this old guy, filled with regret and nothing to show for all those years.... If you fuck around and waste your time, you could be that guy. If you suck it up and work hard, you can make impressive progress in a few years.

  2136. musictheory 2018-03-13 23:56:25 Super_SATA
    Tertian harmony signals a shift in the fundamental. First, the definition of a fundamental: a pure tone whose overtones are built upon it. Definition of an overtone: tones which are whole number multiples of the frequency of a fundamental. For example, if your fundamental is 440 Hz, the 2nd overtone would be 880, the 3rd would be 1320, and so on. Overtones are a.k.a. harmonics. Tertian harmony (western harmony) is based on combinations of the 3rd overtone and the 5th overtone. (The 2nd and 4th overtones are just the fundamental 1 and 2 times higher: "octaves") The C major chord is a C note (the fundamental), an E note (the 5th overtone divided by 4, since all power of 2 multiples of a frequency are just the same note), and a G note (the 3rd overtone divided by 2). When you hear the 3rd overtone *and* the 5th overtone of any fundamental together with that fundamental (e.g. the C, E, and G), the fundamental sounds like the most important note. When you hear a C, an E, and a G, the C sounds like the most important note. What about minor chords? The C minor chord still has the 3rd harmonic, the G, but instead of the 5th harmonic, E, it has an E flat. C and E flat do not have an overtone relationship. Instead, E flat *is the fundamental* of G, which is the 5th harmonic. To recap, in a C minor chord, G is the 3rd harmonic of C and it is also the 5th harmonic of E flat. So, when you hear it, you hear two notes being reinforced as fundamentals, the C and E flat. However, the C is more strongly reinforced, since the 3rd harmonic is more pronounced than the 5th (lower harmonics are always more powerful or "consonant" than higher ones.). This leaves us with a weaker consonance, which is what makes a minor chord, well, minor. Where do minor chords come from? Take a major chord. Take the 3rd harmonic (the G in the case of the C chord). Take the 5th harmonic *of that same harmonic.* You now have a B note. Together, all these notes are a Cmaj7 chord, but if you take the C away, you have an E minor chord. Not only does this explain the 7th chord and the minor chord, that's where diatonic scales come from! Just stacks of the 3rd and 5th harmonics on an initial fundamental. (Except when the tritone comes in) So now that we know where the chords come from, what is their purpose? Like I said, to denote a shift in the fundamental. When you hear just one single line of notes (monophony), there is no real hierarchy. The notes are all just notes. C D A G B. If you play those 5 notes, they're just five notes. They can have meaning, but there is no hierarchy of importance. There is no directionality. If you do C maj, D min, A min, G maj, B dim chords instead of just notes, all of a sudden you have a hierarchy. You hear shifts in the direction of the music, since a new fundamental is being reinforced with each new chord. The qualities of each chord can be manipulated to change the directionality. Essentially, we have chord progressions to disambiguate the directionality of music. We can use 7th chords to add more ambiguity back. If you don't use chords but you want to give notes a hierarchy, you can use diphony, which is what many cultures have done. Chords just lend a level of objectivity, and they utilize mathematical properties of periodicity to adjust the meaning of a song. They give a song movement that speaks more clearly than a single string of notes.

  2137. musictheory 2018-03-14 15:40:35 Karmoon
    You mean classical guitars right? A steel string acoustic is pretty brutal, especially with the higher action :)

  2138. musictheory 2018-03-14 17:07:56 thecave
    Definitely electric unless you have a specific thing you want to play. Electric guitars are a lot easier on beginners because of the very light strings. But you can do all the things you can do on acoustic (short of percussive body effects which is a very niche thing). But you can't do all the things on an acoustic that you can do on an electric because of the heavier strings and the limits of its voicing. But if you particularly want to play acoustic music specifically, you should start with the type of guitar (steel string or nylon string) that you intend to play.

  2139. musictheory 2018-03-14 17:09:52 thecave
    On the other hand, I could never get along with them. I finally got myself a little parlour steel string acoustic and gave my nylon string to my young cousins. It's totally changed how much acoustic I play. I used to play acoustic about 1% of the time and now it's more like 20% because I love my little Alvarez so much.

  2140. musictheory 2018-03-14 17:24:41 Jongtr
    True, but the action doesn't have to be higher. The "brutality" is down to the heavier string gauge required to give a good tone.

  2141. musictheory 2018-03-14 21:50:27 jimjambanx
    A semi acoustic for rock? Yeah no, unless OP wants to play jazz or light blues, a semi acoustic is one of the last options if choose for a beginner, not to mention there aren't nearly as many budget options. If OP wants to play rock, metal, blues or jazz (at least for soloing) get an electric, you can get combos that come with a guitar and amp for dirt cheap, or if you know someone that knows guitars and can help shop for you you can find both really cheap (you don't need effects, you can buy those at a later date, for learning you only need a guitar and amp). If OP wants to play pop, folk, country, fingerstyle, or just wants to strum chords and sing, get a steel string acoustic. Again, if you shop around you can get a nice guitar for cheap, and you don't need anything else (try and find one with a solid top though, never buy a laminate top acoustic or if has some cheap wood like plywood).

  2142. musictheory 2018-03-15 00:04:57 davethecomposer
    This might be a different perspective but I would suggest classical guitar first. From what I've seen it's much easier to go from classical to steel string or electric than the other way around. So if you ever want to learn classical it will be a bigger uphill battle if you start with either of the others first. Classical also forces you to learn how to read music which is a skill you should have but won't necessarily get with steel string or electric guitars.

  2143. musictheory 2018-03-15 01:34:48 MeButNotMeToo
    If you go acoustic, decide if you want a Nylon (typically Classical) or Steel string guitar. They’re not interchangeable. A Classical guitar is going to have a wider neck. There are hybrids out there that are built for nylon strings, but have the geometry of a steel string. The wider neck of a Classical could be a plus (more space between strings) or a minus (more distance between strings/a wider neck). You won’t see wider necks on steel stringed guitars until you get to the higher priced “Fingerstyle” guitars.

  2144. musictheory 2018-03-15 02:03:00 trainercase
    No (with an asterisk). With all other things being equal, it won't have any real effect on how the song is felt. But sometimes all other things are not equal so there can be indirect effects! For example, a singer or instrument might have to play in a different part of their range in one key vs another and that can sometimes have a subtly different effect on their performance and by extension the piece as a whole. It's not the key change itself that's responsible - it's just that changing keys forced you to change *something else* about the song as well. For a related example, imagine a guitar-driven rock song in A that makes heavy use of the open A string. Playing it in another key will require playing those open strings as fretted notes instead, which have a slightly different sound and thus potentially a slightly different feel. But you don't actually have to change keys to do this - just playing 5th fret on E instead of open A will have the exact same effect with no key change needed! Similarly, tuning the guitar down a step to D standard and playing the same fingerings will put your song in G instead of A but since it still uses open strings the feeling will be much the same as in standard tuning even though the key is not the same. Meanwhile, on an instrument like a piano you could play the song in any key you wish and they will all sound basically the same. Keep in mind this doesn't apply to key changes *within* a musical work. If I have a song in D and then key change up to E in the middle of it, it will sound like an increase in energy, but that's because of the movement up a step rather than anything specific to D or E. Having a song in A change keys to B would have the exact same effect, or Bb to C or whatever. The *relative* motion of keys matters but not so much the *absolute* key. What sometimes gives people the wrong idea is that while writing a song they may try moving it to a different key after they already have the "original" key in their ears. Say you're in the process of writing a song in D and randomly decide to transpose the whole thing up a step to E. This will have the same effect as listening to a song that's in D and changes key to E - it will feel like an increase in energy. But that is an illusion you should not fall for! It only sounds that way because you already have the sound of D in your ears and it went up. The E version doesn't *actually* have any more energy - it only feels that way because you heard the *upwards motion*. Anyone who listens to the song in E without hearing it in D first will not have that effect. Like with nearly everything pitch related, absolute values mean little to nothing. *Relative* values are how we actually hear, perceive, and understand pitch.

  2145. musictheory 2018-03-15 02:04:35 barryhappy
    Recommendation: I recommend starting with a nylon string classical guitar and learning some fingerpicking and basic guitar theory. That opens up your ability to play both acoustic and electric guitars. Mumbojumbo: I believe you will discover a sound that you feel expresses you, and it might not be a guitar in the first place! I though I was a guitarist for years, and then I picked up a bass. Don’t be afraid to try other instruments that catch your ears.

  2146. musictheory 2018-03-15 05:15:49 Salemosophy
    Why do 2 slashes denote 16ths like this, I wonder? I’m a percussionist. When we come across a slash on a note (say an 8th note), it literally means to divide it to the next subdivision (an 8th note with a slash divides into 16ths). Taking this logic to a whole note with 2 slashes, the first slash divides it down to half notes and the second divides it down to quarters. But I know that violins often get tremolo markings that instruct them to slowly or quickly move the bow back and forth on the string for the duration of the note. So... How exactly does the slash instruct the string performer? It’s very specific with percussion. What are the specifics, if any, for string players?

  2147. musictheory 2018-03-15 16:29:15 jazzintoronto
    It depends on a lot of different factors. Tuning system/era: Tunings that aren't equal temperament (our current system) have a more valid case to make for different keys being fundamentally different from each other, because the intervallic relationships between the notes really was different from key to key. Since we live in an age where 12ET is the dominant tuning system used in Western music, that claim is no longer valid; all major keys share the same intervallic relationships between notes within the key. However, there are considerations of range, timbre, and idiomatic playing: A piece written for Trumpet in the key of concert Ab major, for example, may reach the high end of the Trumpeter's range, and a transposition to D would result in the piece sounding more laboured than it has to. I'll give you another example. A piece for pedal harp in Db will sound warmer than a piece for the same instrument in D. Why? Because, the way the instrument works, there is more tension on the strings in a sharp key than there is in a flat key. It has less to do with the pitches used in the piece, and more to do with timbre. This is the same reason why, if you were writing a piece for harp in B, you should consider writing it in Cb instead - same pitches, different timbre. Similarly, many woodwind and brass instruments are predisposed to playing and sounding better in flat keys than sharp keys. On the flip side, string instruments, due to their tuning, tend to prefer sharp keys (E, A, D, G, B - all sharp keys) because it enables more use of open strings. Which sound warmer. More on timbre: At the piano, play this chord, starting 2 octaves below middle C: Db Ab F Okay, now move it down to C G E Now move it down to B F# D# Down to Bb F D Keep going. It starts sounding worse doesn't it? My point is that while keys do not posses unique personalities in the abstract colour sense, there are concrete differences between different keys in terms of the way they play out on instruments and voices...a basic knowledge of orchestration will help you to better understand these elements. Chances are, a composer who chose a key for a song chose that key for a reason.

  2148. musictheory 2018-03-15 22:28:29 DFCFennarioGarcia
    The first 7 notes strongly suggest C major but by the time you make it to that D# your ear will have largely forgotten the note C as a tonal center - which is the whole point of forcing yourself not to repeat any note until you've played all 12 pitches. And once you start using the row in inversions and retrograde and transpositions, you'll still hear major-scale fragments but any sense of there being a permanent tonal center will be long gone. I personally wouldn't design a row like that, FWIW. I find pieces come out much better when the initial row is made up of a variety of interval sizes and directions, those jumps and skips and turns are what keeps the piece feeling cohesively melodic rather than just being an endless random string of notes or chromatic scales.

  2149. musictheory 2018-03-16 02:08:55 octatonic_formula
    It figures that 'ol JS would have probably done it. I googled "Bach retrograde" and the first paragraph of this page describes where Bach does retrograde. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/tas3/strettofuguesaof.html (Stravinsky Doulbe Cannon for String Quartet has some great retrograde, retrograde inversion. Very short and cool sounding... https://youtu.be/zLfsgcPxsL0 )

  2150. musictheory 2018-03-16 14:18:46 vivek888
    I just started out on guitar and as far as I know, your teacher gave you 3 notes per string pattern and while the second image is of CAGED system. Both systems are popular among guitarists.

  2151. musictheory 2018-03-16 20:54:13 zeekar
    Most notes that a guitar can play can be played in multiple locations on the fretboard. Consider the G major scale starting with the G on the third fret of the 6th string - that’s below any other strings so it’s the only place to play that note. But the very next note, the A, can be played either on the 5th fret of the 6th string or on the open 5th string. Normally, you would play the open string, but if your hand is further down the neck already and you’re using the 5th string to play a different note, you have the other position to fall back on. You continue to have two options for B and C. When you get to the fifth note of the scale, the fourth string enters the picture and you’re up to three options for D, E, and F#. When you get to the G an octave up from where you started, you have at least three and maybe four options: if your neck has enough frets, you can play it on fret 15 of the 6th string. Which means you could play the whole scale on one string if you wanted to. But moving all the way up from the 3rd to the 15th fret is not the most economical way to play a scale; if you use multiple strings and play frets 3, 2, | 0, 2, 3, | 0, 2, 4, | 0 you barely have to move your fretting hand at all. The point of these exercises is to learn where the notes are on the fretboard so you can find the most convenient way to hit the note you want in conjunction with different chords or other notes in fingerstyle play.

  2152. musictheory 2018-03-17 01:24:25 LydianAlchemist
    Alternating 4 note and 3 notes per string has a beautiful symmetry too. Every other string has the same pattern, and the 4 note per string parts kind of make you slide to use the 4th note which can sound quite melodic.

  2153. musictheory 2018-03-17 02:10:12 DGComposer
    I'm no expert in this (in fact quite the opposite), I have been trying different methods to improve my sight-comprehension and audiation, so i thought I might share what I have found useful. I'm assuming that you already have a fair amount of ear training given your comments below about studying jazz. 1. Samuel Adler- the study of orchestration work book: There are a number of exercises that provide you with a piano reduction of the score and ask you to listen to the orchestral version and assign the pitches correctly. This should help you in applying the aural skills that you already have to an orchestral context. 2. Sight-reduction- I try to sit down with a string quartet or score of a similar instrumentation and play through at sight, if you find that to challenging to start you might try Bach's chorale settings (or any other choral music that might be less rhythmically involved) from multiple staves to get you used to taking in information from more than two staves at a time. (The string quartets have the added advantage of requiring you to read treble, alto and bass staves at the same time). 3. Read scores: Dedicate some time to reading a few scores intensely (listening, following each line independently, understanding the nuances of their relationships) and many scores superficially (listen once or twice and consistently follow one musical element (ie. melody)). Hope that's of some help. Again, this is something that I'm still working on myself so this advise might be terribly misguided.

  2154. musictheory 2018-03-18 03:14:58 hornwalker
    It is total possible to feel a key without any of the usual "giveaways". Just listen to Schoenberg's first String Quartet, for example. The tonality is there but there are few of those things you list. Or when you get a weird mid-phrase modulation like in one of Strauss's works. The tonality is there, and you can here it very distinctly(even if you have no idea what the hell the tonality is, its there).

  2155. musictheory 2018-03-18 05:24:21 65TwinReverbRI
    >Surely not all elements of functional harmony are lost when you move to locrian? I'm afraid they are. Consider this: In tonal music of the Common Practice Period, there were two "modes" - Major and Minor. But Minor is rarely (never would even be safe to say) used without an *alteration* - composers essentially had to pull in the elements of functional harmony used in *Major* keys to use in minor to "de-modalize" it and further "tonalize" it. Of course I'm talking about the V anve vii^o chords. A lot of people have not studied pre-Tonal Modality extensively (or even spuriously) but this process was actually happening well before the Tonal era and in fact is what caused the shift towards tonality. Dorian mode used a C#^o for the cadence, and Mixolydian used a F#^o - IOW, if the mode didn't already have a half step approach to the Final, they put one in! So in a sense, a plain, unaltered mode is "un-tonal" to begin with! And thus it's "non-functional" in the way we think of it. So all of them have 7 triads in the scale, but we already mess with 2 of them in Aeolian to make it Minor. Which means, 7 triads only points to one Tonality - Ionian. The rest have to be "re-directed". I suppose the question then becomes, how many alterations can we make before "modal-ness" is replaced by "tonal-ness". In the case of Minor, there's still some remnants of Dorian, but not much. All of the pieces Bach "tonalized" that were modal melodies, just essentially sound like the end wrong, not that they're necessarily modal - even Beethoven's "In the Lydian Mode" movement from a string quartet pretty much just sounds like I - V/V - V instead of I "II" V - and that's because it's "so tonalized" it's lost much of its sense of modality. And back to that other point - because we'll inevitably compare Locrian to other modes, the b2 and b5 become THE primary elements that separate it from the rest of the modes. So if you take away those notes, or try to used chords that alter those, you're "losing the Locrian" feel.

  2156. musictheory 2018-03-19 00:01:28 MajAsshole
    A lot of people are saying that you like what you like, which is true! But I think you can say some music is objectively better than other music--it's just that there's so many different aspects to music that come together in one song (Dynamics, beat, lyrics, production, accuracy, etc). I enjoy blink 182 more than I do radio head, but I'm not gonna pretend it's higher quality music. I think one thing that makes defining good quality music so elusive is that context is very important. For example, you might define playing the correct notes as an important and obvious aspect for a band, but if you listen to Nirvana, there's a ton of incidental and open-string notes played. This might be considered sloppy in today's indie music landscape, but at the time it was very revolutionary because it was so opposite of the polished sounds of 80s mainstream music. Similarly, music that was novel in the 90s would be derivative today. Another example from recently is that rapper Lil Yatchy just released an album called Lil Boat 2. Now, I really enjoyed this album, but a lot of people are trashing it because it sounds like he's just copying more popular group Migos. So a lot of people are saying this is an objectively worse album than his previous effort Lil Boat (1) because that had a more unique sound. I can agree with this assessment even though I enjoy 2 more. I guess my point is that if you can identify a few things a song does well, even if someone else may not enjoy the music, it can be considered good music.

  2157. musictheory 2018-03-20 05:11:05 65TwinReverbRI
    Tough one. I would strongly recommend you learn how to form chords by notes - "chord construction" if you will. For example, if you know a C Chord is made up of the notes C, E, and G, and you know where those notes are on the fingerboard, you can play ANY C chord you can reach. You could play a C on the 13th fret of the B string, then the G and high E (or low E for that matter) open and you'd have a C chord (inverted, but it's still a C chord). And that's not a "shape" you're going to find in any chord encyclopedia. It's the old "teach a man to fish" thing. Jazz players are all wet in the knickers about Chord Chemistry. It is "jazz", but really the concepts of chord construction are not specific to any one style - the way you make a C9 chord is the same in jazz as it is in blues, or rock, or country, or classical music, etc. So you can play "jazz" chords in other genres. And the knowledge you have from making jazz chords is totally applicable. However, if you don't know your notes, and your basic triad chords, then books like that will probably go over your head. What you REALLY need is a good guitar instructor! If you can't (but you **really** should if you're serious) you can find "chord formulas" online. These look like: Major: 1-3-5 Minor: 1-b3-5 Diminished: 1-b3-b5 and so on. In order to make those work, you have to understand Keys and Scales (at least Major) and it really helps again to know your notes if you don't already. Most more modern pop styles (post jazz), especially "rock" or any forms that are seen as "less complex" music (punk, some metal, some, country, some blues, etc.) the "jazz chords" won't be of much use. Again, it's still good to know them but they may be harder to put into practice in actual songs (or find them in actual songs). But you can start just by learning your Major and Minor chord construction, and which quality which chords are in a key, and start putting them on the neck.

  2158. musictheory 2018-03-20 11:10:52 jazzadellic
    There's probably at least 3 different things you would have to study. One is chord formulas. For example 1-3-5 is the formula for a major triad. When using chord formulas like this we are usually referring to the major scale of that root. So for example, C7 is 1-3-5-b7, so we take those notes of the C major scale to get the notes in the chord (C-E-G-Bb). Of course chord formulas will be useless by themselves if you don't also know how to figure out the notes on your fretboard. So one of the other parts of this is learning to name all the notes on every string. Lastly, another good thing to know is your circle of fifths / key signatures, and what I like to call the "order of chords". Every major key has this order of basic chords: Major, minor, minor, Major, Major, minor, diminished. By also knowing my key signatures, or using the circle of fifths as a reference, I can quickly figure out the chords in any key. This is very useful for figuring out what key you are in when you identify 2 or 3 chords. This then helps you to predict what other chords will be there, assuming a section is in just one key. So this last part is not 100% necessary, but I find I use it all the time to help me figure out keys and chords around the fretboard. As you can imagine this isn't learnable in one day or watch one YT video. But if you are dedicated, you could learn this in a matter of weeks or a couple months of daily practice. It takes years for it all to be second nature though where you don't even have to think about it and can instantly identify chords and/or construct whatever chord you need anywhere on the fretboard.

  2159. musictheory 2018-03-21 09:23:07 all-thethings
    There is no A. There's a G in both the melody and the string section.

  2160. musictheory 2018-03-21 15:10:37 Geromusic
    Think of the strings as segments of 6 piano keyboards laid parallel, each string tuned a perfect 4th from the adjacent strings, except for the 2nd and 3rd (thinnest) which are major 3rd apart. Guitarists are notoriously bad music readers, but it's not because they're a bunch of lazy bums. It's one of the more challenging instruments to read on. Middle C can be played on 4 different strings, how do you know which one to use? You have to plan and look ahead at all the notes around it and see which part of the range of the instrument you need, or be prepared for large jumps around the fretboard. This means you have to know all the notes in various positions, so you need to learn a bunch of duplicates of the same notes on different strings all over the instrument. It's a pain in the ass but it's the nature of the beast. Keep in mind everything above, learning all those notes, is doing it the "right way". It's the comprehensive approach. Many, many guitarists get by with a hacked together system of the pentatonic scale, the 7 diatonic modes, their related chords, and just matching them together (scales to chords). Most of the time they have no idea what note or interval they're playing, but more experienced players will have found the "good" notes through trial and error. This system actually works quite well if you just want to solo but don't want to learn music theory or how to read music. But this is the music theory subreddit, so do it the first way! You will be a better person. Seriously, it'll make you better looking too. Have fun!

  2161. musictheory 2018-03-21 19:04:27 Jongtr
    Stop looking for one scale to fit all! Music doesn't work like that. (Or rarely anyway.) This song is in the *key* of G major (not a mode), with chords borrowed from the parallel minor (Bb, Eb), even one from parallel phrygian (Ab). (The Bb chord occurs at the end of the intro - it goes to that from Ab instead of G.) The chords seem to be played with root and 3rd on strings 6 and 5, leaving the 4th and 3rd strings open all the time (muting the 2nd and 1st strings). So he slides from 3-2-0-0-x-x up to 8-7-(0)-0-x-x for the C chord, and down to 4-3-0-0-x-x for the Ab (Abmaj7#11 if you want the fancy name). That Bb is played as 6-5-0-0-x-x, with a pull-off on 5th string from 6 to 5. So there is no one scale that will cover all the chords, which is fairly standard in rock. If you wanted to improvise on it, you'd use the notes in the chords, adding notes from the other chords, and/or anything else that sounded good. Not a lot of sense in trying to identify and name a scale that included all the notes. I.e., although the "key" is clearly G - G is the tonal centre, and it's a G major chord - there's obviously a lot of other stuff outside the G major scale. (C and D fit, but Ab, Eb and Bb don't.) No rules are being broken here! This is "common practice", and theory is based on common practice. The theory that applies is not "diatonic major scale", but "mode mixture" - which is basically the concept that rock music runs on.

  2162. musictheory 2018-03-21 22:58:33 Jongtr
    Depends in what form you're shown the scale (i.e. how much information is lacking ;-)); and whether you can read notation; and how much you know about keys in general (relative keys and circle of 5ths). If you're just shown the scale in tab, you need to know what the notes are (on each string/fret). And then use whatever scale theory knowledge you have (see above). In a piece of actual music, it's the note you *hear* as the tonal centre. That may not be the first note of a melody, although it's likely to be the root of the first chord. More commonly, it's the last note of the tune (and root of final chord), where it comes to rest.

  2163. musictheory 2018-03-22 05:32:09 itsjusttacobell
    I usually do alot with melody on different strings. I like to think of each string as a separate voice and I practice voice leading that way. Its the same concept as writing on piano where you want as little movement as possible for harmony so i use alot of inversions to keep things interesting

  2164. musictheory 2018-03-22 19:51:24 65TwinReverbRI
    As already said, not always the case. You might play your D chord with the top 4 strings, putting the D note as the lowest sounding note and not playing strings 5 and 6. But you can add the 5th string in because it is a part of the chord - an A note. But in doing so, you "invert" the chord, meaning some note other than the root note of the chord is the lowest sounding note. Likewise, you can even reach an F# on the 6th string 2nd fret of the LOW E (it's on the top E string, so since they're both E, anything you play on one of them in a chord can be played on the other!). This is another inversion of D (with the 3rd, F#, in the bass). So you get: D (root position) D/F# (3rd in the bass = 1st Inversion) and D/A (5th in the bass = 2nd inversion) You can "open up" your playing (and create interesting bass note movement) by using inversions, but one of the very common things to do in guitar is play the root on beat one, strum the rest of the chord on beat 2, then play the 5th below (or sometimes above) on beat 3, then the rest of the chord again on beat 4. Doing this with that D chord, you'd have: D - strum - A - strum over and over. This is called an "alternating bass" usually and it typically goes between the root and the 5th, but it can be between the root and 3rd, in either order, etc. It's a very typical thing to do in older country music and bluegrass. Two REALLY common moves on guitar are to play: C - G/B - Am or G - D/F# - Em in either direction. What this does is make the bass note go stepwise - C-B-A or G-F#-E. Otherwise it would "jump" from G to D before moving to E. So doing it with this inversion "smooths out" the bass line which sometimes you want. If you're working on basic triads now, I'd say this should really be your next step - working out the inversions of each of the triads and, figuring out from a set of notes - like G#-E-B-E what the root of the chord is, what chord it is, and which inversion it's in. Cheers

  2165. musictheory 2018-03-22 22:57:31 dresdnhope
    Harmonics occur where you are dividing the string into equal parts. The four fret is 1/5 of the length of the guitar string, which causes a standing wave vibration with nodes at all multiples of 1/5 the length. The length of the string between fourth and ninth fret is also 1/5 the length of the string, for a total of 2/5 the length, so it makes the same sound.

  2166. musictheory 2018-03-22 23:03:01 65TwinReverbRI
    Also, most people figure things like this out when they go "higher" on the string - towards the bridge. IOW, if you play the harmonic at the 7th fret, there's an identical one that's the same distance from the nut to the 7th from the bridge - this one divides the string into 3 parts. If you do the one at the 5th fret, it's the same as that distance "mirrored" on the bridge side, as it divides it into 4ths. IOW, you can play harmonics on either side of the mid-point of the string, and they're like a mirror image around the 12th fret, with whatever's available on one side also available on the other side for the most part.

  2167. musictheory 2018-03-22 23:53:03 dresdnhope
    One interesting thing is that when you divide the string up by playing harmonics, you are multiplying the frequency by the denominator to get the note (as long is the fraction is simplified). Say you playing harmonics on the A string, A is 110 Hz. The harmonics at 1/5. 2/5, 3/5, and 4/5 the string length gives the frequency of 5*110 Hz, or 550 Hz. If check a chart of note frequencies you'll see that's essentially a C# (C# is actually 554.37 Hz). At 1/4 and 3/4 string length: 440 Hz which is the A two octaves up, and 2/4 simplifies to 1/2, so that one's 220 Hz which is the A one octave up. Etc. EDIT: word choice for clarity

  2168. musictheory 2018-03-23 02:30:18 Jongtr
    They are exactly the same. To the trained ear too. Both of them divide the string into 5ths (1/5 fractions, that is, not 5th intervals). You get another node for the same harmonic at fret 16: 4th fret = 4/5 string length 9th fret = 3/5 string length 16th fret = 2/5 string length 1/5 string length is exactly half-way between 16th fret and bridge. You'll find another node there. Each 1/5 fraction vibrates at 5x the open string frequency. When you touch the harmonic node and pick the string, all the 1/5ths vibrate together. The pitch they produce is 14 cents flat of a major 3rd (plus 2 octaves) above the open string. Your tuner will show you the note is flat. E.g., if your low E string is exactly in tune, the 4th fret (and 9th and 16th) harmonic will read as a G# that's a little flat. Don't tune to this harmonic! 7th fret harmonics are also out of tune, but only by 2 cents - not enough to register on most tuners (nor to be detectable to most ears, even trained ones). What I say "out of tune", of course, I mean relative to the equal temperament that tuners are calibrated to. Arguably it's the harmonics that are in tune, and our musical system that is out of tune. :-)

  2169. musictheory 2018-03-23 09:38:01 ts73737
    Put restrictions on yourself and ban yourself from the problem areas. E.g. say you are only allowed to use frets 8-14 on any string. Make yourself only allowed to use a single string. Make yourself only allowed to use specific notes on a chord. Make yourself only allowed to use notes that go up or down by a tone or a semi-tone. Restriction force you to innovate and be creative with a smaller tool box. If you ever wonder what to do next, put more restrictions on yourself.

  2170. musictheory 2018-03-23 11:05:42 petermynett
    Play major scale starting with any finger on any string (or at least 1st, 2nd and 4th). You can either shift across strings or up a string, usually in three note clumps. Consider C major starting on the 3rd fret of a string: play it all in the position, shift up the D string, or shift up the A string. Or consider a 2 octave G major scale, and all the ways to shift. Or there’s also a thing that works well on electric bass, maybe it has a name I don’t know...consider three shapes: major 1 3 5, Minor 1 3 4, Phrygian 1 2 4. These 3 shapes cycle over seven times. For major scale they would order: maj maj phyg phyg min min maj. And like the diatonic modes, for a different mode you just choose a different starting place. Dorian: min maj maj maj phyg phyg min min. Just another way to look at things! Works especially well for 5 or 6 string bass. And last but not least....the 4 main triad types. Major, minor, augmented and diminished. I find triads harder than seventh chords because you have to better visualize the shifts.

  2171. musictheory 2018-03-23 13:46:25 TheChurchofHelix
    One good way to learn the fretboard is to learn 4 note per string scale shapes, Holdsworth style. These force you to move a lot more horizontally and help build hand accuracy. On bass in particular this forces you to move your hand a lot because of the wide fret spacing. Start with F, G, or A major in two octaves with four notes per string, starting on the E string. Articulate every note but then work on other patterns, like slur 2/pick 2.

  2172. musictheory 2018-03-23 14:21:12 FwLineberry
    Forget about scale patterns and fretboard shapes. Plot out the natural notes on every string. That's C major/A minor (and the rest of the modes). Work up and down the fingerboard just like working up and down the white keys on the piano. Then use the circle of 5ths to add sharps and flats. Also work out major minor and diminished triads all over the fingerboard for each key. Eventually start working with Harmonic and Melodic minor keys and modes.

  2173. musictheory 2018-03-23 23:04:13 wageovsin
    Thank you. Was asking because a friend of mine uses these notes in a song hes written. He isnt into music theory, prefering to play what sound good to him. Kinda has a primal approuch to it all. I forgot to mention B is his open low string on the guitar and he uses it frequently.

  2174. musictheory 2018-03-23 23:12:50 all-thethings
    I don't get why anyone would interpret the same thing one way once and another way the rest of the times, though. It's the exact same turnaround as the first pre-chorus (albeit with a different vocal line, discussing later), as well as in the choruses. Bbm serves as a borrowed chord from Fm, which is (from a Dm perspective) the relative major's parallel minor. This makes more sense than asserting that a top note in a theoretical structure, which moreover clashes with the bass, would be the root of the chord, particularly in the context of the string line G-F-Eb-Db. If you consider the pivot area to start between the Gm chord immediately preceding, you get ii-iv(6)-V(13) in the next key area, which is normal harmonic function. Vocals: he's actually singing Bb, if a little flat. It's just his way of singing that sounds like several little slides down through static melodies. Otherwise, the instrumentals (~4:44) and spoken pre-chorus (~5:08) do actually play A's in the upper voices; however, it's supported by fifths in the bass outlining Bb-rooted chords, not A, as well as the line Bb-Db-...C-Bb during the sax solo. Bb-E#, a double augmented fourth, is highly dissonant, and playing Bb-C#-C-Bb over an A root doesn't compute. Basically, chord roots should make sense based on one of the *triadic* roots (not extensions, C/D and D(7)/C aren't interchangeable), and if it doesn't, a different root should be considered.

  2175. musictheory 2018-03-25 23:39:02 all-thethings
    I'm really not sure how the chord will sound in context, but as long as the rest of the instrumentation doesn't make it sound muddy, it should be okay. I just think that it has a greater chance of sounding muddy than playing 1st fret low E or muting said string, but if you can make it work, more power to you :)

  2176. musictheory 2018-03-26 06:21:57 Jongtr
    The fact you're missing is that scales are not produced by dividing an octave. The octave is the first division in the process. The guitar string is the perfect (whoops!) illustration of the process. First, you divide the string in 2. 2:1 = the octave. 12th fret on the fretboard; Second, divide by 3. That lands you on frets 7 and 19. Fret 7 = 2/3 of the string, and gives the "perfect 5th". (Fret 19 is a 12th, octave plus 5th.) Next, divide by 4. 1/4 of the string is 2 octaves above the open string, and would be fret 24 if you have one. 3/4 is at fret 5 = perfect 4th. Of course, the intervals only get the names "octave", "5th and "4th" when we decide we want 7 notes in a scale (8 including the repeat of the first). The point here is to show how the perfect intervals are arrived at by division of the *string*, the musical object. (Same would apply to an organ pipe, wind instrument, or xylophone bar.) On the guitar fretboard, you can see that the P4 and P5 divide the octave in a 5-2-5 arrangement. I.e., the irregular division of the octave is a result of taking the simplest fractions of the string. (Divide by 5, btw, you get frets 4 (4/5), 9 (3/5) and 16 (2/5). That's a major 3rd and major 6th.)

  2177. musictheory 2018-03-27 13:56:29 Xenoceratops
    >I was thinking today how I absolutely hate dominant chords after having a bad experience with them way back in highschool. I was improvising a solo and everything was going well until the song hit a constant ii-V7 and I couldn’t string together anything that sounded musical. Evidently not a jazz musician. Do you hate the tonic as well?

  2178. musictheory 2018-03-27 16:25:48 Ian_Campbell
    Chromatic mediants are maybe a little like mobile homes in this circumstance. And come up with a nifty loop like that and you have shifting tonalities where each is not out of possibility from the one before (mediants are kind of like tonic substitutes) but the string of one to the next is rather outside (thus it is solidified by ending where it started and repeating after not many changes).

  2179. musictheory 2018-03-27 22:55:44 CessPoole
    I also work ten hours a day in a warehouse and since I’m not allowed to bring my phone in, I’ll quiz myself on things that I’ve either studied recently, or try to keep older things fresh in my mind. When a friend and I had both decided to start learning where all the notes were on the fretboard of a guitar, we’d randomly come up to each other and randomly say either a fret and string name or say a note and the other would have to say where all of the notes were. Just little things like that help me out a lot instead of daydreaming all day.

  2180. musictheory 2018-03-28 00:41:32 DeanVeni
    I enjoy playing jazz. At least way more than classical, but that specific song was the only one that has caught me off guard. It was [Nostalgia In Times Square by Charles Mingus](https://youtu.be/HafQ0B36ZIQ), I put together a nice melody for the first Eb7 to Db7, but then it took a horrible dive into Cm7 - F7 - Bbm7 - Eb7 - Abm7 - Db7 and I just felt like every idea I tried to string together was constantly being “cut off.”

  2181. musictheory 2018-03-28 10:10:50 jimjambanx
    Because maybe they didn't want a V7 sound, maybe they thought the 7th drew too much attention and made the intent of the chord too obvious. It all comes down to sound; what is the sound I'm hearing in my head? Because the omittion of certain notes in and of itself creates a particular sound. Compare C6 to Cmaj7(13), the difference is one note but that note makes a world of difference in the chord, in the same way that voicing can create a totally different sound. It's not just about what notes you use, but also what notes you *don't* use. Maybe a maj7 is too airy, or a dom7 is too dramatic. Imagine you're the sculptor Michaelangelo, who has a giant slab of marble, and somewhere in this slab is the sculpture of David. By getting rid of more marble, you inch closer and closer to your masterpiece. You have to decide what marble to keep, and what marble to chisel away. Because if you decide to just keep a bunch of marble, all it's doing is getting in the way of your image. In music, you so the exact same thing. In a seemingly infinite spectrum of sound we can perceive, we pick what we do and don't want out of collection of 12 distinct pitches that double in frequency, in order to "sculpt" our musical work. If all you're doing is arbitrarily adding in notes "because you can", all they're doing is getting in the way of the "message" of the piece. In the same way an orchestrator may choose to have a melody played by a solo violin as opposed to the whole string section, by leaving things out you're creating a sound that's unique in its own right.

  2182. musictheory 2018-03-29 00:53:29 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, I'd say start with some of the commonly popular ones: Vivaldi - Four Seasons Handel - Messiah, Water Music, Royal Fireworks Music Bach - Brandenburg Concertos - so much to mention, but in order to give time to others I'll stop there. Hadyn - Opus 33 String Quartets, London Symphonies. Mozart - "Haydn" Quartets, Piano Sonatas, Symphonies from 35 onward. Requiem, The Magic Flute (and so many others) Beethoven - Symphonies 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 at least. "Named" Sonatas (Pathatique, Moonlight, Appassionata, etc.). Schubert/Schumann - Song Cycles (Lieder) Chopin - Etudes, Preludes, Nocturnes, etc. Tchaikovsky - Symphonies 4,5, and 6. Nutcracker. Debussy - Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, piano music, etc. There are so many and so many people have favorites but I think even if you start with a "classical music's greatests hits" you'll get a lot of good suggestions there. I'm more an instrumental music person do I didn't list a lot of Opera - but I think that should kind of be taken on its own - same with a lot of Choral music, or Sacred music, etc. Honestly, I think if you start with Mozart's mature works, and work your way both forward and backward and time, you'll get a nice perspective. But there's lots of amazing Renaissance music, as well as 20th century music. But the "big" "famous" "controversial" "oft mentioned" pieces are good places to start. Usually any "named" Sonatas, String Quartets, Symphonies, and Concerti tend to be good picks (Haydn's "Farewell" symphony, Mozart's "Elvira Madigan" Concerto, Beethoven's "Waldstein" sonata, etc.) Some have historical significance (read about Haydn's Farewell symphony) but again, often it's those works associated with extra-musical movements and trends that tend to be "important" - like the monumental Art of Fugue by Bach, which he died while completing, and the sort of similar issue with Mozart's Requiem. Sometimes this places more importance on a piece than might otherwise be afforded, but it's kind of like, while "Telstar" might not be the absolute best song the Tornados ever wrote, it was the first #1 instrumental in America by an English band IIRC. So it sort of has become a pop culture icon (at least for those interested in history of music) in that way.

  2183. musictheory 2018-03-29 10:59:53 VillagerNumber2
    So when I'm improvising, I have times when I'm like "Oh a perfect 4th will sound nice from this note". Well, I'm not always so accurate playing that 4th. Since I do know the names of the keys on the piano (or the fret/string of the guitar), if I could simply add the 4th to the note, I'd be set. However, it's hard to add up letters w/o some thought, so I was thinking maybe there's numeric representation. I know that scales will help, but not always. So I'm trying out different things.

  2184. musictheory 2018-03-30 00:59:00 65TwinReverbRI
    I love Haydn and I consider him to be treated somewhat like an "underdog" to Mozart and Beethoven. His late Symphonies and mature string quartets are all hallmarks of craftsmanship. But there are gems to be found throughout.

  2185. musictheory 2018-03-30 12:51:38 zeekar
    Since your chord has the B minor triad as its base, it's tempting to list the notes of the B minor scale (specifically, the B natural minor scale, otherwise known as Aeolian mode), note that the G is the sixth note of that scale, and say that this is a "Bm add 6" or simply "Bm6" chord. But that's not the case. The fact that the basis of the chord is a _minor_ triad does not mean that you start counting intervals using the _minor_ scale. Starting the name of the chord with "Bm" doesn't mean anything except that the middle note of the basic triad is at an interval of a minor third from the tonic note: D instead of D♯. If we add "6" to that, it still means a _major_ sixth, which would be adding a G♯, not a natural G. Since we want the minor (a.k.a. flattened) 6th, we say "Bm add ♭6" or just "Bm♭6" for short. As you pointed out, it's also a Gmaj7 chord... the G major triad (G, B, D) plus the note a major seventh above G (F♯). Which one of those you think of it as is going to be determined by the surrounding musical context, and also which note you play as the bass note of the chord. If the bottom note is a G, it's going to sound more like a Gmaj7 than if the bottom note is a B, so mute that 6th string!

  2186. musictheory 2018-03-30 14:40:16 exoversion-r
    I'm a self-taught musician, so my thoughts on the issue might not be very educated as a heads up. I think about it in a couple of ways, firstly I agree with telecat69 to a point, it seems to be really beneficial to stop thinking about theory when you're trying to write a piece of music, whether it's a solo piece or an accompaniment as a "composition". I generally try to think about the sound I want to hear first, then it's a process of finding that note on the fretboard/keyboard. On the other hand I think it's a really good learning technique to think "in theory" while practicing. The reason I see this distinction is because during composition you're ideally trying to create something that you enjoy hearing regardless of whether or not it fits the logical rules of theory (even though it is always explainable with music theory) while when you're practicing you're trying to (from a writers standpoint) create solid associations between notes, patterns of notes and certain "feelings". So for me, I practice playing simple single-tone progressions or chord progressions and accompanying it with various arpeggios, scales and other chords (or parts of them). That helps me bridge the gap between the instrument and what I want to hear and be able to more intuitively decide what I want to play, as well as having guideposts for what I know will fit with the piece. So to actually answer your question, I would do it both ways. When you're doing "practice compositions", think about it as a musical note but still pay attention to how it sounds "as is" because it helps you understand the patterns. When you're trying to write something and you want it to sound a certain way, or you're trying to create a certain feeling, primarily focus on the string or note as it is and only use the musical notation or fretboard position as a guidepost to help you find what you're looking for.

  2187. musictheory 2018-03-30 15:23:24 Jongtr
    You seem to be confusing *reading* music with *inventing* music (improvisation, composition). (I don't actually see any theoretical issues in your question, which is maybe a relief... ;-)) The best quote I know about notation is something a famous conductor once said to an orchestra at a rehearsal (sorry I don't know who he was). He held up the score and said "this is not the music. It's just *some information about* the music." [My emphasis] IOW, "the music" is what happens when you play, the sounds you create. The notation is only information and - moreover - only *some* information: not all of it by any means. It's a handy corrective to the common way of referring to a piece of notation as "the music". "Can I see the music, please?" "No, you can only *hear* music. I can show you some notation if you want." ;-) Anyway, there's nothing wrong with your process for reading. The issue with the guitar and notation is that any one note can usually be played in a few places on the instrument (that's true for violin too of course, but not quite so much). Classical notation will usually suggest a position for you, but other kinds won't. You have to decide where to play that "C" note. B string fret 1? G string fret 5? D string fret 10? etc. What enables you to decide is (a) looking at the notes around it (the phrase may be easiest in one position), (b) your knowledge of the piece (what sound is required, which position may sound best), (c) your knowledge of the fretboard (naturally), (d) your personal taste in sound and technique. However, you say "that got me nowhere" in terms of your own creativity. Why would you expect it to? Your creativity is nothing to do with your skill (or lack of) in reading music. Some of the most creative musicians in popular music or jazz couldn't read a note. They learned everything they knew *by ear.* (Music is nothing but sound, remember.) Being creative - for composing or improvising - comes from having the *vocabulary* to say what you want to say. That vocabulary comes from learning lots of melodies, and understand how they work with the harmony (key and chord sequence). OK, you can get a lot of that vocabulary from reading music. However, you have to do more than read. Firstly, you have to *want* to be creative - not every musician does (some are happy to just play other people's music as well as they can). Given a desire for invention, you then have to be *curious*. You have to not only read, you have to *understand and memorize.* When you hear something that catches your ear (whether on a recording, or in a piece you're playing), you examine it, find out what it is and how it works. You file it away in your library, your inner phrase book. It's likely you already improvise to some extent. When you play from written music - if you're any good - you *interpret*: you get a feel for how it's supposed to sound, and adjust your playing accordingly. You know (or should) how to make your playing more *expressive*, when required, how to "put feeling into it". That's the beginning of creativity. You then have to make the leap to realising you can play *variations* of a written piece. You could [gasp] change a note here or there, or miss one out; change a rhythm; add a chromatic passing note; change the tempo or the metre. It's still recognisable as that piece, but now you're *improvising* on it. Naturally, the further you go with your improvisation, the less recognisable it becomes. You look at the harmony (curiosity, right?) and realise you could find another melodic route through it; how would that work? Try it. Not as good as the original, maybe, but who cares? You're *creating.* The bigger leap is to realise you don't have to start with an existing piece. You can take half-remembered fragments of pieces you've played in the past and put them together. You can play some short phrase on your instrument and imagine where it might go next. You can steal a chord sequence (they're not copyright) and invent a route through the changes, singing or humming as you're playing. Obviously, to be good at this, to let the inspiration flow, you have to have *played a lot of music before.* Hearing a lot of music is important, but it's even more important to have *played* it. That's show it gets into your subconscious and comes out through your fingers. That's where the vocabulary comes from. Of course, for many people, those "leaps" are nothing of the sort. They *start out* with a creative streak. They find it hard to play from written music *without* putting their own stamp on it (they treat it as merely raw material for their own ideas). They'll be composing music (however badly) before they can even play an instrument. Personally, I wrote four tunes in the first week I owned a guitar. They were obviously crap (I was teaching myself and had a terrible ear), but that's not the point. I knew - sort of - how tunes went, I knew the shapes they were supposed to have; I knew roughly how songs were structured (verse- chorus, etc). Easy to sketch out crude examples. Sometimes, creativity comes from believing you have the *right* to do it. You're *allowed* to! You don't have to achieve any particular standard or pass any test. You just take anything you have to hand, and do it. So, you're rubbish when you start, obviously. But like anything, you get better the more you do it. You have to practise composition and improvisation the same way you practice your instrumental technique.

  2188. musictheory 2018-03-30 15:44:51 Jongtr
    My $0.02... Intervals come before scales. They are not dependent on scales. Intervals come in three kinds: 1. Perfect consonances 2. Imperfect consonances 3. Dissonances. 1. Perfect intervals are those whose frequencies are in the simplest ratios, in factors of 2 and 3 only. Unison = 1:1 Octave = 2:1 5th = 3:2 4th = 4:3 IOW, the upper note of an octave is twice the frequency of the lower note. The upper note of a 5th is 3/2 the frequency of the lower. (If you happen to be a guitarist, you can see these fractions on a guitar string. Fret 12 - octave = 1/2 string; fret 7 = 5th = 2/3 string; fret 5 = 4th = 3/4 string.) 2. The "imperfect consonances" each come in two sizes, larger and smaller (one semitone difference). That's what "major" and "minor" mean: larger and smaller. These are 2nds, 3rds, 6ths and 7ths. 3. Dissonances are what you get when you "augment" (enlarge by a semitone) a perfect or major interval; and when you "diminish" (reduce by a semitone) a perfect or minor interval. Complications arise because of "enharmonics" - one interval which sounds the same as another. This is why "dissonance" is not really the best term for that third group of altered intervals - whether they are perceived as dissonant depends on context (in a key or piece of music). E.g., an augmented 5th - in isolation - sounds like a minor 6th. A minor 6th is consonant, provided we hear the upper note as the root. Play C and Ab together. That could be part of an Ab major chord, or Fm, right? Sounds fine. Now play a C major chord, and raise the G to G#; dissonant, right? But remove the E from the chord, and you're playing the same two notes as before. C-G# = C-Ab. Scales and chords take their names - mostly - from their most *significant* intervals (the interval that most clearly distinguishes that scale or chord from others). So, a "major" chord or scale is one that has a major 3rd. A "minor "scale or chord is one that has a minor 3rd. (Perfect 5th assumed in both cases.) Likewise ,"augmented and "diminished" chords take their names from their 5ths. A "major 7th" chord is one with a major 7th interval. A "diminished 7th" chord has a diminished 7th interval. (A diminished 7th interval sounds like a major 6th, but spans 7 notes.) A common exception to the interval naming of chords is the "dominant 7th", which takes its name from the "dominant" degree (V) of a scale. Named in intervals, the chord is a "major minor 7th" (its alternative name).

  2189. musictheory 2018-03-31 02:02:00 65TwinReverbRI
    You've got an A note in there - it would have to be B on the 2nd fret of the 5th string for it to be Gmaj7/B. If you did that though you'd only have a Bm. The notes you have here are A-D-B-D-F#, or a Bm/A or Bm7/A

  2190. musictheory 2018-03-31 02:04:52 65TwinReverbRI
    Same issue of course. A - F# - B - D - still just Bm/A or Bm7/A Unless your A string is tuned up to B (to put a B on the bottom) or G????

  2191. musictheory 2018-03-31 02:07:45 65TwinReverbRI
    Most likely because while any note in any register can be a pedal, we tend to think of them as lower notes. But yes, open string "drones" on guitar especially can be seen as "pedal" notes and may or may not be included in the harmony - not included as "non-chord tones". The common B-F#-G-F# or D-F#-G-F# type patterns kind of use the G as an upper neighbor to the F# and could be considered a non-chord tone, but since we usually overlap the sustain for effect, and often they sound throughout, we sort of tend to conceive of them more as a chord tone than not.

  2192. musictheory 2018-03-31 11:05:02 JP200214
    I may not be the best guitarist, but I know my way around a g string.....

  2193. musictheory 2018-03-31 11:25:09 Willravel
    >Of course, I don't have a girlfriend...but the day that I do I can be prepared. If this were a nonharmonic tone, I believe it would be an anticipation. Without further ado, here are a few: * Phrigian in the kitchen, dominant seventh in the bedroom. * You make me fermata. * Baby got Bach. * The g string is open fingered. * I'll make you tremolo. * Like two half notes with upward stems divided by a bar line, you need to be tied down. * Are you into homophony? (if you happen to be bitonal and find a boyfriend) That's all I've got.

  2194. musictheory 2018-03-31 12:08:34 TorazChryx
    David Gilmour does this thing as part of his technique/style where he'll fret the root note of a chord and then bend the string to the various notes that comprise the chord. Learn to do that with your tongue and words will not be required.

  2195. musictheory 2018-03-31 15:41:39 axolotlkips
    Breaking a G string fingering A minor is the oldest guitar joke in the book. Unless you're Jimmy Page of course.

  2196. musictheory 2018-04-01 02:56:55 Da-e
    There's always the G string.

  2197. musictheory 2018-04-01 15:57:42 Jongtr
    Why do you want it to be functional? Or stable? If it sounds good as it is? (I think it does, and you think the melody certainly does. And melody rules.) (And see previous reply about why "D#"maj7 is crazy.) Eb major does share a relationship with C major, which you can call [chromatic mediant] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_mediant). You could also say that C major is the "parallel major of the relative minor" of Eb (a mouthful to say, but an obvious and common relationship, via C minor). Cm, of course, is common in the keys of both Eb and Bb - and your Bbmaj7 suggests key of Bb rather than Eb. So what you have might be better described as IV-II, IV-II, IV-I. ([Here's] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDzwhTaO9cc) a jazz standard that features maj7s on I and bVII, same relationship as your Cmaj7 and Bbmaj7. And [here's] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D1nK7q2i8I) a famous use of chromatic mediants, E and C in this case.) But then, as I suggested, a chord sequence doesn't have to be functional. Lots aren't. It doesn't need to have a chord you can identify as "I" by ear (which you need to be able to do to start assigning roman numerals). However, the fact you're at pains to point out the voicing of each chord suggests another avenue you could explore. The way chords are voiced (which is much the same thing as shapes on the guitar) helps the voice-leading work. And voice-leading (not key or tonal function) is the mechanism behind all chord changes. So your Ebmaj7 and Cmaj7 share a tone (G); while the root falls, the 5th of Eb (Bb) rises a semitone to the 7th of C (B), and the 7th of Eb rises a tone to the 3rd of C. That's obviously (and rightly) important to you. (The root could also rise to the 3rd by semitone). IOW, if you want to expand or develop this sequence, start looking at how the notes on each string might move, up or down by semitone or tone, forgetting about what chords might be formed in the process. Just go by ear - and let your melody lead you. (And also experiment with those other chromatic mediants ... lots of fun there.)

  2198. musictheory 2018-04-03 12:31:27 i_8_the_Internet
    Ignore Jazzadelic. These are important things to understand; I’ll do my best ELI5 impersonation. Start with the harmonic series as that’s the basis for everything here. The idea is that something needs to vibrate to produce sound. Imagine a guitar string. Whatever pitch that produces is called the fundamental. Now, if you start dividing that string in equal whole number parts, you will get perfect intervals above it. This is important for musicians differently based on what instrument you play. Brass, strings - crucial to understanding how your instrument works. Percussion- less so. For example, if you take a string that vibrates at 100 hz(for example), and divide it in half, you will get a frequency of 200 hz. This ratio of 1:2 is a perfectly in tune octave. If you divide the original string into thirds, your new note will be a 5th plus an octave (perfect 13th) or 300 hz. Divide in 4, 400 hz or 2 octaves. And it goes on. Forever. These are natural division points for strings, air columns in instruments, etc. For more reading, Wikipedia it. An overtone is any frequency greater than the fundamental frequency of a sound. When those particular frequencies are whole number multiples of the fundamental, they are referred to as harmonic partials, or just partials. The undertone series or subharmonic series is a sequence of notes that results from inverting the intervals of the harmonic series. Imagine a mirror reflection of the harmonic series but going down instead of up. These don’t occur naturally, so Wiki it for further explanation. Hope this helps!

  2199. musictheory 2018-04-03 16:37:23 roldarin
    A note is a sound wave, a periodic vibration of the air pressure. The frequency of this wave, the inverse of the period T, is called the fundamental frequency of the wave f. If you have an A4 his fundamental frequency will be 440 Hz no matter the source (the instrument). Sound waves are caused by vibrations (waves) in an instrument (a wave guitar string for example). So the pressure will a COMPLICATED function of time with the only condition of being periodic P = complicatedFunction(t) = complicatedFunction(t+T). Everything that vibrates periodically can be decomposed as a sum of harmonic waves. A harmonic wave is a SIMPLE wave that vibrates as P = A cos wt, with P as the air pressure if a sound wave, A the amplitude (intensity), w the frequency). This is called the Fourier decomposition or serie of a periodic complicated function. There is one important property, the frequency of the harmonic waves will be a multiple of the fundamental frequency: w = n f (with n = 0,1,2,3....). For a wave, his harmonic series will be all this simple harmonic waves in which it can be decomposed. The timbre is the harmonic series. This wikipedia article is very good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music)

  2200. musictheory 2018-04-03 23:01:49 Atheia
    E-flat minor is preferred because many winds are B-flat instruments and so only have to read 4 flats. I'm a string player and those that say D-sharp minor are "easier to play" are mistaken. It is a very remote key that's rarely seen, with a C double sharp leading tone with notes no different than E-flat minor.

  2201. musictheory 2018-04-04 01:04:08 Agiltohr
    >I think it'd be cool to hear pieces in their original tuning. Listen to professional string quartets. They are usually pretty much perfectly in tune.

  2202. musictheory 2018-04-04 01:34:09 Yeargdribble
    >How different did music sound when it wasn't in modern tuning? Honestly, it's unlikely that actual musicians of the period were *that* good. The level of musicianship is so much better now and so are the instruments. Lots of historical accounts of stuff that was nearly unplayable then by the best, but is now the stuff in some 15 year-old's expected rep can tell you that. Additionally, we do have some recordings of some of the best players and by today's standards they would be considered very sloppy. Note perfection wasn't even there at the time, so tuning almost certainly wasn't. So while they goal might've been just intonation, the reality probably wasn't there. That said, these days most high level musicians, particularly in chamber groups where there are no fixed pitch instruments (and even in cases where there are) will constantly make adjustments to just intonation. I like to make the point that even if you're sitting on the same note, say and E in a C major chord.... and the groups around you moves to Am, you're now the 5th instead of the 3rd. You will make the few cents adjustment. I actually used to know all of the adjustments numbers from equal to just, but now my ear just does it for me. But yeah, good a capella groups will sing just, string quartets, brass quintents, and honestly a lot of other groups will just constantly move around. We hear listen down to the bass voice and adjust our pitches to get them to line up perfectly. All that said... >I think it'd be cool to hear pieces in their original tuning. It's not going to be nearly as different as you think. I mean, it's something I do and can hear, but it's seriously not that huge of a change. We're talking about maybe 13 cents at the most here and there and usually more like 2 or 7. It's moving around quickly enough that you don't *really* notice it. Sure, ensembles that play just will maybe "shimmer" a bit more as the overtones pop out a tiny bit more, but honestly, it's not nearly as dramatic as you might expect, otherwise playing piano would be aurally horrific.

  2203. musictheory 2018-04-04 06:19:05 SoonerViola17
    Well, the piece was written in 1935, but I can’t really speak to Hindemith’s intentions. Even within equal temperament tuning though, there are things string players do, like slightly lowering the third of a major chord and the opposite for a minor chord, slightly raising the leading tone and other tones that tend to resolve up, and the opposite for those that tend to resolve down.

  2204. musictheory 2018-04-04 06:26:35 Bromskloss
    > Even within equal temperament tuning though, there are things string players do, like slightly lowering the third of a major chord and the opposite for a minor chord, slightly raising the leading tone and other tones that tend to resolve up, and the opposite for those that tend to resolve down. That's fine. I'll allow it. ;-) What would make me uncomfortable, though, is if things were done differently in different keys (for example B major and C♭ major). That would be asymmetric and wrong, in my thinking.

  2205. musictheory 2018-04-04 07:25:52 DJ_Ddawg
    Just remember the Circle the of 4ths/5ths and that Flats are added in the order of BEADGCF (reverse for sharps). From there you can create any scale that you want, build diatonic triads/quadads. And see a lot of V-I cadences. Start with your C Major Scale. Learn all the notes in this scale- be able to play it on the guitar. Say the notes aloud as you play the scale- this will help you memorize the fretboard. (Other good exercises are playing on a single string, and also playing the same note on all strings (where are all the “E” notes”)). Interval wise the Major Scale is 1, Major 2nd, Major 3rd, Perfect 4, Perfect 5, Major 6, and the Major 7. (After that it just repeats an octave higher). These intervals correspond to your Root Note, a Whole Step (M2). Whole Step (M3), Half Step (P4), Whole Step (P5), Whole Step (M6), Whole Step (M7) And then a half step up to the Root. Whether you use CAGED or 3NPS fingering is up to you- ultimately it doesn’t matter it’s the same notes and you should be able to use both. After that learn the Diatonic triads in the C major Scale. Simply build Triads with intervals of 3rds. So for C this would be CEG. Compare this Triad to the C Major Scale to see if it is a Major, Minor, Augmented, or Diminished Triad. Major Triad- 1, Major 3, Perfect 5 Minor Triad- 1, minor 3, Perfect 5 Augmented Triads-1, major 3, aug 5 Diminished Triad- 1 minor 3, Diminished 5 Do this with the triads built on the notes D, E, F, G, A, B. Compare this to each of their respective major scales (use the circle of 5ths and order of sharps/Flats to make it easy) to see the Diatonic Triads of a Major Scale. This pattern of Triad quality can be used for any Major Scale (the interval pattern is always the same so the triads in a key also never change). The next step would be to do 7th Chords for a key. Again compare each to their respective Major Scale to see the interval quality to determine the chord quality. Major 7- 1, M3, P5, M7 (Dominant) 7- 1, M3, P5, m7 Minor 7- 1, m3, P5, m7 Minor7b5 (Half Diminished)- 1, m3 d5, m7 Diminished 7- 1, m3, d5, d7 On C this would be CEGB. This is a Major 7 Chord.

  2206. musictheory 2018-04-04 09:24:50 DevilsInterval5
    Check out the book by Roy Henry “String Patterns”.

  2207. musictheory 2018-04-05 02:58:26 timsea81
    I learned the first method you describe in high school music theory: pretend you're in the key of the lower note and ask yourself if the higher note falls in the major or minor key. I remember everyone in the class being incredibly confused by it because if you don't have all of the key signatures internalized it's a lot of steps. Say you're playing a song in the key of C major and come across the interval D-F. You ignore the fact that the *song* is in C major and instead find the key signature in D major (two 5ths higher than C do 2 sharps, F# and C#), then D minor (relative to the major key a minor third higher: F major, one 5th down from C so one flat). The F is natural in the key of D minor so D-F is a minor third. This confused everyone and everyone started asking me how I was getting the answers so quick. It was easier for me as a guitar player: D is the 5th fret of the A string and F is the 3rd fret of the D string, and I know that "shape" of the second note being one string higher and two frets down from the first note as "minor third". Essentially that's the same as counting the half steps, which you are correct to point out does not account for the different names of enharmonic tones, but nonetheless, especially for someone with a familiarity of stringed instruments where you're not actually counting half steps but rather recognizing the shape of the interval on the fretboard/fingerboard, it's much, much easier. The enharmonic confusion is easy to overcome if you realize that if you ignore the accidentals and take the distance between the letter part of the notes, you'll have the number part of the interval. The interval between any type of C and E for example will be a third of some sort: C-E is a major third, C#-E is a minor third, C#-Eb is a diminished third, etc. But here is my question about the "pretend you're in the key of the lower tone" method - it doesn't work for 2nds. All three minor scales have a major 2nd above the tonic, so the minor 2nd is in neither the major nor minor key built on the lower tone. Do you just treat that as an exception, or is there a logic to why those intervals don't work with the method?

  2208. musictheory 2018-04-05 07:23:23 sizviolin
    Exactly. It's the same issue that arises while while recording upper strings. If you only have two playing in unison you can pick each individual out of the mix if they're ever off from each other with intonation or articulation, whereas with 3 or more it blends together to create that big string sound. When I'm doing session work and they hire just me to multitrack strings I always make sure to do at least 3 layers if it isn't a solo part.

  2209. musictheory 2018-04-05 08:57:09 BillGrahamMusic
    It really makes a lot more sense on the piano, but here are some guitar voicing ideas. Some chords have to leave a note out due to the nature of the guitar. F/G: 3x321x Em7: x7976x Fmaj7 (Fmaj9 on the chart): xx3555 Bbmaj7: 6x776 G/A: x0x433 Am7: x0x553 Dm7: xx0211 Bbmaj7: 6x776 G/A: x0x433 Am7: x0x553 Dm7: xx0211 Em7: xx2433 Dm7: xx0211 Cmaj7: x3545x Bbmaj7: x1323x A7b9 (A7b9#5 on chart): x0532x Dm7: x57565 Eb/F: x8x886 F: x87565 or x8101010x Bbmaj7: 6x776x Am7: 5x555x Gm7: 3x333x Bb/C: x3333x F:xx3211 Fmaj9: xx3210 change high e string to 3 on beat 4 Abmaj7/Bb: 6x6543 (index finger diagonally plays 4 of B and 3 of E at the same time) Bb7: 686766 Ebmaj7: x6878x Dm7: x5756 Cm7 (cm9 on chart): x3534x Cm7/G (Cm9/G on chart): 3x534x Gm/F: 1xx333 F: 133211 Ebmaj7: x6878x Dm7: x5756 Gm: 355333 C6: x35555 F: 133211 F/Eb: xx1211 Bm7b5: x2323x Coda: F/G: 3x321x Em7: x7976x Fmaj7 (Fmaj9 on the chart): xx3555 Bbmaj7: 6x776 C/Bb: 6x555x Fsus2/A: 5x3563 Bb/C: 8x876x Dm9: x5355(5 or x)

  2210. musictheory 2018-04-05 13:10:37 BassInRI
    Absolutely, even with guitars with thicker, larger frets like Gibson Les Pauls. If you grip the neck like a baseball bat you’re going to be playing out of tune. What happens is, if you grip too hard, you push the string into the fingerboard past (deeper into the fingerboard) where the fret stops the string. The string is in tune where it stops on the fret, press any harder and you’re actually bending the string (deeper into the fingerboard vs. up or down on the neck). The guitarist must learn to play with a very light touch. It’s imperative at higher levels because you need to develop economy of motion and it’ll only happen with a light touch on your strings.

  2211. musictheory 2018-04-05 14:20:53 ttd_76
    Amin, Cmaj (2nd inversion), Fmaj (2nd inversion) Cmaj again, Emin, Fmaj again. These are triads. Here’s how to look at them. The big chords you learn are just triads with notes repeated an octave higher. Make an open E chord. The notes you are hitting from low to high strung are: E, B, E, G#, B, E. See how it’s really only three notes? You are hitting E on three different strings, in three octaves, but it is always E. What you know as an E major chord is really just a triad of E, B, G#. So, now take away all the redundant notes. If you just utilize the 5th, 4th, and 3rd string, you’ve got an E maj triad with the root on the 4th string. B, E, G#. Ow, because you are muting or not striking the other strings, you can move that shape anywhere up or down the neck. It will always be a major triad. Just in a different key. So when you move it up one fret or one half-step, then it is an Fmaj triad. Which is one of the chords you have in that song. Do you know the Basic F chord? Compare it to the F in the diagram. Do you see how the chord in your diagram is just half an F chord? You are just opting not to play the top two strings. Now make your basic open E. Scotch it up one half fret. Do you see how the F and the E are kind of the same chord, just one half step higher? The trick is, you can finger all the strings in a chord if you want, but you don’t have to hit them all. If you take the bottom three strings of an E chord, that’s E-B-E. Now you can make that shape anywhere starting on the sixth string or on the fifth string. And you’re going to do that. A LOT. That’s the standard rock power chord. But, you can also take the 5th, 4th, and 3rd strings of an E chord and make that shape anywhere on the sixth or fifth string. That’s what happened in your song. The Cmaj and Fmaj is the same shape. The crappy thing about guitar is the stupid 2nd and 3rd string. They are tuned to a different interval. Therefore any shape that involves both those strings can only be moved horizontally, not vertically. The other ones, you can move horizontally and vertically. It’s hard to explain in a Reddit post. Just do yourself a huge favor and google “triads on guitar” or something. It’s not as hard as it looks. Memorize all your major triad shapes. It will take you maybe only a week to know them all. Also, memorize all the notes on the fifth and sixth strings. It will also take you about a week. You’ll want to know all six strings eventually, but just start with the first two. After a week, you will not be fast enough to grab a chord on the fly, but you will be able to see a C on a tab or chord diagram and work out a couple places you could play a C major triad. Then just start playing songs substituting those different C triads. After maybe a month, you’ll have them down cold. Now do the minor triads. It won’t take as long because you already memorized the fretboard. And the minor are all the same as the major just with one string scotched one fret down. So after 6-8 weeks you’ll be able to instantly play like 99.9% of rock songs, and you can jam with anyone. In fact you’ll be better than many rhythm guitarists because many of them just play power chords everywhere and never mastered their triads.

  2212. musictheory 2018-04-06 03:03:09 DRL47
    That is not true. Harps have two-pin cams which pull the string tighter when the cam is turned. The string is stretched tighter, the sounding length of the string doesn't change.

  2213. musictheory 2018-04-06 03:12:11 phalp
    I am not a harpist so I may be wrong, but [this mechanism](https://omeka1.grinnell.edu/MusicalInstruments/files/fullsize/38cf51ca86e86baf071ea95f9686e477.jpg) is changing string lengths isn't it? I'm not saying it doesn't stretch them too, but I don't see where there's any bridge beyond the discs. [This](http://harpspectrum.org/pedal/wooster.shtml) and [this](http://illumin.usc.edu/106/the-harp-engineering-the-perfect-sound/) seem to say the length is changed. Like I said, not a harpist and I don't have hands-on experience with the mechanism.

  2214. musictheory 2018-04-06 03:24:06 DRL47
    I believe you are correct, after all. The cams are new nuts when they are turned, which is more like the way string bass extension nuts work. This certainly affects OPs use of them.

  2215. musictheory 2018-04-07 06:30:40 65TwinReverbRI
    There are 3 sets of C-E-G notes with different fingering shapes on the first 3 strings, the 2nd 3 strings (B/G/D) and the 3rd set of 3 strings (G/D/A). The shapes on the lowest set of 3 strings duplicate the ones on G/D/A. So that's 9 right there. There will be 3 more if you play strings 1, 2, and 4. Then 3 more if you play strings 1, 3 and 4, and so on. So there should be many more than just 12. But you're creating a problem where non exists and thinking "microscopically" rather than "macroscopically" - a common problem. What you need to do, rather than trying to come up with 10,000 shapes, is understand how they are SUBSETS OF ONE SHAPE. Then you have to learn THREE. If you take the standard barre chord form: 5 5 6 7 7 5 for an A Major chord, each set of 3 *adjacent* strings is a complete Triad in various inversions. Only the lowest 3 strings do not work (produce a power chord). Every other string from the top produces an A Triad as well. The upper 4 strings, and the 2nd 4 strings, and the 3rd 4 strings also produce A triads with one duplicate note. IOW, don't see these 3 string shapes as independent shapes, but as SUBSETS of this larger chord form. And there are really more like 5 if you subscribe to the "CAGED" philosophy. OR 4 if you see D as just being a variation of C. So here's how it works: If you play an open E chord, that's the "E Form". If you move that up the neck to the 4th fret and still play a shape that gives you notes from an E chord, you have a "C Form". If you move it up again to the 7th fret, you've got an "A Form". There are some inconsistencies within, so the numbers I'm spitting out vary depending on if you only use moveable version of the form or notes stacked in order and so on, but the point is, you're using these larger forms to create these 2, 3, 4, or 5 note subsets that form partial, complete, close position, open position, or chords with doublings, etc. by knowing one shape. So you can pull every 3 note combo you want out of an A Barre Chord, and see what you get. But no need to memorize all those different subsets - use the larger form and just play the subset (strings) of your choice.

  2216. musictheory 2018-04-07 06:39:58 jazzadellic
    I'm assuming your on guitar and not harp, violin, cello, ukulele, banjo, or another instrument with strings. On each set of 3 neighboring strings you'll have exactly 3 forms - root position, 1st inversion, 2nd inversion. These 3 forms will fall on each set of 3 strings giving you 12 different voicings for the 3 different inversions. Because of the nature of the tuning of the guitar, some of the voicings will be the same exact notes, but have a different shape due to the offset B & E string. For example the root position c-e-g will look different on strings 1-3, then it does on strings 2-4, and then again different on strings 3-5, but the shape on strings 3-5 will be the same as strings 4-6. Giving you 3 unique shapes for each inversion. So that means 3 x 3 = 9 unique shapes for neighboring groups of 3 strings. Now when you add string skips it gets WAY more complicated. But basically you'll have at least one shape for each inversion for each combination of these strings: 1-2-4, 1-2-5, 1-2-6, 2-3-5, 2-3-6, 1-3-4, 1-3-5, 1-3-6, 1-4-5, 1-4-6, 2-4-5, 2-4-6, 2-5-6. I **think** that's all of them! So that's 13 different groupings of strings that will have 3 inversions, for a total of 39, plus the original 9 unique shapes, put's us in the neighborhood of 48 shapes. I think most of those 39 if not all will be unique. Maybe since you are the one who brought it up, you can check them all and let us know ;o) And yes that's not including variations with open strings but we'd be severely limited in what chords we could use open strings with, so it's not necessary to add those in to this topic I think. And of course that's 48 just for a major triad. If we add in the other triads we are looking at 4x48= 192 shapes. Keep in mind that not all of those shapes will be practical or optimal for actual use.

  2217. musictheory 2018-04-07 08:21:36 ttd_76
    Well, you went the extra mile on finding string chord shapes. That’s good. I don’t know how many there are, but it’s a lot. Someday if you venture into the world of jazz, you’ll have a head start on drop 2 chords. But honestly, as a practical approach, can I recommend something different? I would not worry about the string skips and esoteric shapes you won’t use that often. If you learn the fretboard right, you’ll be able to easily construct them on your own on the fly if you ever need them. Better to know a few shapes really well and then expand as needed than know 20 shapes half-ass. There are only three basic shapes you need to know which is the C chord on three adjacent strings. One shape for each inversion. Yes, they get mutated on the lower strings, but it is still the same basic shape. You’ve likely already figured that out. Now do this: Play a C chord with the root in the bass, on strings 6,5,4. Then with the root on the 5th string on strings 5,4,3. Work your way down until you get to strings 3,2,1 and run out of room. Now do the same for the first inversion. Play strings 6,5,4, then 5,4,3. Etc. Then the second. Now start again with the basic R,3,5 with root on the 6th string. We’re going to crawl down the strings now. Play 3,5,R on strings 5,4,3. Then 5,R,3 on 4,3,2. Each time, you are moving down one string. Two notes remain the same. The bass note each time is dropped and replaced with the same note an octave higher on what is now the highest string. Repeat the same exercise starting on string 6 with the first and then second inversion. Now, we work horizontally. Play the C inversion on strings 6,5,4 that is closest to the neck. It’s going to be G,C,E with the G on the third fret. Now, on the same three strings, play the next closest inversion. It will be c,G,E starting at the eighth fret. Then just keep going until you run out of frets. Now, do F. Work your way through the circle of fifths doing the same thing. This helps you memorize the fretboard and the inversions really well because the closest inversion to the neck will be different for different chords. Now you can do the same exercise as above on the 5,4,3 string set. And 4,3,2 and 3,2,1. After that you will know your major triads really well, horizontally and vertically and hopefully also have better understanding/memorization of the fretboard in general. Now, for the minor triad. It’s easy. Just take your same major triad shape. Wherever the 3rd is, move it down one fret. That's that difference between a major and minor triad. The third is flatted, the other two notes are the same. Now do the same routine you just did with the major triads. It shouldn’t take you nearly as long, because you already have the major triads under your fingers. Now whenever you play a song, periodically challenge yourself and experiment. Pick a three string set. Play through all the changes with as little horizontal movement as possible. See if you can do it in like a five fret span. It’ll be tricky at first because in order to stay close, you’ll have to make both a chord AND inversion change. If you can master the art of playing any major or minor chord, in any inversion, anywhere on the neck, instantaneously you’ll be ahead of probably 90% of guitar players. It won’t be easy. Probably take you a few months. Longer if you work on other things as well which I recommend so you don’t get burnt out on playing triads over and over. Take it slow and just plug away. But if you get it down. Everything else on guitar is easy. You’re just building bit by bit on your very solid base. If you don’t do it, every scale and chord you will learn will come hard, and you’ll forget them because you do not have that base. You may never need to know more than that, depending on where your guitar travels take you. I mean, Keith Richards has made a 60 year career out of mostly just dorking around with three string triads.

  2218. musictheory 2018-04-07 08:25:09 ttd_76
    Sometimes you just don’t like the tone of an instrument. I find single violins to be kind of screechy. I can’t stand like, tin whistle, or steel drums. I play guitar, but I’m actually not very fond of the sound of steel string acoustic or classical.

  2219. musictheory 2018-04-07 08:53:05 ttd_76
    Don’t think about the guitar. The bass is part of the rhythm section, and then pulls double weight as harmony. It’s not part of the melodic-divas-with-no-taste-or-rhythmic-feel section. That’s you (the guitarist), and the singer. When I play bass in bands, I hang with the drummer at rehearsals. Onstage, I lay back with a beer and get into a nice groove and then me and the drummer laugh at you idiots trying to grab the lights so you can embarrass yourself blowing that 64th note tapping thing you practiced for weeks. You’re all high stress and I am chill. So get yourself into my mentality first. You want the bass to outline the chord changes, to free up the guitar and others to play more melodically. You will also have to think more rhymically than you may be accustomed to. As a bass player, what I generally do when working out a part is get the rhythm vibe first. Listen to the tempo and feel of the song. Really try to zero in on what the drummer is doing and do I want to lock in to that snare or hi hat? What are they accenting and do I want to play along and reinforce their story or maybe play a little counter/polyrhythm? Is this a piece that needs to be precise and tight, or a fun one where I can lay in the pocket and stretch the tempo. I’ll play around with that, just using the root note of the chord changes. Then, I’ll listen to the other instruments. Is this piece more melodic or rhythmic? How much space do I have to work with without muddying up the sound? Am I walking or keeping it simple? Can I fit in a bass riff at some point? If other instruments are playing mostly melodically, I know I need to play the changes and keep the band together. If there’s a rhythm guitar, I know that person is helping me out both with harmony and rhythm so I can explore a little more. But basically, for most type of rock/pop music the bass is a support instrument. I make sure before anything else I am carrying out objective 1a which is rhythm and the only marginally less important objective 1b of outlining the changes. And it only takes a pretty simple bassline to do both those things. Then after that, I go for bonus points and add in whatever I think the song needs at any given point. It is pretty easy to write for bass on guitar. It’s just the bottom four strings of guitar so you won’t even have to worry about the stupid 4th/5th string thing. And honestly, you really probably only need the bottom two strings. So just work out bass parts on the two bottom strings of your guitar. Imagine it an octave lower is all. Or buy an octave pedal. Or with today’s awesome tech, record the line and auto tune it down.

  2220. musictheory 2018-04-07 10:15:47 DJ_Ddawg
    There are 3 Closed Position triads per a 3 string group. Root Position (135- CEG) 1st Inversion (351- EGC) 2nd Inversion (513- GCE) The string groups are 123 (EBG) 234 (BGD) 334 (GDA) 456 (DAE) There are also Spread Triad (these will have a String gap due to the wider intervals) Root Position (153- CGE) 1st Inversion (531- GEC) 2nd Inversion (315- ECG) Here are closed position shapes- http://www.discoverguitaronline.com/diagrams/view/134

  2221. musictheory 2018-04-07 20:30:28 _chocolatetiger_
    It kind of depends on what instruments you are doubling up on. For woodwind instruments, if you are doing two single reed instruments, there isn't much of a difference between them. If you are switching from a single reed to double reed, there is a pretty big difference in embouchure, so it takes more time to adjust. String and brass instruments are all pretty similar to each other so there isn't as much of a difference between them. If you're planning to play instruments in different families, you might have more trouble because of the large difference between them. If you don't know much about music already, then learning two instruments may help in terms of music theory. In my experience, I played saxophone for three years before I started playing bassoon as well, and the hardest part is changing embouchure between them and using the right amount of air. I already had decent knowledge of music when I started doubling up, so it was a bit easier. Longs story short, similar instruments make it easier learning each, and prior knowledge of music helps a lot as well.

  2222. musictheory 2018-04-08 02:19:58 guyshkolnik
    I've studied Mozart extensively, and what amazes me always is how harmonic he is. Meaning every melodic moment every string quartet, symphony, piano concerto etc. is almost always harmonically supported by other voices creating that beautiful quality throughout. This is where the richness is coming from. A friend was playing me the other day a piano arrangement of the famous Eine Kleine Nachtmusik (for strings originally). Even on the crappy piano it sounded amazing.The notes are just so good. I'm also into sample libraries, Ableton etc, but when we talk about someone like Mozart, He's like the J.K Rowling or the Steven Spielberg of music. As much as sound quality is important, It's the notes, the content, primarily.

  2223. musictheory 2018-04-08 04:09:47 roguevalley
    Those are great choices if you want to play and write songs. Keyboard first, then guitar. Why? Because the keyboard is a visual representation of all the notes and their intervallic relationship. Sharps and flats? Black keys. Etc. With guitar (or any 'string' instrument), it's more complicated. You can often play the same note on 3 or more different strings. Chords have left hand 'shapes' that move up and down the fretboard but are harder to name and understand in your head. Anyway, keyboards give you a solid understanding that will help you with all other instruments.

  2224. musictheory 2018-04-08 05:58:15 65TwinReverbRI
    If you tune the entire guitar in 4ths, you will get scale patterns that repeat themselves across sets of strings. So it's great for scale playing. It's a little limited for chordal playing - though with Holdsworth he probably would have wanted all of the non-standard chords you could produce in this tuning. Bass players with 5 and 6 string basses have either a low B, a high C or both and since they primarily play single notes as opposed to chords, it makes patterns replicate across the neck very easily. And if they play chords they tend to just be 2 and 3 note chords, not 6 string chords. Guitarists on the other hand - we like our 4, 5, and 6 string chords. But this is all well worn territory - people have been messing with tunings forever. Our current "standard tuning" evolved primarily from Tonal music - it was basically the best compromise tuning that let us play up to 6 note chords and all the scales we needed. Prior to that in the modal era, there were all kinds of tunings - there are still instruments today such as Appalachian Dulcimer that change tuning depending on the mode they're going to play in. But if you're going to create "non-standard" chord forms and playing traditional chord forms is not all that important, than an alternate tuning might be useful. I think the all 4ths tuning kind of appeals to the "pattern players" who play by shape instead of notes. But there are those out there who do it because they want to explore possible sounds (same with DADGAD, open tunings for blues, etc.).

  2225. musictheory 2018-04-08 06:05:20 65TwinReverbRI
    I play both. Synthesizer has two components: Learning to play music, and learning to sculpt sounds. The two are unrelated - a trained pianist can sit down at a synthesizer that has a piano patch called up and just play it like piano. But, they're not going to be able to create or modify any of the other infinite number of possible sounds, or work the features such as an arpeggiator, sequencer, any sampling capabilities and so on. It's akin to a Pianist learning to play piano, and learning how to re-string and tune the thing! Some people don't get any more deep into Synth than picking a sound and playing it, but there's a limitless world out there for those who want to dig deeper - and as I said before - lifelong pursuit. Guitar - you can just learn to strum chords, and learn to play the thing. But there's a whole world of effects out there for electric guitar so you get into things like pickup choice, amp choice, effects pedals, and so on, all on top of the just basic techniques of playing it. So it's not like picking up acoustic piano, where all the mechanics are done for you and you just get on to playing. Many other instruments are like that too - Clarinet - most people just have to learn to fix their reed and then you just play the darn thing. You can "just play" a Synth and Electric Guitar, but you can also learn a lot more about them.

  2226. musictheory 2018-04-08 08:35:07 tigers4eva
    There's quite an interesting argument when it come to tuning the guitar in all 5ths as well. Robert Fripp of King Crimson was a huge proponent. It's more similar to what's found in violins and other string instruments. The benefit of all 4ths tuning over standard is symmetry across string sets, which makes things more intuitive and easier to memorize. Once you've found a spot on the guitar, it's easy to keep playing in position. There is also something to be said about having the notes in the harmonic series more sympathetically enhanced by the other strings. (Have you noticed that other strings vibrate when you just pluck one of the bass strings? A lot of indian and folk instruments are based on this idea. There are sympathetic string sets that are set up below the strings that you play) The benefits of all 5ths over all 4ths are that you get a wider range and that you can access that range with less stretching from your fingers. The guitar would need to be structured differently to accommodate the higher string tension though. The benefit of standard over these types of tunings is that it has become common practice. The way in which a guitar is strung affects the way it's played. A lot of patterns and licks that are common guitar language have to do directly with the way in which our fingers fall across the strings. A lot of Jimi Hendrix's stuff would have been impossible/different to play on another tuning. The standard tuning defines the sound of the guitar in some ways. Open tunings do things differently, where they provide a compromise between fingerings and the harmonic info coming out of the guitar. Which is better? Who knows? Depends on what you want to play? For someone who wants to play those huge spread voicings like Allan Holdsworth, without the standard guitar voicings, an all 4ths or all 5ths tuning would be very appropriate. For someone trying to play the blues, it's probably not the easiest thing to transfer. Open tunings certainly reveal a unique way to play the blues, if you look at Duane Allman or other slide guitarists. Edit: Some people even do weirder things with their tunings and capos. Look at Ben Howard's End of the Affair on Jools Holland. He uses a half capo, some weird tuning and delay to play with the tension of the strings.

  2227. musictheory 2018-04-08 09:34:33 YerbaMateKudasai
    Adding to this: been playing in 4ths for over 10 years; currently using a 7 string guitar tuned BEADGCF. I the past I've used EADGCF and DADGCF. Before settling on this I tried tritone tuning I think DG#DG#DG#, but the reach was a bit much. I started using EADGCF about a year after I started playing, when I started moving from learning songs other people made or just thrashy powerchords to properly learning scales. I had to choose between transcribing/transposing tabs I found or learning really cumbersome scales and patterns that had to be learned multiple times for multiple positions. "Piano chords" made of three notes (minor, major, etc) are the same all throughout the neck. Using a 7 string lets you play 3 octave scales with one pattern really easily, going from X fret on the B string to the x+4 fret on the F string. Transposition or finding alternate fingerings become easier. Stanley Jordan also uses this tuning. Ama. EDIT : added a bit more info.

  2228. musictheory 2018-04-08 11:47:27 holykannoli
    What is the tuning you’re using for each string? Still starting with a low E?

  2229. musictheory 2018-04-08 11:54:38 fight_for_anything
    im not the guy you asked, but i used p4 for a while. yes, im pretty sure most people doing P4 use E,A,D,G,C,F. nothing stopping someone from going down a step or two if they wanted. you could go more extreme, but then your into having to deal with string gauge and tension balancing. thats goes for any tuning though, not anything specific to p4. personally, i dislike playing any chords, other than power chords, on a guitar at all. im a scale playin dude. p4 was great to noodle...BUT. the problem with using it is that pretty much every single thing youve learned how to play and commited to muscle memory goes straight into the trash can. id say i prefer p4, but its hard to give all that other stuff up.

  2230. musictheory 2018-04-08 12:00:55 skrunkle
    I am a bass player mainly. but I have a strat I tuned to BEADGC. I love it. All of my bass chord/arpeggio shapes work everywhere on the fretboard. It required custom string gauges and a new intonation, but it was worth it.

  2231. musictheory 2018-04-08 14:26:34 fight_for_anything
    the simplicity is part of the appeal, especially for new players. its a great way for a newbie to feel like a jukebox hero within a couple days of bringing home the shiny six string from the store. however, there are more reasons. the third is where all the character of a chord exists. thirds can create wayyyy too much feeling, especially when you just wanna rock. there aint no time for feels when your kicking over amps and throwing TV's out of hotel room windows. if you just want to create a big wall of tone and not project a bunch of happy and sads. fifths are great. i mean damn. fifths are always great. no? there are so great we made a whole circle out of them.

  2232. musictheory 2018-04-08 17:31:19 4mallets
    There are people who play in Major 3rd tuning as well. 4 fingers - 4 semitones, then move up to the next string.

  2233. musictheory 2018-04-08 22:10:29 killerrabbit117
    I've messed around with major third tuning. It was developed for atonal jazz improvisation from what I know (which is how I found it). It makes chords super easy, or at least more intuitive. It was helpful in developing my understanding of music theory as it forced me to develop my own system of chords. I usually tune to E Ab C E Ab C. This tuning is 'better' on 7-8 string guitars.

  2234. musictheory 2018-04-08 22:20:31 YerbaMateKudasai
    Nice, thanks for the in depth info. >This tuning is 'better' on 7-8 string guitars. :D Aren't all tunings better on 7-8 strings :D

  2235. musictheory 2018-04-08 22:25:37 killerrabbit117
    Probably lol. Now I really need to pick one up.... What I was attempting to say was that you aren't able to play the entire written range for guitar with this tuning on a 6 string. Jump to a 7 string and I think it does.

  2236. musictheory 2018-04-08 23:39:09 ThatOneMusician
    I play straight fourths on my 6-string bass (BEADGC) because that's what makes sense (to me) on bass. I've tried tuning it relative to guitar tuning (BEADGbB) to preserve the CAGED chord structures, but there's really no sense in setting yourself up to play chords that would be too muddy at those low frequencies. Straight fourths set you up for consistent scale shapes everywhere on the neck. Guitar, I'll play in standard tuning because it lends itself to convenient chord shapes, and full 4-6 note chords blend much better in that register. Other than that, I don't see any non-niche benefit in having a third in your tuning. Obviously everyone has different preferences and comfort zones, but that's just my 2¢. I think it's important to try new things and become familiar with the benefits of alternate tunings.

  2237. musictheory 2018-04-09 11:12:00 fight_for_anything
    > Seems to me that you're not trying to learn all aspects of an instrument, which is fine. I get where you are coming from. yea, its fine, but there is also validity in the criticism. so on that front, yes...I hear you. I accept the criticism on at least some level. that said, I can equally criticize Willie Nelson for not being able to keep up with Steve Vai on two handed tapping. I could fault BB King for not being able to sweep pick like Herman Li. (BB, i dont mean it!) everyone has X amount of time to improve and spends it how they like to improve in whatever area is more important to them, and fits their artistic style.. my choices are as valid as the guy who learns to play wonderwall on the campus quad. i could have focused more on guitar in the last couple years and knocked this out, just for the sake of checking it off the list. perhaps id be a more versatile guitar player. instead, i chose to learn basic music theory, which also lead to learning synthesis. subtractive, additive, a bit of FM synth, how to use 303s and 808s, basics of modular, vocoders, supersaws, samplers. drum machines. sequencers. some mixing and mastering... i taught myself basics of percussion and a handful of drum patterns. i bought reason 10 and a novation circuit, and im pretty proficient with them....and in the middle of all that i became a decent keyboard player. at this point, id say i might even be less of a guitarist, and more of a producer/keyboard player who has a trick up his sleeve of being able to pick up a guitar and shred. not a bad place to be! so yea, maybe the average guitar player is more versatile than me...at guitar...at this point. maybe he shows me up at the beginning of some crossroads esque guitar battle, but i still outplay him like the karate kid, so who cares, plus i know all this other stuff, so while he may be a more versatile guitarist, im a more versatile musician. isnt *he* at fault for not knowing how to make sick 808s? why doesnt he know about convolution reverb? does he even know what an LFO is? or a high pass filter? who isnt trying to learn all aspects of what again? if i want to write a song, sure, im going to put chords in it. i just dont see the point in spending weeks/months/years getting good at playing them on a guitar. i can program them into the DAW or the circuit, or play them on the keyboard and capture the MIDI, in a matter of seconds without really having to practice anything. i can even pump that midi through a string synth and then send it through Guitar Rig 5, and no one would really even know or care that it isnt a human playing an actual guitar. its just not worth the effort:reward ratio to me to be able to do it on guitar naturally to begin with.

  2238. musictheory 2018-04-09 12:30:55 jimjambanx
    One thing you have to consider is the style of playing. Holdsworth was known for his legato, and the b string can be a bit of a bitch when playing legato passages and having to move up a position to accommodate the b string. Tom quale is a good example, he's a fusion player who uses all 4ths tuning, and he did a [video](https://youtu.be/zFRUCd4gQe4) with Martin Miller where they discuss how this affects fretboard visualisation. It essentially means you can take a single pattern and it'll be consistent across the entire fretboard, and scaluar passages are a breeze. The big problem with this is, as is discussed in the video, is that the overwhelming majority of guitar repertoire is dependent on standard tuning, and things like open position chords are simply impossible with 4ths tuning. Holdsworth obviously wouldn't have cared since his music didn't use these types of chords, but Tom quale actually discourages people from converting to all 4ths, because it'll make you a lot less employable as a guitarist and you'll have to commit to a strict style of playing.

  2239. musictheory 2018-04-09 22:40:41 octatonic_formula
    'the chorus effect', 'transient smearing', 'spatial widening.' It's a well-known effect in orchestration and studio production. Compare the warm sound of an orchestra's string section, with a string quartet.

  2240. musictheory 2018-04-10 16:31:51 xiipaoc
    Do you *need* to? No. Do whatever you want. But guitar music is written an octave up from how it sounds, so you'll be playing an octave down. For example, middle C on the guitar (fifth string third fret) is actually the C below middle C on the piano. Actual middle C is second string first fret, but it's written as high C. Why do people do this? Because otherwise guitarists would need to read bass clef: oh, the horror! Also, there'd be more ledger lines for anything on the first string.

  2241. musictheory 2018-04-11 23:59:10 therealskaconut
    That’s true. The direction you travel on the circle depends on the instrument you play. String players go right. Brass players go left There is always going to be a point where you need an enharmonic, or else you have to change the note you start with

  2242. musictheory 2018-04-13 02:07:42 MiskyWilkshake
    Short answer: Yes. Long answer: A standard uke is tuned G4 C4 E4 A4, which are the pitches that will sound if you pluck each string without fretting a note. Each time you move up a fret, you play a note that's a semitone higher, so E4 could be played on the third open string, on the second string at fret 4, or on the first string at fret 9, but not on the fourth string. Since there are more than 12 frets on most ukes, a chord shape could be shifted 12 frets up in order to be played up the octave, or else played on different strings.

  2243. musictheory 2018-04-13 03:03:06 robowriter
    Play the major scale on your guitar. The numbers correspond to the notes positions. Start with C, look up the notes. The Roman numerals I-IV-V blahdy blah correspond to the notes in the scale. Get one down and you can figure out the rest. I maj, II minor, III minor, IV subdomiant, V dominant, VI minor, VII dimished. Four frets down is the relative minor from C-Am they have the same chords. All the scales positions relate to each other. Look at your fretboard. It's very simple use your guitar as a guide and burn it into memory. Start with your second finger on C, fourth on D, next string, to make it easier. Once you got the major scale down you can look the chords in your head in any key. You'll automatically will see the fifth of Gmaj is D7 (start scale on G); of Amaj (start scale on A) is E7; and C is G7. Easy peezy.

  2244. musictheory 2018-04-13 03:21:54 Jongtr
    Uke is normally tuned G-C-E-A, same as guitar strings 4-3-2-1 at 5th fret - except that in the usual "re-entrant" tuning the G is an octave higher (G4 as MiskyWilkshake says). You could fit a guitar D string as the 4th and tune it to G3 if you want a more guitar-like sound. (Choose a classical guitar string if you do, to match the tone of the other nylon strings.) I don't know what you mean by "deeper", but - as on guitar - there are various ways of playing any single chord.

  2245. musictheory 2018-04-13 03:26:44 robowriter
    Start with a 4-string bass. It's easy and fun to start but hard to master. The first four stings are the same the guitar. As a keys player you should know the basic chords on the guitar and learning the bass doesn't hurt. Just an idea.

  2246. musictheory 2018-04-13 06:01:05 hallowdmachine
    Yes, although the same chord may be formed at the same octave with a different fingering, depending on where you are on the fret board. There are different chord forms that include the I, III, V of a chord at various places on the neck. If I may give you a bit of string instrument terminology, what you meant by "deeper" is referred to as "higher" on the neck. Low on the neck is at the nut, closer to the tuners. High on the neck is closer to the bridge. The top string is the one closer the ground, the bottom closer to the sky. Edit: I should probably point out that I'm more familiar with guitar than ukulele, but the general principles should still apply.

  2247. musictheory 2018-04-13 07:08:24 Jenkes_of_Wolverton
    The voicings between guitar and ukulele will be different. The ukulele has its highest pitches on its outside strings, whereas guitar is tuned with strings that go from low to high. So you’ll hear a noticeable change on guitar from strumming upwards and downwards, which is barely appreciable as you change direction on ukulele. Lots of the guitar’s best known chord shapes (certainly in folk, pop and rock - E, A and D shapes) tend to be open voicings that (from the bass) start off root, 5th, octave, 3rd above octave. For example, the lowest root position chord on guitar in standard tuning (E-A-D-G-B-E) will be: * E Major - fingered 0 2 2 1 0 0 = scale degrees 1, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15 On my concert ukulele, tuned A-D-F#-B an open position E chord will be: * E Major - fingered 2 2 2 0 = scale degrees 5, 1, 3, 5 Of course in the same way that on piano you can play triads in different inversions, that is also possible on string instruments. However, once you go beyond simple triads and start exploring extended chords, some shapes become impractical because of the impossible stretches - a difficulty which some guitar players resolve by swapping to altered tunings, such as D-A-D-G-A-D or D-G-D-G-B-D to pick two.

  2248. musictheory 2018-04-13 07:38:30 JSD10
    String instruments have a few different chord shapes. On the Ukulele the ones you will see the most are the "Open Chords" and the CAGFD Chords. Open Chords are the first shapes that you will probably learn in which only some of the strings are fretted, other are open. These only work in the position that they are in (Cannot be moved up and down) CAGFD is an acronym for the chords that can be moved, similar to CAGED on guitar. These shapes can be moved up and down the neck, however a bar will be needed. For example, to play a C Major chord in an A shape higher on the neck you would bar fret 3 and make an A Major Open shape under the bar on the g and e strings. This can be anywhere on the neck with the open shapes from CAGFD. This not only can make it higher or lower but it can also be used to make chords closer for easier transitions/finger picking. The ukulele is a fun and capable instrument, If you ever need any help with anything UKE relate feel free to message me.

  2249. musictheory 2018-04-13 19:30:37 Chand_laBing
    >bVI-bVII-I... (string section plays sustained note) >... scene change, segue into the shire theme >samwise gamgee eating a carrot and yelling about marstur frodo or something

  2250. musictheory 2018-04-14 03:48:02 Tiptup300
    Get guitar pro, not the new one, it can be the new one, doesn't matter either way. Here's the trick. Get guitar pro, make a four bar loop of just whole notes, just chords. Just take four chords.....and loop em. Have em be something simple like acoustic metal string. Good... Now take your instrument have guitar pro loop the song, hit start on the song and just play along with it. Actually wait, turn off your lights. You gotta have your lights off just to get the inimate feeling going. So you got the lights off, got the song looping. Cool, now you find some ..... wait Take your guitar, with the loop going,, and the lights off. Now hit random notes, don't pay attention to frets. Just keep trying different notes and find one note that sounds reasonable, preferablly two notes, not together, with one space between them. So you got two notes that sound good with whats going. You take these notes, keep them remembered. Now try to figure out the next note in the sequence, it could be one or two frets off, figure that out. Find three in a row, start figuring out which frets sound good, which sound ALLLLLMOST good. Now, go through these notes up and down until you find the note that's like the "UUUUHHH" note, like dun dun UUUUUUUUUHH. Now that's your key. Cool. Now with these notes, take your frets and tab out some basic movements on a bass instrument. oh yeah, add a bass track. So you got your bass, got the lights off, got the acoustic going with the chords. Now take that bass and do some notes off the chord, have them move around a bit, then go ahead and loop the music more. Just play along. Just keep having fun with it. Do this for 3 years. congratz you're now okay at improv. More seriously though, setup a thing with your friends. Just go over to their house, ingest what you want to but not alcohol, and just jam....all night. Every week, once a week just jam. Every week for like 2 years. You'll be perfect.

  2251. musictheory 2018-04-14 06:51:19 Caedro
    The way that really helped me to start hearing the different intervals was by droning the tonic of the original key while changing the scale on guitar. Hit an open E and play an e major scale starting at the seventh fret of the A string. Sounds very majory, should be familiar. Now keep droning that E and move the scale shape up two frets so you are playing the same scale starting at the 9th fret (F#). Now keep the low E going and move the scale around and experiment. You will start hearing all the different intervals over the E that give the modes different sounds.

  2252. musictheory 2018-04-14 11:25:37 ttd_76
    Yes, that’s fantastic advice. It’s very helpful to think of pentatonics that way. Better yet, that string cycle concept works for every scale or any arpeggio or any other set of notes. They are all just patterns that repeat themselves across strings and the fretboard in a cycle. Breaking it up into blocks is also useful for memorizing the actual scale degrees. I break up the minor pentatonic into that square block of three (2-2-2) and a rectangle (3-3). I know the square starts and ends with scale degree 4. And that the left side is 4,b7,b3. The right side is 5,R,4. The rectangle is 5, b7 on the bottom row and R, b3 on the higher strings. And since all five CAGED pentanic shapes are just the square and rectangle repeated, you don’t have to memorize the notes in each shape individually. You just know square and rectangle... notes are always the same. You can also go horizontal. On one string starting from the root, the minor pent goes 3-2-2-3-2. If you start at any point in the pattern, on any string and just cycle around, you are playing a pentatonic. You can also go diagonal. The 2-2-2 block of the minor pentatonic starts and ends on 4, a perfect octave. So either of those two corners can be used as a sort of pivot. The last four becomes the first four of a new block. Or the top left corner becomes the bottom left corner of a new square. By doing this, you can play all six string with just one “pattern”. It’s just 2-2-2-2-2-2 if you know where to shift. At some point, you have to just see the whole scale light up for you across the fretboard. And with different colored lights so you know the scale degrees. You can’t keep counting and dealing with that whacky fret shift. But conceptualizing the scale in the way you laid out helps you get started on the way to memorizing. You can work out shapes yourself instead of having to look them up. The best purchase I think I ever made for guitar was to buy Neck Diagrams. It is supposed to be for writing chord or scale diagrams so you can print them. Which it works great for. But it’s even better as a pattern memorizer. I just open a blank diagram anytime I need to kill 5 minutes. Then just draw out a scale in all sorts of different ways. Horizontal, vertical, diagonal, two strings at a time, octave blocks, etc. Then I click on a note to designate it as the root, and it tells you the scale degrees of every other note. If they are all R, b3, 5, b7, I know I got it right. The I just ctrl-z to undo/erase everything and draw it again, on different string and different starting note or pattern. Just keep drawing and undrawing scales in different ways, you will memorize them really fast. And retain them better, because knowing all the different ways to think about it and how patterns overlap, gives you a logical frame work to build on. It’s not just random blob shapes anymore. The logic of the fretboard reveals itself to you.

  2253. musictheory 2018-04-14 21:02:55 Karmoon
    Abandon tabs and start learning diatonic theory. Do ear training. You like a tune? Figure it out. Doesn't have to be complicated chords. It can be a simple riff. Doesn't even need to be guitar. Start with sonething like happy birthday or Air on G String. I definitely support you and recommend you do this. No more 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0.

  2254. musictheory 2018-04-14 21:08:11 NicoNik
    What worked for me as a practice routine: 1. Start with one string and learn the notes (first no accidentals, you can fill them in later). To make it more fun, you can put on a backing track in C Major and improvise a little, staying only on the string you picked for this day. Be aware of the note name you are playing, maybe sing it while you play it. Go on to the next string once you feel comfortable. If you want to know more about that, look up Mick Goodrick's concept of the "unitar". 2. Choose a note and find it on every string on the fretboard; play only that note. There are basically two ways you can practice this: Go through all six strings (low E to high E and vice versa), find and play your chosen note. Maybe set up a metronome to check if you become faster in finding the note on all strings. This requires a lot of jumping around on the fretboard. The second method is getting to know the landmark octave shapes. So, you don't play your chosen note vertically but horizontally from the neck to the bridge, always playing the nearest one, no matter what string that is. For example: You pick "F" and start on string 1, fret 1. The next "F" is of course on string 6, fret 1; two octaves lower. Next one would be string 4, fret 3. Next one on string 2, fret 6; and so on. Try to see these octave shapes before you play them. Hope that helps and doesn't sound too complicated.

  2255. musictheory 2018-04-14 22:27:00 loosyd_56
    Mick Goodrick. Triads on all four string sets. Learn all major , minor, Aug and dim triads on the first three strings (little e b and g) through the cycle of fourths, ascending and descending. Once you have moved through all twelve keys, move to the next string set. Know where all the roots, thirds and fifths are located and be able to change any triad into sus2, add9, sus4, add 11 , 7 and so on. Once you have triads , do the same with drop2s on three string sets, and drop3s on two string sets. Maj7, dominant 7, altered dominants, minor7, half-dim, and fully diminished. Also, be able to add9, sus2, create rootless voicings and so on. Then work on open voiced triads (as opposed to closed). If you need any of this information in PDF documents , I can recommend my teacher's website. He has easy to read charts for free. PM me and I'll hook you up. Edit: here --> http://www.markboling.com/lessons/

  2256. musictheory 2018-04-14 22:29:10 thehogdog
    Reminds me of the old joke 'how do you get a guitar player to turn down the volume? Put a piece of sheet music in front of them'. Played for 40 years, still only know the names of notes on E,A,e strings and that was so I could know where to play Barre chords. The D and the G string, total mystery to me after the 5th fret. I found an 80s Fret Light guitar that DOSENT connect to the computer and I can dial in show me all the d's and it lights them up so that helps. What it really helps with is teaching songs to kids. Have it light up the Am pentatonic scale or the blues scale and see how that Hendrix solo only plays on the lit up frets. Blows people's minds.

  2257. musictheory 2018-04-14 23:36:11 thisNewFoundLand
    ...play this 'game': Pick any note and find it on *each* string. One note per string. Do all 6 strings finding the same note (don't include open strings as your note -- 12th fret is ok). Each string will have your selected note once. Go up -- then back down. Here's a succinct demonstration on video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTE355VslW4 It will speed up your processing of the caged system. It certainly helped me.

  2258. musictheory 2018-04-14 23:36:22 budoos
    U play a 13 string man?

  2259. musictheory 2018-04-15 00:26:18 ttd_76
    IME, you have to just bite the bullet and memorize the hard way. It’s frustrating and annoying, but work at it 10-15 minutes a day, one string or fretboard section at a time. It’s still the easiest way. There are ways to make it a little more fun, like the fretboard trainers at Tenuto or FAChords.com. You can try to tag it on to something you are already doing. Like some people try to say the name of the note they hit when they play. Or you learn to sightread, which requires fretboard memorization but you get sight reading skills as well. That can work, and it’s worth a shot. But for me, I found it easier to set aside time and just memorize the fretboard. If you do not know how to sight read for example, that alone can be a time-consuming and frustrating task. Trying to add fretboard memorization on top of that outdoor be too brutal. I was always trying stuff like that. It never worked. At some point I had been playing guitar for 5 years and still did not know the fretboard. I figured then if I didn’t pick it up through other things I was doing, it wasn’t going to happen. Sat down, made flash cards because this was pre-internet, and just grinded it out. Took me about two weeks to get pretty good to the point where the learning process longer painful. After a month, I had it memorized cold.

  2260. musictheory 2018-04-15 01:34:43 LeeboBaggins
    I personally used flash cards and got pretty good pretty quickly. As an example, I'd write E-5 on one side, meaning low e string, 5th fret. On the other side, I'd write A, meaning the note associated with that fret. I did this for every fret of every string and it took a while to write them all but it's worked better for me than anything else. I'd then practice with one string at a time. I'd look at a card, play the note, name the note and then flip the card over to see if I was right. Once I got good with the first string, I'd add in the cards for the next string and just keep going. It's also nice because you don't necessarily need to have your instrument in your hands to practice.

  2261. musictheory 2018-04-15 02:15:37 kevyntime
    I haven't seen this amongst the many other good suggestions, but just as an option: Try playing anything you already know, but slow down long enough to name all the notes you're playing. If you know a song that goes 0 2 3 0 7 0 on the A string, play it slowly while saying A B C A E A. Obviously this will be easier if you already know the order in which notes are named, but either way it should help. You can also get a familiarity within chords if you play E major, from low to high that's E B E G# B E. You'll start noticing chord patterns this way and be able to play many variations of E that you don't already know by combining any set of Es G#s and Bs

  2262. musictheory 2018-04-15 02:51:21 ttd_76
    Yes. The physics of a vibrating string with constant tension is if you cut the vibrating distance in half (in this case by fretting it) you get a tone one octave higher. In the case of fretted instruments, where to push and essentially shorten the length of the string to achieve a note frequency is helpfully marked for you by frets. There is a fret for each note. So if you go up 12 frets, it is the same note an octave higher. Just like if you jump up 12 keys on the piano, it is an octave higher. On unfretted instruments you just have to know exactly where to put your finger and press! The interval between strings on traditional string instruments is less than an octave. If it weren’t it would be hard to play chords. If you play piano, just think of a C chord. You proabably play it most often in “Close” position. Meaning the C, E, and G are all within an octave. On a stringed instrument, you can only play one note at a time on a string. So, if the strings were not tuned closely your C chord might be low C, middle E, and high G. Which would sound a bit strange. So yeah... that’s what is going on. Moving up strings means you move higher up the scale. Moving horizontal toward the bridge on the same string is also moving up the scales. There is an overlap for practical reasons. Which means for most stringed instruments you can play many of the same notes in two (or more) different places. And you can play a note an octave higher either moving horizontally on the same string or vertically to the next string. It’s basically just piano with two dimensions. Moving up the fretboard on the same string is just like moving up a keyboard. But you also get to jump to a new string, which you cannot do on piano.

  2263. musictheory 2018-04-15 02:59:19 Caedro
    I started on one string. Friend plays in G, I play in g major on one string. Do the same thing with other keys. You’ll see the difference between C and G is the f. Helped me start learning the notes and differences between scales.

  2264. musictheory 2018-04-15 03:04:09 ttd_76
    Just transcribe and practice reading music as much as you can. It sucks, I know. Get some simple sheet music that you know and a blank sheet of guitar tab. Transcribe from the sheet music to tab. Do this giving yourself a five fret space to work with so you don’t get lazy and cheat and do it all on one string. Play your transcription. See if you got it right. Don’t do a whole song. Just a few measures at a time will do starting out. Now take a piece of tab for a song you know, and transcribe that into standard notation. Use your sight reading skills to play what you just transcribed. See if you got it right. If you can practice this for 15-30 minutes without throwing your guitar out the window or stabbing someone with the pencil you are using, stop, relax, grab a cold one and go about the rest of your day. Slow and steady progress is the key. It’s like learning a language. It is best learned through steady repetition over longer lengths of time. You have to get it into your long term memory.

  2265. musictheory 2018-04-15 04:23:35 all-thethings
    Tapping notes in a chord is perfectly logical when it comes to string instruments

  2266. musictheory 2018-04-15 04:48:33 jesusoxer15
    This method helps me get my bearings when I'm reading sheet music: Learn the notes for each string on the frets that have inlays. Those would be the open strings, third, fifth, seventh, ninth and twelfth frets. open strings - E A D G B E third - G C F Bb D G fifth - A D G C E A seventh - B E A D F# B ninth - C# F# B E G# C# twelfth - E A D G B E From then on you can fill in the accidentals and the notes beyond the twelfth fret are exactly the same. Hope it helps

  2267. musictheory 2018-04-15 06:11:31 LHS99
    This may help: If you pick a chord, for example E major. There are many ways to play it, or voice it. But pick whichever one(s) you know and identify what each note is relative to the E major scale. A major chord will have a 1st/root/tonic note (E in this case), a 5th/dominant (B) and a major third (G#). A major third is just the third note of a major scale. A minor third is just the third note of a minor scale. So if we take the open E chord we have the tonic E note on both open E strings and on the 2nd fret of the D string. We have the 5th note, B, on the 2nd fret of the A string and the open b string. The major third is the 1st fret of the G string. Playing through the E major scale will obviously help because you can just count to see what the third and fifth notes are. Then do this for the e chord with its root on the a string and d string. Then do it with minor chords. This will help learn the fretboard and will start bringing chords and scales together in your head.

  2268. musictheory 2018-04-15 06:31:19 jazzintoronto
    It's not an especially important key. All keys are important. However, depending on the instrument you're playing, one key may be more common. For instance, on string instruments, such as guitar, keys based on open strings (key of E, key of A, key of D, key of G) are more common. If you're looking on YouTube, a lot of those backing tracks are made for guitarists, which is probably why you're seeing so much G. You'll probably also see lots of E minor. If you look for backing tracks specifically for horns, for example, you'll probably be more likely to see flat keys, like F major, D minor, Bb major, G minor, and so on.

  2269. musictheory 2018-04-15 06:48:11 teemahreed
    Easiest way for me, and how I teach my students, is to memorize the first two strings' notes where the inlays are. For example: on the low E string the notes would be G, A, B, C#, and E on the 3, 5, 7, 9, and 12th frets respectively On the A string the notes would be C, D, E, F#, and A on the 3, 5, 7, 9, and 12th frets respectively From there you can fill in the gaps pretty easily for the frets in between. Once you have the first two strings down pretty well you can then use octave shapes to find any note on the other strings. At this point I'd recommend playing the melodies to jazz lead sheets in as many octaves as you can. This is useful because a lot of them are relatively easy to play, and will also help your sight reading. It's a process and takes time, but after a while you will start "seeing" notes instead of frets. This is the most reliable way I've noticed to teach yourself without too much boring memorization. This is the main roadblock people run into when trying to delve deeper into improv and chord building, and will make moving around or making subtle adjustments to chords MUCH easier. TL;DR - memorize first two strings, then use octave shapes for the rest. Learn simple melodies in multiple octaves to solidify.

  2270. musictheory 2018-04-15 07:59:45 Vertual
    BADAF for 5 string bass

  2271. musictheory 2018-04-15 08:34:58 [deleted]
    Play your bar chords, and say the names of them when you do. They are named after the root note, which is the lowest not in the chord. Once you have it down for the low strings, use the octave down over trick. That means start with a note on a low string, then move up 2 strings and up 2 frets and you get the same note an octave higher. Example: string 6 fret 3 is a G, ad string 4 fret 5 is also a G.

  2272. musictheory 2018-04-15 10:07:22 guitarelf
    There are patterns that go diagonally across the neck that once you understand them on two strings, you can replicate them across all six. For example, in A minor, the first 6 notes (ABCDEF i.e. 5-7-8 on the E and A strings) are in a shape that repeats on the D and G string 7th fret, and again on the B and high E string 10th fret. These kinds of patterns are all over the place. Chunking your knowledge into these patterns and then knowing where they repeat on the fretboard is a key way to learn your way around.

  2273. musictheory 2018-04-15 10:29:16 amarti32
    When I first started, I printed a sheet of off all the notes and looked at it everyday... that method failed horribly. The best way I learned was to find specific notes at each part of the guitar and work your way from there. Like, if you know that C is first fret on the b string then you know that D is third fret and E is fifth fret and all the notes in-between. It’s that much easier to start from a point of reference than to try to memorize everything.

  2274. musictheory 2018-04-15 11:54:41 cartoptauntaun
    I think the point of that video is that just doing it helps you figure it out for yourself. Like you, I immediately had an easy time with the 5 and 6 strings because I use them often for open E and A shape bar chords. For me, I started visualizing the higher root in the bar chords for the D/4 and G/3 strings and feel like I'm locking those in quickly too. The high E/1 is the same as the low E/6, and the B I really haven't figured out yet. I guess I use the C shape to think about roots on the B/2 string but I don't link it as intuitively.

  2275. musictheory 2018-04-15 12:12:58 five_of_five
    I like to think of what I’m playing as scale tones. If I’m in the key of A and play the 7th fret on the high E string, that’s the 2 note. This tends to translate to the pitch easily enough, and the general scale tone thought process translates super easily regardless of key.

  2276. musictheory 2018-04-15 13:28:07 ttd_76
    They are harmonic ratios. When something vibrates (eg a string on a guitar) it does so at a certain frequency. For example if a string is vibrating at 440 Hz, it produces a note we can call A. If that string were vibrating twice as fast, it would be vibrating at 880 Hz. It will produce a note that to our ears sounds very similar to the A at 440Hz, but higher in pitch. We call that an octave. An octave is two notes where one frequency is twice as fast as the other. Or mathematically a 2/1 ratio. That’s what you got going on there. 3/2, 4/3, 3/2 are just expressing the ratio between two frequencies. Those specific ratios have musical names, eg Perfect fourth, perfect fifth.

  2277. musictheory 2018-04-15 14:04:44 greenwellil
    Love the in depth comments here, here are a few simpler visual tricks that helped me out: - Memorize the notes of the 6th and 5th strings. The inlays on the 3-5-7 frets are your friends - if you remember those notes you can easily figure out any other note relative to those. - There’s a good chance you already know these notes if you play barre chords - the root note of E-shaped barre chords is on the 6th string, and for A-shaped barre chords the 5th string. - For the 4th string, any note is two frets down from the 6th string. So if the 5th fret of the 6th string is an “A” note, the 7th fret of the 4th string is also an “A” note. So if you know the 6th string, you can easily tell what each note of the 4th string is by looking two frets back on the 6th. - Same goes for the 3rd string - any note is two frets down from the 5th string. - For the 2nd string, and note is three frets down from the 4th string, or two frets up from the 5th string. For example, if you look at the 6th fret, it’s the same as the 8th fret on the 5th string which you memorized (an F note) and also the same as the the 3rd fret on the 4th string, which is the same as the first fret on the 6th string, which you memorized, also an F. - For the 1st string, the notes are identical to the the 6th string. - Or course on the 12th fret everything resets and the note on the 15th fret on any string is identical to the note on the 3rd fret for any string. - Also if you do play barre chords, you can also try to remember where the root note appears in the chord other than the lowest string. For example if you play an E chord by barring the 5th string on the 7th fret and making an A-shaped chord, you will notice that the “middle” note of the A shape, in this case the 9th fret on the 3rd string, is also an E note. You can notice where the root note falls for all chord shapes and it’s very useful. With these little tricks I was able to put down my finger on any fret and pretty quickly say which note it was. You can spend some time practicing that directly - putting down your finger on a note and saying what it is, or integrate this into any other practice you are doing (i.e. scales). Of course these tricks are indicative to intervals and a lot of deeper things that you should get into, but for me it was helpful to have a method to know what any note is and learn the theory based on that.

  2278. musictheory 2018-04-15 15:32:58 dasding88
    Maybe the answer is to just brute force it via whatever relationship you have (eg the open C shape on the b string), until you eventually know it instinctively. I feel like this can't be too hard and I'm just being lazy!

  2279. musictheory 2018-04-15 17:18:52 Jongtr
    > the perfect fifth is two different geometries. Its subharmonics is 2/3 (which is C to F). I can't make sense of that either. "Subharmonics" or "undertones" are theoretical constructs - they don't exist in nature. A musical tone - a sound we perceive as a pitch - has a "harmonic series", a natural phenomenon which is (essentially) a series of frequencies which are all multiples of the "fundamental" pitch, the single note we hear. So the pitch known as "middle C" vibrates at around 261 Hz (cycles per second). At least, that's the rate of its fundamental, the "1st harmonic". But the vibrations produced by musical instruments contain multiples of that, in different combinations which produce the "timbre" of the instrument - which enables us to tell (e.g.,) the difference between a flute, violin and saxophone all playing the same pitch. The lower part of the harmonic series of middle C runs as follows (harmonic numbers on left): 1 = 261.6 Hz 2 = 523.2 Hz = "octave" (i.e., the 8th note up in the western musical scale,another C note.) 3 = 784.8 Hz = "perfect 12th" (12 notes up, which is a G) 4 = 1046.4 = two octaves up, another C 5 = 1318.0 = two octaves plus a "major 3rd" (3 additional notes up from C, which is E) If you take that 3x harmonic (784.8) and divide by 2 (392.4), you get a G an octave lower, which is a "perfect 5th" (5 notes) above the initial C. Hence the idea that a perfect 5th is a 3:2 ratio. If you divide the 4x harmonic (1046.4) by 3, you get 348.8, which is the frequency of F, the 4th (note) above C. Hence a perfect 4th = 4:3. (The adjective "perfect", btw, is partly in relation to these simple ratios and the pure consonances they produce.) These ratios can all be seen in a guitar string (marked by frets) or the holes in a simple flute pipe.

  2280. musictheory 2018-04-15 18:28:49 smk4813
    I second u/Karmoon 's advice. As straight answer, I'll add this: Two beginner scales for guitar is the major scale and the minor scale *W means whole step which is two frets, H means half step which is one fret* Major = WWHWWWH Minor = WHWWHWW Start on any fret or open string and use either of those formulas. If you start on the low E string and play WWHWWWH you get **E** [W] F# [W] G# [H] A [W] B [W] C# [W] D# [H] **E** which is the E major scale. *Bold indicates the starting root and the corresponding octave.*

  2281. musictheory 2018-04-15 19:03:59 DevilsInterval5
    Learning scales is great. Make sure to train your ear at the same time. There are tons of good books on scales out there that will help you. My most recent purchase is Roy Henry - String Patterns. The music theory chapter is a basic overview and not over the top. Great book.

  2282. musictheory 2018-04-15 19:14:06 DevilsInterval5
    Awesome question. You are on the right track. I like practicing each string in 4ths. Here is my practice sequence. B E A D G F C, find them on each string. I get more out of it than just notes. I also learn the 4th. The 3rd is is half step down and the 5th a whole step up, etc (you are learning scale degrees that way, major scale that is). Plus, except for the B string, a guitar is tuned in 4ths. E A D G, B (3rd), and E. Knowing that, expand that an practice triads. It takes a few month, but its a game changer.

  2283. musictheory 2018-04-15 23:41:08 Korrun
    Quite the can of worms. Most theorists consider a chord to be three or more notes. That makes a power 'chord' a dyad. Or some people use the violin term double-stop. In actual usage though, it is still considered a chord by many musicians in many contexts. If I am strumming a four finger G chord on the guitar and mute string 5 (the B), no one stops and goes, "whoah! You just stopped playing chords and switched to playing dyads". The "chord" part of lots of music includes partial chords, 3rds, 6ths, 5ths, etc. along with full chords. Sometimes the missing notes are supplied by other parts/instruments/voices, sometimes not. In a slightly related vein, rootless jazz chord voicings are still named after the root even when you aren't playing that root..

  2284. musictheory 2018-04-16 00:37:39 65TwinReverbRI
    There is a real question here, but it's broader than you think. Think about this for a second - you would compose differently for a one string guitar than you would a 6 string guitar, right? Becuase even though the timbre would be the same (at least on that one string) you can't play chords on one. So you're going to compose with that in mind. Let's take that a step further - let's say you have a synth, and have the same exact sound called up, but one version has sustain as long as you hold the key, and another dies away only moments after striking the key - as if everyting was staccato. You're probably going to compose differently - because on one there will be long silences between the notes - so you're more likely to play more notes per measure than with a note that can be held indefintely where you could play one note over 3 or 4 measures etc. The same would be true if on one of these synth sounds, when you release the key it keeps ringing (like plucking an open guitar string and not dampening it) versus releasing a key and having the sound stop abruptly - like a piano will without the sustain (damper) pedal. You're going to write differently. Ever notice that composers typically write differently when using pizzicato on strings versus regular bowing. To some degree the same is true of muted guitar. So it's not just timbre, but it's a lot of musical elements that either are used to create specific sounds, or are called on when specific sounds are desired.

  2285. musictheory 2018-04-16 11:22:42 MRSAfulFate
    What if they had three and a half legs and eight string guitars?

  2286. musictheory 2018-04-16 18:37:26 spitz81
    Postmodern bass. It will involve playing a 12 string bass while upside down and wearing listening goggles. I have seen the future and it only gets worse.

  2287. musictheory 2018-04-17 02:08:31 ttd_76
    I guess to me Freddie Green chords are "chords that Freddie Green played (or at least I think he did)," but not a strict chord formulation. So yeah the R,7,3 type chord in question would be a Freddie Green chord. But so would the R, 3, 7 generic chord form with the root on the fifth string. Shell voicings to me are just 3 and 7 but I have heard them called that with or without root. I always think of that chord as "Drop 3 with no 5." I don't know why I don't think of it as the equally applicable "Drop 2 with no 5." I guess because I don't play that chord too much. I don't know. It's the kind of thing where it doesn't really matter much because everyone knows what you mean and if they don't it's not like anything goes wrong that can't be fixed. Someone plays or does not play a root note.

  2288. musictheory 2018-04-17 15:19:35 Groundbreaking_Moose
    If you can spare a minute and a half every day to get better, resolve to name each note up to the 12th (and back down!) using a metronome. Set it at 60. 8 notes up n' 8 back down is 16 notes per string, times 6 strings is 96 notes. 96 notes at 60 on the met is 96 seconds a day. Do it every other click at first if you have to, or even every 3 at first. Do it every day before you play anything else. All my students do this, even the 8 year olds. Give it a couple weeks; it works. Also, it helps to remember that the 1/2 steps are between E & F and B & C, everything else is a whole step. Best of luck!

  2289. musictheory 2018-04-17 17:20:16 G-Man8776
    Thank you so much! That definitely gives me a bit better understanding of what I'm working with. I changed the melody slightly and added some chords before I read this however, so I'm just curious if there's anything you'd want to mention about [this new version](https://i.imgur.com/KlzgXJg.jpg), or maybe even suggestions about where I can go with it. It's still far from done, but this is a more representative chunk I think. I'm trying to get an orchestral feel with it, so I'm imagining a low string section playing the chords with a full concert-hall sort of reverb, under my light piano motif carrying the listener away.

  2290. musictheory 2018-04-17 19:26:28 PorkpieDiplomat
    The above is correct. I would add that some keys work a lot better for guitar, such as E, A, G, and D. If one of your accompanying musicians is a beginning guitarist, stick with one of those. Pianists can usu play in any key. String players prefer sharp keys. Wind players prefer flat keys. Another consideration is overall register. Don’t use a key that will result in your piece being too muddy sounding. Always try to keep your instruments in a comfy range so they sound good. That usually means keeping the music on the staff after transposition. Could be tmi here but good luck and keep writing!

  2291. musictheory 2018-04-17 23:03:24 Caedro
    The d string. The string of continuity.

  2292. musictheory 2018-04-18 02:37:36 morgler
    I would view these considerations as important: 1. Who will sing it? Check their range and their preferred key. 2. Who will play it? Check instrument ranges. But also check and adapt your arrangement so that nothing sounds too thin or too muddy. 3. Certain techniques on certain instruments only work in specific keys (e.g. open strings on string instruments, the "black keys glissando" on a piano or harmonics on a guitar). Also be aware of certain sound characteristics only achievable in certain keys (like an open string on a cello sounding very powerful and much different from other notes). I wouldn't consider any of the "esoteric" characteristics attached to keys important. With the tunings we use today, you don't have to worry about something in F# major sounding different from C major.

  2293. musictheory 2018-04-18 07:15:42 G-Man8776
    Thank you for the candid feedback! I share your uncertainty with the last two chords. Frankly, I was messing around looking for a chord with some remotely tonic resolution, but happened across that sound, and realized I liked the somewhat dramatic feel it gives. In contrast to the ungrounded and light melody, those chords act as an injection of stronger emotion, sort of. I'm not certain that it's THE chords to use there, but it definitely doesn't sound wrong. I have the melody written now as a soft solo intro, and then it loops, gaining volume and adding the chords using a low string section the second time around. The final chords add a little interest to the otherwise soothing sound. I 100% think those chords work (*sound good*), but again I could definitely see there being better chords for the job.

  2294. musictheory 2018-04-18 10:11:40 stevevaiamd2006
    The sound of C phrygian and Ab major are different. C phrygian sounds flamenco, whereas Ab major sounds happy such as happy birthday tune. How do we get that phrygian sound? Assert the tonic of the scale. We'll choose the key of E for this method. First, drone E by plucking and holding the open bass E string on your guitar for eight measures. Next, pick the notes of the E phrygian scale, especially the notes E, F, G, over that E drone. Do you hear the phrygian sound? Now, use the same method for E major by droning the note E and playing the E major scale over that drone. You'll hear the difference in sound of both scales.

  2295. musictheory 2018-04-18 22:15:19 DRL47
    The temporary tonic doesn't even have to be diatonic to the original key. You can have a string of secondary dominants with only the last one being diatonic to the home key. In the key of C major; C E7 A7 D7 G7 C. The A7 and D7 are temporary tonics, but not diatonic to C major.

  2296. musictheory 2018-04-19 04:35:51 happymeal98
    My gut feeling is, while I have no doubt Bonham, Page, and company knew their theory, they simply had a cool riff and said what if after the verse we just play the riff consecutively without the rests on the string below it, and it doesn't fit 4/4 beat, but we'll make it work until we get back to the verse.

  2297. musictheory 2018-04-19 05:47:17 Bassman_G
    hurdy gurdy solo (or anything with a drone string). The original rave.

  2298. musictheory 2018-04-20 16:09:43 HashPram
    Can't say it's doing anything for me. Theory? Besides the harmony ... The chorus is the beginning half of CeCe Peniston's "Finally" but with a slightly different ending. Arrangement-wise it's fairly standard pop arrangement/production: Nasally female vocals; Mid-pace 1-and-2-and-3-and-4-and backbeat; Bass more-or-less pinned to the backbeat; Bass drum with a fair amount of click on it (so it works on cheaper stereos that don't have massive subwoofers and therefore can't properly reproduce the thud of the drum); Drum-machine-timing hi-hat; Whip-crack snare; Female backing chorus, occasionally echoing the final words (final words) during the verse (during the verse) and comming in on the chorus; Arpeggiated strat on pickup position 2 with a touch of delay; Softish keyboard pad during the early verse; String & orchestral stabs to punctuate the lead into the chorus; Stabs during the chorus to punctuate the end of each section - sounds are probably keyboard renditions of distorted guitars but maybe they got a session player in to strum some chords & then messed around with it in ProTools until it sounded like a keyboard;

  2299. musictheory 2018-04-21 02:40:13 Dark-Artist
    Why is it a bad idea to have only two violins playing a melody together if that is how a standard string quartet is arranged? Serious question.

  2300. musictheory 2018-04-21 02:43:45 JoelteonCarrots
    It's typically better to have either 1 or 3 violins playing the same part at a time. Similarly to basses, the extreme range of these instruments leads to abnormal harshness at even the slightest different in intonation. A single violin will not conflict with itself, and 3 will blend together better. If I understand correctly \(and I am by no means a string player\), a string quartet's violins will rarely play the same note, subverting the problem.

  2301. musictheory 2018-04-21 02:44:40 MusicMan13
    A couple reasons. First, a string quartet doesn’t usually have the violins playing in unison, they’re treated as two separate instruments. From a practical perspective, two violins tend to clash with vibrato and tuning idiosyncrasies in a way that’s usually undesirable. Three or more violins in a section usually blend into a pleasant sound, and one is of course a solo. But two playing in unison is generally worth avoiding unless you really want the sound.

  2302. musictheory 2018-04-21 03:19:31 MusicMan13
    It has to do with the way the tone of certain instruments blend together. I think you’re confusing harmony with ensemble playing. Any time two or more instruments play at the same time, it’s an ensemble playing. But *harmony* happens when they are playing different things. So 3 instruments playing at the same time, but two of them playing the exact same melody, is only a two part (or two “voice”) harmony. For it to be a 3 part harmony they would all have to be playing different notes. The undesirable effect is two violins (or, in your second question, two string instruments) playing the exact same thing for long periods. If the violins are playing different melodies, that’s pretty standard.

  2303. musictheory 2018-04-21 04:56:37 archofmusic_dot_com
    The design of the chord encyclopedia for the guitar looks and works much like a scale diagram of a chord and add. On a single page 8.5x11 page I am able to fit 11 fret board diagrams for each chord and every possible add variation. The 3-tone chord stays the same throughout the page and the add notes move one semitone as you move up and down the page. This design teaches a method for exploring chords and adds just by depicting them as scales and organizing them correctly. By diagramming the chords as you would a scale instead of individual chord diagrams for each bass note, I've ensured every possible way to play the chord is shown. The diagrams can be a little complex at first but I've used simple geometric symbols to indicate the notes which are readable at a small scale. Circle = Root, X = 5th, triangle = third note, and square = 4th note. Thanks sony playstation! With a little practice the diagrams become very easy to use. You typically figure out a way to play the 3-toned chord first and then seek out higher pitched add variations of them. Some of the chords are moveable. Some are barred. Some utilize open notes. Chord forms change from string to string. Every possible way to play them are all there. You just have to actively search for the chords and figure out how to play them. Its way more complex than just a simple chord diagram. But the design allows for exploration and even inversions of 4-tone chords as well as the exploration of additional notes above 4-tones. The piano chord encyclopedia uses the same circle, X, triangle, square notation to differentiate the different notes in a chord and the add notes are labeled with their names an octave above the 3-toned chord. There are 12 keyboard diagrams for each chord depicted for every bass note on the keyboard so every possible way to play them has been depicted. You can play and explore them any way you want.

  2304. musictheory 2018-04-21 05:37:48 PunkJackal
    Ok, so then you have to do this for the 8 octaves of the piano and every fret and string for the guitar or its an incomplete list. Each note on the keyboard is unique, and though they occur in octave patterns they are unique pitches. C4 is not C5. If each arrangement of notes is a unique chord as you say, then a chord spelled C4 G5 E6 is going to be different than one spelled C4 E4 G4.

  2305. musictheory 2018-04-21 07:01:23 spitz81
    As you alluded to, Russian classical tends to be darker, a more direct assault on the senses. Even Sugarplum Fairy - even though it has pretty tinkling and feels kind of buoyant, is still not as "drifty" as say, Debussy. Russian classical also has strong elements of the folk music, which is an experience in itself. Those terrifying choirs, the bouncy melodies of the balalaika, the layers of the bayan, the Russian 7 string guitar and altered tunings.... So you apply all of that to a piano or an orchestra.... shit's gonna get real.

  2306. musictheory 2018-04-21 07:55:58 EpicureanHorn
    People are just awful at understanding the horn's range in so many ways. I think one big problem is people thinking off the brass section too similarly to the string section. In the strings you have a very clearly delineated order from low to high from bass to cello to viola to violin. People think of the brass section similarly and think the horn is "above" the trombone and then the horn parts will never go below the treble staff. The other problem is with the pervasiveness of music notation software people are composing entire horn parts in concert pitch, which both makes them completely oblivious to how high the horn part is sitting in the actual horn range and makes them terrible at realizing what clef they should be writing in. I've seen far too many horn parts from student composers that are written with countless ledger lines above the bass clef throughout because they spend the whole time they're composing looking at a concert pitch bass clef part that would sit way better in treble clef when written for horn in F. This is further a problem because the range in between treble and bass clef is some golden territory for the horn, and every horn player grows up reading that range as ledger lines below treble clef, not above bass. tl;dr yeah people need to write lower horn parts and use treble clef unless bass clef is really warranted.

  2307. musictheory 2018-04-21 11:04:44 Xenoceratops
    There is no single feature that encompasses any piece of music, because music is an art in time and different things happen at different points in time. However, I will attempt to encapsulate this as best I can and we can go from there. Instrumentation: String orchestra (a harp pops in toward the end) Texture: Homophonic Meter: 4 Harmony: Mostly D aeolian; at the beginning, there's a V chord that is decorated with chromatic scales and some special effects, namely [harmonic glissando](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awQBh9ADp98). There is a similar harmonic gliss technique, the "[seagull effect](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UTZvFSiQkk)", which you can hear at the beginning of the Archeozoic section of George Crumb's [Vox Balanae](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfz0EanEaj0&t=5m55s). Apart from the extended technique, this kind of sound abounds in the music of British composers from the first half of the 20th century. I'm not going to fish around for really similar pieces right now, but here are some composers you should look into: [Gustav Holst](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRRtmrjWsPE) [Rebecca Clarke](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_vZKrEOLYE) [Ralph Vaughan-Williams](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR2JlDnT2l8) [John Ireland](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Oq4oZgPAwE) [George Butterworth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x21PlwRi-M8)

  2308. musictheory 2018-04-22 16:02:28 Rahnamatta
    It was a shortcut. I'm a fan of shortcuts, if I can find one I'm "hell yes". I still find minor relatives by picturing(¿) the neck of the guitar (relative minor of F#. 9th fret is F#, 11th of the lower string D#), it's automatic

  2309. musictheory 2018-04-22 19:57:18 TheaOchiMati
    There are a couple of factors to getting that lovely icy string sound. The strings are obviously at a low dynamic, but they're using mutes on top of that, playing non-vibrato, voiced with divisi which will thin it out, and the chord voicing itself has a lot of space in terms of the intervals being used. If you want that wide open icy sound, this is a really great example of how to get it. Edit: to expand on the voicing, the bass+celli are an octave apart, the viola and vln 2 are divisi and doubling a sixth, and the vln 1 is a divisi octave.

  2310. musictheory 2018-04-22 22:53:29 theCubistR
    It really depends what you're playing; orchestral works are usually equally tempered whereas in solos for continuous pitch instruments diatonic tuning is usualy needed (if it isn't later baroque). Then there are chamber ensembles like string quartets where you have to analyse the score to see whether what you're playing is part of a chord and should be chromatic or if it's a melody and should be diatonic (roughly).

  2311. musictheory 2018-04-24 08:39:03 65TwinReverbRI
    Uh oh. You're not learning "classical", you're learning Jazz. Either run to the hills, or if you want to study jazz, fine. OK, Major scale. On guitar, our fingers can easily span 3 or 4 frets keeping one finger per fret on a single string. That covers a distance like A-B-C or A-B-C# - the start of A minor, or A Major scales. Now, you can play 3 notes on the 6th string, then the next note of the scale happens to be within reach on the 5th string - so you could continue with the notes D-E-F, or D-E-F# on the next string. Many people call scales laid out this way "3 notes per string". Now, that assumes you start your A Major Scale (for example) on the A note on the 6th string, 5th fret. So you can play a total of 3 notes on that string before moving on to the next string to get the next notes in the scale. When you do that, it means your first finger is pretty much going to stay on or near the 5th fret on each string for the notes you need, and the remaining notes of the scale will all be higher frets - middle finger and pinky, etc. But, you can play a lot of those same notes - most of them - in a different position. You can start your A Major scale with your pinkie on the 5th fret of the 6th string, then play the next note B on the 2nd fret of the 5th string and continue up from there. You can still get 3 notes per string this way, only in this case you started your scale with only 1 note on the 6th string. It so happens there are actually 3 positions you can do this in and reach everything (some stretches of an extra fret are sometimes required) or another way to say it is, there is a A Major Scale that starts with a single note on the 6th string, which is done in "2nd position" (so your first finger it over the 2nd fret, while your pinkie plays the A on the 5th fret), and there is an A Major Scale that starts with TWO notes on the 6th string, which puts you in 4th position (you start the scale with your middle finger and then play the pinkie on the 6th before moving on to the 5th string notes) and then there is an A Major Scale that starts with THREE notes on the 6th string starting in 5th position. If you were to move the patterns down to where open strings were included, you'd find the one that starts with the pinky is essentially a G Major Chord shape. The last one I mentioned - 3 notes on the 6th in 5th position, if moved down to open strings becomes an E Chord shape. So there are two of your letters out of c-a-G-E-d. You can repeat this process beginning on the 5th string and like the G and E shapes on the 6th, you get the C and A shapes on the 5th. The D shape sort of comes from the 4th string. However, I don't believe this is the best way to learn - it's fine for playing out of those shapes but you should know your scales better than that and independent of chord shapes (and vice versa). And you'll notice I had THREE patterns on the 6th string, not just 2. The way I see it, you have a G shape, an F shape, and an E shape, that begin, respectively, with 1, 2, and 3 notes on the 6ht string. Then, you have 3 more that equate to C, Bb, and A on the 5th strings (and really, these are the same patterns as the 6th string just moved up a string, which makes the patterns change a bit because of the tuning of the 3rd to 2nd string being a 3rd rather than 4th). Once you get to the 4th string, the 6th string patterns are just repeated in a higher octave. So I see it as 6 patterns, not 5. Besides there are actually some incongruities because when you play a full 6 string Barre chord, if you were to Arpeggiate a Major 7th chord within that same area, you're most likely going to back up a position rather than "stretch out" from the 5th fret. So you don't always necessarily want to play the same scale pattern as the chord form pattern. But to kind of simply answer your question, the possible patterns for scales have been reduced to and likened to some familiar chord shapes and 5 of them will cover all you supposedly need. And all of these shapes - whether you're doing it my way or using CAGED, come from what we call "moveable" chord forms - or patterns if you like - all patterns on guitar can be moved up or down (until you run out of frets). So a G Major Scale pattern - any way you play it - can be moved up two frets to give you an A Major Scale pattern. If you start with a G Major scale using the open strings, you have to "barre up" the open strings. If you play a G Major scale with open strings, just put a capo on the 2nd fret and play all the rest of the notes up two frets - as if the capo was the nut. You get an A Major scale. But when you're using the CAGED forms (or any other method) you're basically moving the whole shape - fretted notes AND open strings, up X number of notes. So we say that the G form can be used to play an A scale, or Bb scale, or C scale, by moving the whole pattern (fretted AND open string notes) up 2, 3, or 5 frets. You just add 2 frets to every note you play in a G Major scale to get an A Major scale (so the open B note would become fret 2, etc.). So we can say this G Form (based on the open G chord, which is the basic form for the open G Major scale) is the same form we use for A two frets higher. Of course there are other ways to play A using the C form, or the D form etc. by moving them up, so CAGED essentially gives you 5 patterns you can use to play any single major scale (assuming you have enough frets in a given position) and you can move these patterns up or down any amount to produce all the other major scales (and you can derive minor from them as well, etc.) I'm not big on CAGED, but if that's what your instructor wants you to learn, that's what you should learn. However, again I'll say CAGED is really a jazz concept and if you're studying "traditional" classical guitar (or want to be) you'd be more likely to be studying the scales given in Carcassi, or Segovia's scales, etc. HTH

  2312. musictheory 2018-04-24 12:07:33 thisguyhastwothumbs
    For some instruments, particular keys are more convenient than others for intermediate players. Rock music is largely played on guitar and electric bass, making the popular keys go from 12 to 6 o'clock on the circle of fifths. In jazz, soul, funk, etc, horn players are prevalent, and they tend to prefer flat keys, going counterclockwise. Of course, skilled players can transpose into any key and play it. However, in the case of a 4-string bass, say, playing in E flat presents an interesting set of circumstances to play around, in that nearly half of the notes on the instrument are below the natural lowest root note you can play. Again, not difficult to get around for a skilled musician- but for a beginner or intermediate player, often not as comfortable.

  2313. musictheory 2018-04-25 00:34:06 beaumega1
    "Look up at the sky and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Not sure if there is a Planck equivalent to a minimum measurable interval in frequencies, but otherwise the frequency spectrum goes to infinity. But in practice, a 15th is pretty normal. But why stop there you ask? Why no 16ths, 17ths, etc.? Well, 9ths and 10ths are redundant if you consider that (octaves aside) they are just multiples of 2nds and 3rds. Well, western theory likes to measure things in 3rds. a major chord is a stack of two thirds; a seventh chord is a stack of three thirds; a ninth chord is a stack of four thirds; an 11th chord is a stack of five thirds; a 13th chord is a stack of six thirds, then a 15th chords is a.... Wait. Now we are repeating notes. After climbing the stacks of thirds, a point is eventually reached where all diatonic notes are part of the chord (a 13 chord), and any stacks higher are going to describe what is already a part of the chord. Our edge case here would be that you could have an augmented 15th (because why not), but still we are locking it in at 15. Aside from practice and back to your question, I'm gonna give it a theoretical no, but another practical yes. We could technically measure intervals upwards of 20k hz, but nobody can reasonably hear pitches that high up in the stratosphere. So I'm thinking this question needs limits. Why not use the modern piano? From A0 to C8, there are 88 keys. Any notes we might add would sound like muddy, spanky, thick strings on the low end, or plinky-dinky high sounds of a hammer hitting what would be a string as rigid as a needle. So without dismissing your question because math, and without overly constraining it with practicalities, I'd say 88 intervals is a safe answer. ... Or did you mean the Arab tone system, in which there are 24 divisions per octave (quarter-tones between all the notes we know in the western world)? :P

  2314. musictheory 2018-04-25 22:25:41 65TwinReverbRI
    Oh, OK. But you know that these notes are too low for standard tuned guitar right? Is it a 7 string or dropped tuning? How I would notate this would be - let's assume Eb6/9 right now so we can keep the accidentals you have on the upper notes as in the picture: Use a down stem on Eb, Bb F, then have F and C upstemmed immediately to the right with the G note out to the right of the stem of that. The only other way to do it would be what sometimes happens - put the lower 3 notes stemmed together with a down stem, then the upper 3 upstemmed, so the F "shares" stems - so only 1 F - or if you like, 2 F notes but right on top of each other - with the G to the right of the upstem. Then you just mark clearly that the there's an "0" for open and a finger numeral as well - hopefully the context will be clear enough for a player to realize it's both - especially if it's happening on other chords. I'd have to write it out, but for this reason the sharps and double sharps might actually be even more fussy than using the flats and naturals. So the "correct" way would be to use the sharps, but in this particular instance, the flats and naturals may be easier to read.

  2315. musictheory 2018-04-25 22:47:34 w00ten
    Guitar is how I got my arts credit to graduate high school(Ontario). We had a teacher who was SUPER talented. We'd walk into class and there he is finger picking Bach on a cheap $75 POS nylon string guitar and it would be clean as fuck. We were too young and stupid to understand what we were seeing at the time unfortunately. That class gave me the core foundation of theory I have now and is a big part of why I still play. It was offered for grades 10 and 11 and was fantastic for us teenagers who were just starting.

  2316. musictheory 2018-04-25 23:17:53 Tykenolm
    That's what I love about guitar so much, you don't need an expensive instrument. Anybody can learn on a shitty $100 nylon string guitar. I feel like a lot of students, especially in poor neighborhoods, are restricted from playing music because schools only offer band and orchestra usually, and those instruments cost *on average* at least $1,200 for a decent instrument. You can buy a decent acoustic guitar for $400ish, and you can get a playable one for $100-200. A $100-200 violin will break within a year, never really sound good, it will go out of tune all the time, and squeak like crazy. Guitar and Piano are the two best instruments anyone can learn in my opinion, and since piano isn't a practical instrument for a classroom environment, I feel like guitar should absolutely be taught in every high school as an elective.

  2317. musictheory 2018-04-26 00:29:06 m3g0wnz
    You're right that it's not simply tuning; there is also a cultural component to the concept of consonance/dissonance. John of Garland writing in around 1200 is one theorist that asserts that major thirds are more consonant than minor thirds, because their proportion is closer to dividing the string in half \(this is of course an arbitrary definition of consonance\).

  2318. musictheory 2018-04-26 02:02:17 DRL47
    Genres aren't "invented" very often. They are usually a refinement or combination of existing styles. Scott Joplin didn't "invent" ragtime, but he was certainly the most important composer to standardize and legitimize it. Bill Monroe was such a stylized example of string-band music, the bluegrass genre is named after his band. The closest to "inventing" a genre is probably the German 12-tone serialists (Webern, et al).

  2319. musictheory 2018-04-26 13:51:56 ajarndaniel
    I'm a string player. I've never seen vibrato notated. I hadn't realised that was part of 'how things are done'. Tremolando gets notated (for bowed strings at least). I'm not sure about guitar, I haven't read enough guitar music. I can't believe they tell you where to put the vibrato though. If I was a session player I'd be inclined to storm off in a huff! (Perhaps that's why no one asks me to be a session player... Huh...)

  2320. musictheory 2018-04-28 10:01:25 blairnet
    5th string 3rd fret is the same C as a middle C on piano. But I think it’s generally acceptable to play it an octave up on Guitars middle C

  2321. musictheory 2018-04-28 10:42:08 j_mcdonald13
    pretty sure 2nd string 1st fret is middle C. 5th string 3rd fret is the C on the second space in the bass clef, an octave below middle C

  2322. musictheory 2018-04-28 10:57:04 PestilentBeat
    It depends on context. If you’re just doing it by yourself it doesn’t matter. If you were playing with a group it might matter depending what kind of sound they’re going for. If they’re expecting true middle C then it can’t be the fifth string option

  2323. musictheory 2018-04-28 12:23:50 all-thethings
    585555 (Fmaj7/A, different fingerings on the B string above this) 355363 Dm - Am - Gm - F ... Gm ... C7 ...

  2324. musictheory 2018-04-28 13:09:01 UnicycleDiaries
    You might be better off using varispeed rather than straight up pitch shifting as it's going to be less destructive to the audio and leave fewer artefacts. This would involve you varispeeding the track you want to record the piano over DOWN to 432 (making it slightly slower in tempo as well as lower in pitch), recording the part, and then varispeeding what you've recorded UP to 440. I've done this a bunch of times but in the other direction when recording string players who can only do 440 for music that's at 432 or whatever.

  2325. musictheory 2018-04-28 15:37:51 Jongtr
    > 5th string 3rd fret is the same C as a middle C on piano It looks the same but sounds an octave lower - that's the point. In fact, piano "middle C" is in the middle of guitar range too (B string fret 1, or G fret 5, or D fret 10 etc), which is why it's written near the middle of guitar notation: in 3rd space up. (I.e., why the guitar staff is lowered by an octave.) 5th string 3rd fret is not the "middle" of anything. ;-)

  2326. musictheory 2018-04-29 01:46:56 MaggotFetish
    4:11 is G# A F A F# G B D# C C# D - and then down part of D blues scale, and into shred. The G-B-D# forms a G aug arpeggio resolving to C. 4:44 is the lick he shows in his instructional video, its 32nd note string skipping augmented arpeggio that is not humanly possible for anyone else but him https://youtu.be/jsex6hSHCp4?t=175 https://youtu.be/9Jit_KXxhX4?t=210

  2327. musictheory 2018-04-29 03:05:06 Sadimal
    [Yngwie Malmsteen Air on G String Guitar Pro Tab](https://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/tab/yngwie_malmsteen/air_guitar_pro_224427) [Another Tab of it on Youtube](https://youtu.be/yAyCxCwAuG4)

  2328. musictheory 2018-04-29 10:51:34 nuggles1
    In this particular case it's pretty simple: We know the original version is in B and starts on C#min (the ii chord) so because we start this song on Dmin we can determine that this version is in C (half step up from the original) Also, notice how the difference in tuning is also a half step up on each string. That's another "sign" sort of, guitars really shine when their tuning correlates to the key (open strings, harmonics, new voicings, etc) and it's pretty common with acoustic guitar songs.

  2329. musictheory 2018-04-29 14:06:48 dethroned_dictaphone
    People don't have the patience to do it gradually enough, and some instruments will hate the sudden increase in string tension.

  2330. musictheory 2018-04-29 22:55:18 Znees
    That is simply not how it works. Guitars can bend etc. over time. But, then you make adjustments in the truss, the nut, and the bridge. If for some reason you can't do that, any trained luthier can make adjustments doing everything from reseating the neck, to shimming, to compressing parts of the guitar that aren't adjustable. You would never leave a guitar with bad tuning pegs in that condition. You'd replace them. Similarly, the mechanics and construction of a piano are such that these same sorts adjustments and replacements can be made. There's no such thing as a piano that will tune to 432 but not 440. If it can be tuned, then you can tune it. Otherwise, you're talking about an instrument that needs adjustments or repairs. >Replacing the strings 1 at a time however will prevent damage. That's not the point of that. The point of replacing one string at a time, assuming you're using the same gauge, is to short cut the process of intonating a guitar and to maintain an even tension on the neck so that it doesn't suddenly bow/bow back. But, that is not something you do if you're trying to adjust some random ancient guitar as a professional. That's something you do if you're a player who wants to quickly change strings. A pro, doing a through job, would put the same instrument in a climate controlled environment, allow the guitar to acclimate, and slowly reduce tension over hours and maybe even days. Even as a player, going from E standard and changing strings to tune to Drop C, doing it one string at a time is senseless because I have to readjust the entire instrument, from the ground up, to accommodate the new tuning. What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Sorry. Maybe you can explain like I'm 5?

  2331. musictheory 2018-04-30 05:02:02 65TwinReverbRI
    1. Note sounds evolved the same way pronunciation did for words and letters - over an extremely long period of time most of which is lost to history. But, the Greeks did do a lot of work with mathematics related to tuning systems and started codifying tunings of letter names that already existed for notes. The earliest names for notes were "string closest to the body" and "string furthest from the body" on a Tetrachord. They devised Enharmonic, Chromatic, and Diatonic Genera (plural of Genus, or type) for tunings and gradually settled on what we now equate with whole and half steps. a. If they thought a sound was "good enough" it got used. It it wasn't, it didn't. Unfortunately, most people don't keep records of what they throw in the trash! b. The Greeks had a range - a word we still use today - the Gamut. The Gamut was their entire scale. It was likely limited by range of human voice. So note names were not applied to every single possible pitch. At some point, Boethius assigned the letters A-O, and Gregory assigned A-G then aa-gg, aaa-ggg etc. as was typical in "listing" things (if you look at books even from the 1800s, a lot of lists are not numbered like we do today, but used letters instead). 2. Someone started using "this note is C" and it caught on. That's how any system works until it is codified. Ultimately, we can blame Guido d'Arezzo for the "Do Re Mi" type syllables (though he used Ut instead of Do) and making a "C-centric" system. But in Latin, notes were called "first note" "second note" and so on - Prima Tonus, Secunda Tonus, or whatever (I know no Latin really). The "A B C" kind of stuff comes to English through German, tracing back to those people like Boethius who were using letters. 3. Same answer - Greeks called them originally by string names, then later by "Gamma" and so on. Boethius used letters, Guido used Do Re Mi. Still today, in French (and Spanish, maybe Italian as well), the names of notes are Ut Re Mi, or a similar syllable system. 4. No. The Greeks were all about math and pretty much numerologists. But as far as we can tell, the note names as well as the tuning systems constantly evolved. a. There were no sharps and flats originally. These are also part of a gradual evolution. But the Greeks again did work in Ratios to determine how best to tune (or justify a tuning if you like) between two pitches.

  2332. musictheory 2018-05-01 09:01:48 rebel_tribesman
    When you say "all the possible ways to play all possible intervals on the fretboard" do you mean just learn the sounds of every interval from unison to octave in a bunch of different positions on the neck? What's your opinion on this ear training? It sounds very promising to me. This is also from ultimate guitar QUOTE: Using your chosen tonal centre. I suggest initially you just stick with your choice, and don't change to other pitches as tonal centr3e. This will let you focus on the intervals better, without introducing possible aural confusion. Once you can do the following competently, only then start trying other tonal centres. 1/ sing or hum 1 (the tonal centre). Then imagine it in your minds ear. In all the following exercises, try and hear the chosen tonal centre pitch in your mind's ear as you sing each of the pitches. Also (harder) try and imagine both the tonal centre pitch AND the pitch your "singing" from the exercise (while actually hearing all this just in your mind's ear) 2/ Sing 1, the 5 above it, then 5. Repeat several times. (Now we make use of the octave briefly. My article covers their shapes. Suppose you choose the pitch found at D string, fret 2. as the tonal centre,. This is named E3. All other octaves, above or below that pitch, are all named with the letter E,but the number changes to show which actual E we're talking about. ...these make up a whole family of "E"s, all being octaves of each other. For example, the open E bass string is an octave below your initial choice, and is also an E, named E2. An octave above your initial choice can be found at the open treble E string, actually named E4. Hence, you can also find an interval of a perfect 5th above any of these E's. We have a family of these also. So, from the original choice at D string fret 2, the 5th above that is at fret 4 on the G string (using the shape for the p5). And an octave below that is found at the 5th string fret 2. We could also have got there by considering the E at the open bass string, and using the p5 shape to get the 5th string, fret 2. This is a long winded way of saying that we can think about the tonal centre as involving any of the octaves of your chosen pitch, and the other intervals as being found in any of its own octaves ... a p5 from the tonal centre is always considered a p5, no matter which octave you choose) 3/ Sing 1, the 5 above, then 1, then the 5 below. e.g. e: b: g: 4 d: 2 2 a: 2 e: 4/ Sing the 5 below, then 1. 5/ Sing the 5 below, then 1, then 5 above, then 1. 6/ Sing 1, 3, 1 7/ Sing 3, 1 8/ Sing 3, 5 9/ Sing 5, 3 10/ Sing 1, 3, 5, 3, 1 11/ Sing 1, 3, 5, 1 an octave higher, back to 5, 3, 1 Then use some passing notes ... 12/ Sing 1, 2, 3 but keep 2 short compared to 1 and 3. 2 is found 2 semitones above 1. 13/ Sing 3, 2, 1 14/ Sing 3,4,5 but keep 4 short. 4 is found 1 semitone above 3. 15/ Sing 5,4,3 Do this as often as you can. To practice the minor flavour ... repeat all the above, but use b3 rather than 3. This rapidly becomes easy to do (one to a few weeks). Give it as much or more time than practicing guitar. You'll soon find, having done the above, that you will start to recognise these in music you listen to, and also to be able to analyse simple tunes, like Frere Jacque. You'll be really really well prepared for all that follows.

  2333. musictheory 2018-05-01 11:06:04 timsea81
    agreed that it's Em7, which can also be played with all open strings except for the 2nd fret of the A string

  2334. musictheory 2018-05-01 20:56:06 Canvaverbalist
    Yeah, as a guitarist I find myself using this quite regularly - where the melody can be played on a single string and an open string can be used to fill in the blanks (or any notes, really, it's just more predominant on an open string), it's also a side-effect of "tapping". It's also common with some classical guitar where the bass notes can't be done at the same time as the melody, so they need to be separated. For some reason, I always assumed this was what's called "counterpoint" and now I've just learned that I have no idea what "counterpoint" is since it's not that. But I like the term "negative rhythms", in regard to "negative space" in visual design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_space

  2335. musictheory 2018-05-02 01:19:54 Behind_The_Chair
    It actually was. I was using one finger and pushing down on both A string and D string.

  2336. musictheory 2018-05-02 05:05:12 Iwannasavecomments
    Ok, I've been super interested in this recently. Is it ok if I ask a bunch of questions? 1. How long does it take to get the rough hang of it? Is it worth the time investment? (I have extremely basic coding skills) 2. Are there any programs you like to use side by side? I've heard of frescobaldi, but are there any others? 3. I'm trying to do some basic arrangement, and have a plan for arranging for string quartet, and hopefully up to full symphony orchestra. How is lilypond for large ensembles, and how is the organization? How do I not lose my place in lines of code? 4. Not really a question, but I suppose there's a way to get midi playback? Thank you

  2337. musictheory 2018-05-02 05:20:49 Papitoooo
    >Ok, I've been super interested in this recently. Is it ok if I ask a bunch of questions? Absolutely! >1. How long does it take to get the rough hang of it? Is it worth the time investment? (I have extremely basic coding skills) Not long at all. The basic framework doesn't take much to learn (read: 1 staff 1 voice.) Beyond that it's just looking things up as you need them, which thanks to lilys impressive reference I linked earlier isn't hard at all. You could be able to notate a simple one line melody within 15 minutes. Basic coding skills give you all the head start you need. >2. Are there any programs you like to use side by side? I've heard of frescobaldi, but are there any others? Fresco is the only one I've heard of, but I don't use it. I'm running Linux so straight command line is easier for me. >3. I'm trying to do some basic arrangement, and have a plan for arranging for string quartet, and hopefully up to full symphony orchestra. How is lilypond for large ensembles, and how is the organization? How do I not lose my place in lines of code? If you look in the sample lilypond file I linked down below, you'll see a few things. First, there's 5 or 6 voices, and lilypond has no problem with it. As far as I know there's no limit. You'll also see I store the notes for each voice in "variables" at the beginning of the file, and call them and organize them in the "score block" more towards the end. Doing it this way keeps you from losing your place. If you need to change something the Flute is playing, everythings right there in the Flute variable and you don't have to pour over a jumbled mess of all the voices. >4. Not really a question, but I suppose there's a way to get midi playback? You'll notice the last line in the sample Lilypond file is an empty midi block. This instructs lilypond to output both a PDF (your sheet music) and a corresponding midi file. Hope I helped! I'd say if you have this much interest in it... Just give it a go. It'll be cumbersome at first but I promise you it's faster in the end. Edit: Pasting in my example from my other comment for simplicity. _link deleted_ the Lilypond file for something I'm playing around with, and _link deleted_ is the resulting PDF. Edit 2: I have some templates I made up at home (the empty framework for a solo piano piece/one for ukulele/one for guitar/one for piano and guitar, etc). I'd be happy to provide them for you, but I do encourage you to get a good understanding of how that basic framework is constructed and come up with your own. They just make it easier to start a new project. Pick the appropriate template, change the key/title/tempo and have at it. Links deleted for opsec lol

  2338. musictheory 2018-05-02 10:55:04 JuliaJCello
    He's referring to timbre, if I'm not much mistaken. Each instrument has its own array of overtones that influences how it sounds. Flutes have relatively few overtones (the fundamental, plus a few on top), which is why they are sometimes described as pure. Oboes, however, have a shit ton of overtones, and thus have very complex sounds, acoustically speaking. This is important for orchestration, primarily from the perspective of blend. String instruments tend to produce a similar array of overtones, so strings blend really well together. However, if you have two of the same instrument, each overtone they produce has the potential to clash with the other if the intonation isn't exact, hence why unison oboes are ridiculously difficult to tune (seriously, so many overtones). In theory, flutes therefore should be super easy to tune in unison, but because their sound is so pure it's easy to tell when they're off. Instruments with completely different overtone series can get away with being quite out of tune with each other. Hence why a violin can play a G major chord perfectly in tune with itself and still sound acceptable playing with piano accompaniment. Edit: As far as I know, more overtones does not necessarily mean more volume.

  2339. musictheory 2018-05-03 04:09:55 jazzadellic
    To clear up the fog with understanding keys, you should learn the major diatonic scale, how to harmonize the scale, i.e. build all the triads in that scale, and the circle of fifths / all the key signatures for all the different keys. Now then being able to translate that onto your instrument is a separate issue of learning your instrument better for example: how to name all the notes on each string, memorizing some chord forms & scale forms, etc...Then the capo won't matter anymore because wherever you play a chord form you will be able to know what chord it is and what key it is from. Also see DRL47's comment below for a correction to my goof. But determining key is a tricky thing sometimes, it's not always obvious what a key a few chords are in. Harmonic cadences are usually the best way to spot a key center. But given the information you gave us, the key of Bm is a reasonable conclusion.

  2340. musictheory 2018-05-03 12:48:48 thejazziestcat
    The most basic of synthesizers are simple waveforms--sine, square, sawtooth, triangle. All of those except sine waves produce overtones exactly matching the harmonic series (saw and triangle waves only produce odd-numbered overtones). Sine waves have no overtones. More interesting sounds are usually the result of a number of filters, distortions, and effects being applied to those tones, or the waveform itself being edited a little. There's a surprising amount you can do with synthesizers and software instruments if you've got the time/funds/creativity. However, apart from very specialized and sophisticated software, most of the time you're not going to get a synthesizer to sound like an acoustic instrument without sampling it. That's because an acoustic instrument is made up of a number of connected oscillators, so the sound is an unpredictable waveform--for example, on a guitar, the string is one oscillator, the soundboard is another (very complex) one, the air inside the body is a Helmholtz resonator, and so on. A clarinet has the column of air inside vibrating, but also the reed and the cavity of the mouthpiece and the player's mouth. The sound as it exists in data doesn't consist of "overtones" per se, or even as it exists in pressure waves in the air (or in a speaker). It's all a single waveform--if you play a 200hz sine wave and a 400hz sine wave, your sound card doesn't output them separately, it plays the waveform that's an addition of those two waves. When it gets to your ears, though, your cochlea separates it into distinct overtones, because that's the way it's set up. If you play a 200hz square wave, your software will output it by just turning on and off the voltage 200 times a second, but your ear will pick it up as a 200hz tone, a 400hz tone, a 600hz tone, an 800hz tone, and so on. Of course, your brain will interpret that as "a harsh-sounding 200hz tone." Sorry if that got a little off topic, I'm taking a class on that right now and it's fascinating.

  2341. musictheory 2018-05-03 23:08:44 Phrygiaddicted
    Harmonics are essentially *timbre*. the relative intensity/phase of the overtones of a note are what seperates a sawtooth from a square, a string from a flute... nothing else. the difference between overtones and harmonics as such is that overtones are not neccesarily *exactly* integer multiplies. physics gets in the way... tension, imperfect squishy reality. creates phasing. but you can consider the harmonic series as the "template" by which everything is related.

  2342. musictheory 2018-05-06 09:13:00 JustoLanusse
    When going for chords learn a bit about what notes each string has to avoid making them play somethig imposible. For example, in a piano its easy to just stack thirds to make a chord (you should be carefull about voicings in piano too though) but this wont work easily for guitar. If you just want them to play chords it really depends on how fast your guitar player is and what limitations he has.

  2343. musictheory 2018-05-06 10:24:19 WolfySpice
    This mainly comes down to playability. A standard 6-string guitar, low to high, is tuned to EADGBE. You'll notice it's all in fourths, except the major third between G and B. Almost anything involving single notes is playable. Scales are easy. When writing single note lines, keep in mind the open strings' notes. It's easy to write something with a pedaled A note; a pedaled C note would be very annoying without retuning or using a capo. This is why keys such as E, A and D are so popular on guitar. When it comes to chords, unless you play a simple triad or use traditional open chord, or if you don't want to just use chord notation, you'll often need to build voicings that use intervals of perfect fourths or larger, otherwise you'll likely make something unplayable unless your guitarist can tie their fingers into knots. Look into some popular jazz voicings for guitar chords to get an idea. Otherwise, powerchords (eg, A5, C5) are ubiquitous for a reason. Also, if it's relevant, guitar is a transposing instrument. It's played an octave lower than written.

  2344. musictheory 2018-05-06 17:39:42 jkbrother
    It's not that I'm discouraged from trying to improve on things that are difficult. For instance, I used to struggle a lot with doing clean and even double stroke rolls on a snare drum (my left hand basically sounded like it was doing a press roll), but I quickly improved with the right technique, and everything just seemed to progress a lot more naturally. With guitar and faster picking, it always felt very awkward and stiff to me, even with what my former guitar teacher said was proper technique, and I always felt like I quickly hit a plateau and couldn't progress from there - and my picking speed has never been that fast. Now I'll admit that since I always preferred listening to harmony like the half-whole scale and diminished chords, and basically anything with chromatism(spelled correctly?) and tritones, I'm probably making this a lot harder for myself, but even after attaining knowledge about jazz harmony, I still think my playing over said harmony sounds like doo-doo, even when I was told it sounded fine by my teacher. An example being playing over something as basic as a II-V-I progression, even if it's spiced up with a lot of chromatism, and so forth. I haven't ever been satisfied with something I played on the guitar, or bass, but I like to listen to other string players like Allan Holdsworth and Jimmy Johnson for instance. And now that I won't be able to play as much drums as I'd like, I have been thinking about picking up the guitar again, but the past experiences have made me hesitant on starting again. I don't know if this reply made any sense, but please do ask if you don't understand something I wrote.

  2345. musictheory 2018-05-06 21:07:54 EarthboundHTX
    Béla Bartok has got some metal-esque music. Check out his string quartets.

  2346. musictheory 2018-05-07 00:38:42 65TwinReverbRI
    Melody is a succesion of notes. Note 1, followed by Note 2, followed by Note 3, etc. and is heard as a single, distinct "line", where each note leads into the next one and they all seem to be part of one "string" of aural events. Melody is the thing you sing when you sing "Mary Had a Little Lamb". It's the "tune" - the thing you hum or whistle usually. Melodies can combine to create chords, but usually when we say "melody" we mean the most obvious line that your attention is drawn to, again, the thing that we generally sing, whistle, hum, etc.

  2347. musictheory 2018-05-07 15:56:53 jenslarsenjazz
    There are as many ways to learn arpeggios as you can imagine playing them. I am guessing you play guitar? So play arpeggios on string sets, positions, one string, go through them in inversions and other patterns. Probably one of the best things you can do is to learn your scales in diatonic arpeggios so that you can connect scales and arpeggios together. That is extremely important for improvising over changes.

  2348. musictheory 2018-05-07 16:20:01 i_make_love_to_cows
    "Basically how do I learn to improvise arpeggios like John Petrucci / Steve Vai. Obviously lots of practice, but deeper than that??!" First: Try not to think of adding F# as being in lydian. Really you are in the harmonic functioning of G Major. You are only in lydian if you continue to use it and draw the tonal center to C. Second: most arpeggios outline harmony which means yes.... you have to learn all the chords technically. BUT the truth is you only have so many viable options. My most recent post explain this at length. https://old.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8hlpng/new_to_the_sub_any_one_on_this_sub_ever_heard_of/ As regards to shape and pattern... I'm assuming by 'shape' you mean 'shape of your hand' What makes it hard for guitar is that not all the strings are tuned in equal distance apart. What works on some the bottom 3 strings, doesn't work and the top 3 in regards to shape... even if its the same tirads. Thats because the pattern changes on guitar as you go up the octave. Play a G Major scale starting on fret 3 on the low E string (starting with your 2nd finger), and then play one an octave up on the 5th fret on the D string with same finger pattern... its doesn't work. This applies to constructing fluid arpeggios as well I feel. What works is one place on guitar wont work in another. Violin is all in 5ths so all shapes and patterns work. If i want a A Major scale on one string, its the that exact same hand position in every octave even if I start with the same finger. Don't even get me started on banjo....

  2349. musictheory 2018-05-07 17:26:32 Jongtr
    > I just assumed that there were something like a couple hundred chords for the guitar... And the rest... ! But they all start from a handful of basic types: TRIADS: major, minor, diminished. (Augmented is less important. Sus4 and sus2 could arguably be included as basic triad forms.) SEVENTHS: maj7, dom7, min7. In jazz, you'll get dim7, m7b5 (half-dim) and m(maj7). On top of those, you get "extensions" - 9, 11, 13 - but not all chord types can take all of those. You also get 6ths, and various "add" chords (extended chords without the 7th). In jazz, you'll also find "altered dominants", and various kinds of 7sus chords. But all can be seen to derive from the basic triads. E.g., the maj, min and dim triads each have two kinds of 7th, to produce the six types of 7th chord. The other useful starting point is to work within a KEY. I.e., check all the chords that can be produced by a 7-note scale (triads and 7ths at least). That gives you "families" of chords that all work together in various ways. (Which doesn't mean that chords from outside won't also work with them.) If you work from that double conceptual foundation - chord types, and key (diatonic) chord set - you'll find it much easier to make sense of all those 100s of chord variants that can (and do exist). The issue with guitar is then negotiating the oddities of the fretboard! The guitar is tuned in an irregular way (EADGBE), which means the same chord type requires a different shape depending on where you play it. That's what the "CAGED" system is all about. You must know those 5 beginner major chord shapes - but the point is they're all the same chord type: "major triad". The irregular tuning of the guitar means that in order to construct a major triad, the 3 notes we need will be found in different configurations. I.e., the chord structure is simple in theory (major 3rd, perfect 5th), but to get our fingers around it, and to cover all the strings, means we get different shapes. However, the CAGED idea becomes useful when we want to spread an **arpeggio** all the way up the fretboard. A major *scale* (in fact any scale) forms a 12-fret pattern on the fretboard (and then repeats after 12 frets). The various "box" patterns or positions (which some people stupidly call "modes") are just way of breaking down the 12-fret mega-pattern to make it playable in any chosen position (ie., without moving your hand up and down the neck). The CAGED system is the same idea for a major triad arpeggio (any major triad). Those 5 shapes overlap up the neck to form a 12-fret arpeggio pattern (in fact 13 frets, because of the overlap). So, a C major chord arpeggio (the notes C, E, G) can be broken down into these five 6-string shapes: 0-3-2-0-1-0 = C shape (E-C-E-G-C-E) 3-3-5-5-5-3 = A shape (G-C-G-C-E-G) 8-7-5-5-5-8 = G shape (C-E-G-C-E-C) 8-10-10-9-8-8 = E shape (C-G-C-E-G-C) 12-10-10-12-13-12 = D shape (E-G-C-G-C-E) 12-15-14-12-13-12 = C shape again (E-C-E-G-C-E) And so on. Every major chord arpeggio involves the same series of shapes, you just start on a shape in the cycle. An F chord, for example (F-A-C), starts with an "E" shape on fret 1; then a "D shape on fret 3 (5-3-3-5-6-5); then a C shape on fret 5... The advantage of the CAGED shapes is they're easy to remember - much easier than scale patterns. The important thing is not to get stuck on the shapes (they're meaningless), but to learn the sounds and the notes. Learn to link the shapes, to move from one to the next. Learning the *notes* (both in the chords and on the fretboard) will help enormously of course. One big DISadvantage of the CAGED system is it only works for major chords (and chord types derived from major). Minor chords only have three familiar shapes (Am, Em, Dm), so there are gaps in the series for a "Cm" and "Gm" shape (normally we play those chords using barre versions of the Am and Em forms). But the more you learn about the notes (which notes each chord requires), the less of an issue that is.

  2350. musictheory 2018-05-07 22:31:16 PorkpieDiplomat
    You can construct atonal music any way you like, which is the cool part. Since natural harmonic tendencies don’t dictate form or syntax so you can just make cool abstract structures. In the same sense, abstract painting is not bound by reality or perspective. At the micro level, it helps to know a few tricks that keep your music from suggesting a tonal center. Wuorinen’s book “Simple Composition” suggests using wide intervals in your lines, asymmetric rhythms and various permutations of a tone row. Ruth Crawford Seeger used an intervallic approach, avoiding lyricism by using only “dissonant” intervals. She also varied the direction of melodic lines using a formula. Check out the string quartet called “1931” if you want to hear some really good atonal music. Basically, the less singable the better. We are classically trained to be lyrical, as are our performers. I have found that this lyrical tendency ruins atonal music. The charm of music by Babbitt, Boulez, Xenakis, or Takemitsu is that you DONT know where it’s going. But it still has a form and a sense of being. If you try to lapse into anything remotely tonal, the listener’s brain will fixate on it and kill the buzz.

  2351. musictheory 2018-05-08 20:06:34 DevilsInterval5
    Some basic music theory is important. Its knowledge you must have, otherwise you always will be an average player. You may sound good, but it is not really good. Its hard though, as you want to focus on what theory really matters. You dont need a PhD in music theory. Learn the notes on the neck. Learn major and minor triads, and scales, of course. Start with the major scale. I recently read a book that summarized the theory a guitar player needs pretty well. Roy Henry - String Patterns. You will find it on Amazon. Oh, and ear training, as pointed out. I am using EarMaster 7. Great software.

  2352. musictheory 2018-05-10 05:23:56 65TwinReverbRI
    Phew, EVH really is a very distinctive voice amongst guitarists. There is a lot of info about him online of course. He did do some "pattern playing" which is where he would take 1 fingering pattern and play it super fast across all the strings - whether it fit the prevailing key or harmony or not - and in many cases it didn't. EVH is kind of known for not necessarily playing in the key all the time or playing to the chord changes (though he certainly did in many instances as well) and it's almost an "unschooled" or "primitive" approach - though it appears to be entirely intentional. His phrasing is also very singular - again it almost sounds like he doesn't know how to play in time, but he's so good, you know he is. Eddie also had a lot of "tricks" as well - and all of of them are in evidence in the Beat It solo. I don't know that it's the best one to look at how a guitar solo is held together by harmony. In fact, I'd say a lot of EVH solos are held together by their own integrity, in spite of the harmony. And sometimes, they may even dictate the harmony. There are probably much better examples of how Harmony and a Solo work together in the VH catalog, but on average, there are probably better players to look to if you're interested in learning this kind of stuff. Despite blazing runs now and again, Neil Schon from Journey is a great melodic player who has many solos that are very "singable" and easy to get into your ear and thus easier to learn and analyze. Something like "Stone in Love" which is in G Major but features a prominent Eb, and he really nails it on that chord. But he's also mixing it in producing an interesting scale - but essentially G Minor that resolves to G Major, which has a distinctive sound. So there's a case where the solo is really held together by the harmony. But there are a lot of great examples with him. Schon started his career in Santana's band, and you can hear a little bit of the same kind of playing in Carlos Santana's playing - a lot of melodic stuff, though he can be more "riffy" and the chord progressions can just be more basic bluesy vamps and so on. Another great guitarist worth studying is David Gilmour from Pink Floyd. While he tends to do more of a Penatonic Blues kind of riffing, he does often follow the harmony and again he's more melodic, and easier to follow because of that. "Comfortably Numb" is a great example because the first solo is in D Major (the relative major to the main key of Bm) and shifts down as the chords do. Then the end solo is a different approach - more pentatatonic and minor riffing and not so much following the chords, but still really melodic. He always says Hank Marvin of The Shadows was a huge influence and IMHO Marvin is worth digging into if you're really interested. The Shadows was an instrumental band in the UK - probably their most famous hit in the US was "Apache" - I'm sure you've heard it. They were an early 60s instrumental guitar band, much like The Ventures in the US (whose biggest hit is probably "Walk Don't Run" and their version of "Hawaii 5-0") but did more what might be associated with British "Spy" genre stuff - a lot of what sounds like Peter Gunn, James Bond, and Secret Agent Man, etc. They're probably better known in the UK as I believe they did the theme for the famous Thunderbirds TV show and had more hits like "Wonderful Land" and "FBI" etc. At any rate, I always encourage guitarists who are interested in "melodic playing" to listen to Surf/Spy instrumental guitar music, especially The Shadows and The Ventures. It's not really difficult stuff, but they're really well-written melodies that really follow the changes pretty well, so they make great study pieces. Unfortunately, most people see it as old-fashioned, out of date, irrelevant, and so on. But I still hear shades of their playing (and Link Wray, and Duane Eddy) in a LOT of stuff today. EVH was more of a "shredder" and less of a "melodist" and there's a little more of a break there - it is just playing scales and arpeggios, but really fast! And again, in EVH's case, his own unique approach means there are other things that dictate what notes he plays rather than scale or key - he may just play a particular note because he can get a pinch harmonic from it, or because it's easy to bed on that string, and so on. One great EVH solo that follows the changes a lot more than many of the more shreddy ones is from "Hang 'em High" from the much derided Diver Down LP. One of my colleagues always says that the original tunes on Diver Down are the best VH ever did - and the covers on it, the worst! But I guess what you should take from this is there is a broad range of approaches guitarists used in writing solos. Sometimes, they do things despite the harmony, sometimes they follow the harmony, sometimes they just run scales or are riffing, and sometimes the harmony is bent to fit the solo. Listen to most of the stuff by Randy Rhoads who played for Ozzy Osborne on Diary of a Madman and Blizzard of Ozz. In many songs, the solos or solo sections are their own compositions and may even have their own chord progressions separate from the rest of the song. "Crazy Train" is a great example. But that was more his style - so you hear less "bluesy riffing" over a blues backing from RR, and more "composed out" solos and solo sections. "Mr Crowley", "Goodbye to Romance" they're just all really good. But you know there are so many great players out there so it's hard to mention just a few, but when speaking of how harmony and melody in guitar solos is tied together, those are kind of the first people that come to mind - and it helps because it's non-shreddy enough and rhythmically phrased enough to really hear and understand what's going on. HTH

  2353. musictheory 2018-05-11 22:45:49 martinborgen
    Personally I find the Pliiiiing sound of the piano to be a little unstabe, I as a double bass player, prefer a constant sound and I often use an open string. But a piano would do fine to give the bass note I guess

  2354. musictheory 2018-05-11 22:51:13 walterqxy
    Transpose the key of the music so what you are looking at is different from what you are hearing. If you are looking at a song in Bb try transposing by step: B, C, A and Ab. Then 5ths/4ths: F and Eb. Then 3rds: G, Gb, D, and Db. Then transpose by TT. Then start messing with A=440. Trombone and non-fretted string instruments are better for this. A lot of modern instruments (keyboards, theremin, EWI) are able to play "in between" the notes as well. I'm sure you're aware of this being a vocalist.

  2355. musictheory 2018-05-11 22:58:12 cnolanmusic
    Makes sense. I dabble a bit in guitar and electric bass \(piano is my main instrument\) so I have access to that rounder string sound. Thanks!

  2356. musictheory 2018-05-12 02:20:37 Chimpsanddip
    The real ballers just get an entire string section break out the guajeo for the

  2357. musictheory 2018-05-13 07:36:49 G_Wiz_Christ
    fucking fantastic. Love visual aids like this. not sure how much work it is, or if it's already there and I simply missed it, but is there a way to change the tuning. I play a 6 string bass, so I'd like to change the strings so it can be more directly applicable without having to mentally translate things.

  2358. musictheory 2018-05-13 23:15:33 [deleted]
    Picture it on a guitar's fretboard. up one fifth goes to the next higher sting, up 2 frets (i.e. F on the 1st fret of the E string up to C on the 3rd string of the A string). Up a forth is the next highest string, same fret (i.e. open strings E-A-D-G)

  2359. musictheory 2018-05-14 22:05:12 DRL47
    If you pull the string, it goes SHARP, not flat. Depending upon the context, having the C# a little sharp can be good.

  2360. musictheory 2018-05-14 22:06:54 manosmagicas
    I meant slide your finger up the string towards the headstock, making the string longer and the pitch slightly lower. But like I said I don’t know if that’s actually feasible while you’re fingering a chord

  2361. musictheory 2018-05-14 22:21:17 DRL47
    That doesn't work, because the fret is what is actually stopping the string, not your finger.

  2362. musictheory 2018-05-14 22:37:10 Jongtr
    Not feasible. The fret governs the string length. If the string is held against the fret, it doesn't matter how far from the fret (between that fret and the lower one) your finger is. However, on classical guitar at least, it's possible to vary the pitch both up and down to get vibrato by moving the finger parallel to the string - friction means the fingertip grabs the string, and the movement alternately stretches and relaxes the tension (the vibrating string length remains the same, because it's held against the fret). This is not easy if holding a chord of course! It's also a lot less easy to just lower (or raise) pitch in this way - to use friction to push or pull the string in just one direction and hold it. With steel strings, this parallel vibrato action doesn't work so well, which is why rock and blues guitarist use transverse vibrato - which only increases tension. For that reason - if a player wants vibrato either side of a note - they will bend up first from a fret below, and then add vibrato.

  2363. musictheory 2018-05-15 21:03:13 BlunderIsMyDad
    I'd just spend more time working with minor scales and chord progressions, most of your major chord progressions I\-IV\-V can be converted into their minor equivalents, although you might want to experiment with keeping V major. I'd look into the minor modes first long before anything fancy, Aeolian \(minor, you should practice harmonic and melodic as well\), Dorian \(this is good for pretty folky and melancholy melodies\), and Phrygian \(This is probably the hardest to use, the halfstep in the beginning makes it a lot darker than minor\). I'd also say that harmonic structure and scale is only one thing that affects the overall mood of a piece, rhythm and timbre will also be very very important. Simply learning Phrygian and then writing the same way that you would normally just in that key will result in boring music. Writing in different harmonic languages requires practice in the same way that physically learning scales does. As far as finding notes, you should know your open strings on the guitar as well as the fact that fingering the first fret shifts it up a half step, the second fret 2 half steps and so on. With this in mind, get your guitar out and go to [musictheory.net](https://musictheory.net), click excercises and do fretboard Identification, however after finding the note, you should replicate it on your instrument on the string they have it shown on and perhaps say the note out loud. This will be really slow at first but eventually it'll become almost instant, and then it'll be faster to think of note names than it will be strings and fret numbers. It also might be worth talking to an instructor, I believe in everything I'm saying but obviously someone who has studied and is paid to teach you this stuff will always be better.

  2364. musictheory 2018-05-15 22:08:57 haktur
    With fretless lute\-type instruments there is no equal temperment/just intonation other than the open strings and finger placement. It's up to the player to have the skill to play in the desired system. A highly skilled player could in theory choose to play in either tuning system on a given string just by placing their fingers slightly differently and perhaps altering the tuning of the open strings to closely fit the desired system. Fretted instruments likewise could be set up either way. It's just a matter of changing the spacing of the frets and open string tuning. It might be a bit confusing because placing your fingers on a fretless fingerboard is referred to as "intonating" the instrument, so you are "just intonating" \(as opposed to "just fretting"\) with your fingerboard hand on a fretless, but that is not necessarily referring to the tuning system \(although where you need to finger the string will vary depending on the tuning system\).

  2365. musictheory 2018-05-16 02:05:12 shred4christ
    The only thing about doing this way, is that if you start teaching a beginner the circle of fifths by having them memorize a longer string of numbers and a series of math equations, their eyes are likely to gloss over. Lol and at that point, you’ve lost them and aren’t likely to get them back. Using small numbers (5, 4) and a repeatable process is much more likely to stick. As for the overall question, it’s important to not try to teach every aspect of the circle of fifths at once. There’s a lot of info there. It’s not practical to try and divulge all of its secrets all at once!

  2366. musictheory 2018-05-17 03:09:40 CaptainSteelmeat69
    *I should mention that most non-Americans will not get this joke.* A local orchestra is getting ready for their performance of Beethoven 9. The double bassists are understandably unenthused about this news, as the bass part has entire movements of waiting, literally just sitting there for twenty to thirty minutes at a time to play a few meaningless notes that nobody will notice aren't there. One of the bassists, Igor, has a great idea: "let's head to the bar across the street and kill some time while we wait for our turn to come in!" Vlad chimes in, "but the maestro will know we're gone, we don't have *that* much time." Dmitri has an idea, "I have some string. I can knot up the pages in his music during our rest so it takes the old coot longer to turn the pages in his score." The night of the performance, they hatch their little plan. The string has bound the 3rd and 4th movements together and the conductor never even noticed! They play through the first two movements, and at the beginning of the third, Vlad, Igor, and Dmitri slip out the back for a few drinks. Well, as Russians are wont to do, one drink leads to another...and before long they're wasted out of their minds. They return to their seats in the orchestra toward the end of the 4th and final movement trying to be as sneaky as possible, to find that not only has the conductor caught on to their plan, but that has become very upset with them. Why is he mad with them? Well, it's the bottom of the 9th, the score is tied, and the bassists are loaded. *ba-dum-TSSS*

  2367. musictheory 2018-05-17 03:43:25 hornyelephant1
    i broke my G string fingering A minor

  2368. musictheory 2018-05-17 04:39:13 standard_error
    The guitarist enters the rehearsal space and finds the drummer and bassist in a fist fight. He asks why they're fighting, to which the bassist replies: "he de-tuned my bass". The guitarist asks why that's such a big deal, and the bassist answers: "he refuses to tell me which string it was"!

  2369. musictheory 2018-05-17 08:52:39 Eats_Ass
    Best I have is "Got an extra G string?" or "Make sure you have your strap-on!". stupid guitarists jokes :)

  2370. musictheory 2018-05-17 13:04:26 NickThacker
    I’d recommend having the cello in C to be able to use the low C string, which would put your clari and trumpet in Bb (written, sounding in C). This is a very common key for both those instruments so it will be second nature for them to play, and their harmonic overtone series agrees.

  2371. musictheory 2018-05-18 05:31:02 Ars0n_
    Yeah I don't know if I am technically tone deaf but if I'm not I am pretty close. For example I will play the c that is on the first fret of the B string and then play a c on the piano and I can tell both notes are the same note but I cannot tell wich one is higher pitch. It used to be much worse but I have worked hard to improve and will continue working on it but it is a huge pain in the buns.

  2372. musictheory 2018-05-18 21:34:45 voorja
    The more I think about this, the more I think I share my understanding of pitch perception with the author, I was just tripped up by the usage of the words distance and ratio. We don't have receptors in our brains for number intervals, like we don't have a special receptor for 2/3. Instead we hear all distances. The question is more about how we percieve dissonance and how we choose pitches that sound good in the context of a song. This is something that it is very difficult to test especially with mutliple contributing factors. I believe that we are drawn to simple ratios for a few reasons, but we deviate from these pitches in singing by trying to adapt to changes of tonal center causing changes in the notes of the "scale". In other words we are shifting the pitches to try to best fit the overall context. We are also quite used to equal temperament, and I wouldn't be too surprised if there is some natural inclination in that direction even without exposure to it. I think that choral music and string music without equal temperamemt accompaniment is part way between just intonation and equal temperament. The reason I think we are drawn to simple whole number ratios is that music is built off the relationships between notes and these are some of the simplest and most easily understood relationships. The other reason has to do with simpler ratios sharing more overtones. As ratios get more complex, the overtones begin to clash. This happens quite quickly with increasing complexity. 1/1 has all the same overtones as 2/1. 3/2 (fifth) shares every other overtone with 1/1. 4/3 (fourth) shares one out of three. 5/4 (Major 3rd) shares one out of four. 6/5 (Minor 3rd) shares one out of five.

  2373. musictheory 2018-05-18 23:52:18 [deleted]
    The harmonic series is the physical phenomenon of vibration in which a sting/reed/vocal chord etc vibrates at multiple frequencies simultaneously, causing the surrounding air to vibrate at the same frequencies which our ears interpret as a musical tone. Essentially there are different forces causing the element to move - the strongest force wants it to vibrate at what is called the fundamental frequency, in which the wavelength is the full length of the string. This is the lowest and (usually) the loudest frequency. At the same time however, the string wants to vibrate with a node at the center for a wavelength half of the stings length which doubles the frequency, as well with a wavelength of 1/3rd the length (3x the frequency), and 4x, 5x, 6x. If you google it you'll probably find some images that make it more clear than my explanation. These various frequencies that the string is vibrating to simultaneously, each of which are multiples of the fundamental, are called harmonics or overtones. The major scale can be derived directly from these overtones by taking an overtone frequency and making a new pitch from that frequency. For example, if you have a fundamental at 440 Hz (concert A by convention), you'll have overtones at 880 Hz (2x the fundamental), 1320 Hz (3x the fundamental) etc. If you make a new pitch with the fundamental at 880 Hz, it's an A one octave higher than the first pitch, because our ears interpret a doubling of frequency as the same pitch one octave higher. A new pitch with a fundamental at 3x the frequency of the starting pitch would be one octave plus a perfect 5th above the starting pitch. 4x would be 2 octaves above, and 5x would be two octaves plus a major 3rd. So now you have three distinct tones (ignoring those that are octaves above the starting pitch): The pitch that you started with, P5 (3x) and M3 (5x) but they are all in different octaves. You can move them to the same octave by dividing by two until you get a number between 1 and 2 (because, as I said earlier, doubling a frequency moves the pitch up one octave, therefore halving it moves it down one octave). Viola - the major triad, pulled directly from pitches heard in vibrating string. The P5 is the strongest, usually the loudest non-fundamental tone that can be heard. So do the same thing a perfect fifth higher and lower than the pitch that you started with. If you started with C you'd derive the E and the G from the 5th and 3rd overtones in the C pitch, then go up a 5th to do the same thing on G to derive the B and the D, then down a 5th from C to derive the F and the A. Now you have the major scale. Now, that's all compromised through equal temperament by adjusting those ratios to the nearest pitch spaced 12th of an octave (as interpreted by our ears which hear logarithmic changes to frequency as linear changes in pitch, doubling of octaves being one octave apart being one example) which allows us to play the same instrument in every key, but nonetheless that's where the major scale comes from - it wasn't invented, it was derived from physics. So, to answer OP's question: the perfect 5th is derived from the overtone with a frequency 3x the fundamental, then dropped by one octave by dividing by to to create a ratio of 3:2. If the tonic is A with a fundamental at 440 Hz, a perfect fifth higher would have a fundamental of 440 times 3/2 = ~~293.333~~ 660 (but slightly different thanks to the compromise of equal temperament). The perfect 4th is derived as the inversion of the perfect 5th, meaning the distance between the perfect 5th and the tonic of the next highest octave (frequency 2x the tonic, ratio of 2:1) 3/2 times 4/3 = 2, so the ratio of the perfect 4th is 4:3. You can also arrive at that ratio as I did above by inverting the P5 ratio of 3:2 to get 2:3 then doubling to get a ratio between the tonic and the next highest octave (ratio between 1:1 and 2:1) to get 4:3. Hope that helps. I need to get back to work now.

  2374. musictheory 2018-05-19 15:10:03 SweetTalkingWoman
    Voice leading basically just applies to using inversions or different "voicings" of chords so that there are smaller movements between the individual notes in a harmonic progression. Like (G Bb D) - (G C E) - (A C F) Thats a ii V I in F but using a root position, 2nd inversion and then a first inversion. And none of those individual voices moves more than a major 2nd at a time. Makes the progression sound more musical and unified than just hitting root position all the way. Though in this song we're talking about a jazz/contemporary context it applies to classical as well. Think about 4 part writing. A Roman numeral analysis of a string quartet piece might produce a progression that goes I - V - vi - V but those two V chords will sound different because the notes are arranged (or voiced) in a different order.

  2375. musictheory 2018-05-19 15:36:35 jtizzle12
    Say you have a string that vibrates 100 times per second. If you get another string that were to vibrate at 150 times per second, this new string would be vibrating 1.5 times faster (or in fraction/ratio, 3/2x faster). Aurally, this creates the interval of a perfect fifth. This all ties into tuning, which is the basis of our modern theory. Most music we listen to and analyze is based on equal tuning of twelve parts. However, this is a "synthetic" system we came up with. The "natural" system relates to the overtone series, which I assume you know since you said you did in your OP. Take seventh partial for example, if your fundamental is C, the seventh partial will be a sort-of-Bb. Sort of, because it's slightly flat. It's ratio isn't the same as, say, playing a C and a Bb on a perfectly tuned piano. This is, on paper, technically a purer minor seventh than an equal temperament Bb. The ratio for the "harmonic seventh", as the justly tuned one is called is just 7:4. The equally tuned seventh (which we use) is a lot more complicated. Now going back a bit, the reason a 4th is a dissonance (considered that in the era of Fux, for us, not so much anymore but still treated a little more carefully in certain contexts) because it appears much further away in the overtone series. Take a fundamental, C, once more. Generally, when we work with the overtone series we calculate up to the 16th partial, because everything after that, in real life, is pretty hard to get. In sixteen partials of the overtone series of C, we don't see one F. Which means that the note F is pretty far away from C as far as ratios go. I can't tell you if this is the reason people in Fux's time made the decision, but future studies have put this together and use this to explain the problem. You don't really need to know any of this, however, especially if you're just a hobbyist. But I don't see why you wouldn't want to know these things, after all, they can only reinforce your knowledge and help better understand theory. If you're not a hobbyist, then I also don't see why you wouldn't want to know these things. But I know many professional musicians who are great at what they do and don't know any of this, and it has not hindered them one bit.

  2376. musictheory 2018-05-20 13:06:55 UncertaintyLich
    Articulation is very closely tied to rhythm, and accenting certain notes in different ways changes our perception of the beat. So the effect of different articulations can be thought of in the context of rhythm theory and rhythmic dissonance. But if we try to think about how different articulations make us feel out of the context of rhythm, I feel like we're leaving the realm of music theory. At that point we're just making generalizations about specific sounds out of context. We might as well be asking why listening to a trumpet makes us feel different than listening to a violin. So maybe we could say spiccato strings for instance feel light and bouncy because that's literally what's happening--the bow is bouncing lightly on the string. Or we could say staccato notes sound more aggressive. But that isn't really music theory, is it?

  2377. musictheory 2018-05-20 13:57:17 i_make_love_to_cows
    To be frank I disagree. >ruin music by making it programmatic It doesn't have to be programatic to have specific intent. If I was writing a piece for 7th grade string orchestra to teach them how to play in compound meter, that direct affects every decision I make. I wouldn't write it in 4/4 nor would I make it terribly complicated. I also wouldn't go crazy with the harmony because I might loose the intent of teaching rhythm, and will spend most of the time trying to fix intonation. If I was writing with the purpose of practicing how to write in sonata allegro form, it would be extremely useless for my learning to write a trio. >you should take up writing instead.. it's a more direct way of getting your "intent" across. Writing books and writing music is the same. It involves form: rising action, climax, falling action, and foreshadowing. It involves character development \(aka thematic development\). It involves an organized structure to allow the listener/reader to follow the idea from one instance to another. And most importantly, it balances expectation and surprise. Giving the audience just enough, but not enough so that they it can be predictable. I like to call this the "Nodding their head but on the edge of their seat" effect. That is an engaged listener and that should be the ultimate goal of any composer. On a more personal note, I believe music isn't just about all the elements of music and music theory. Its about how you use it. Knowing this scale and that scale, and this chord and that chord means nothing if you don't know how its used and how it is perceived by the audience. The biggest downfall of classical music in past 100 years is that music became about what composer thinks about his music is, and what the audience thinks the music is about. Just a personal thought.

  2378. musictheory 2018-05-21 05:22:17 beaumega1
    This. String instruments sound better in keys based on their strings' open pitches. Wind instruments sound better in certain keys mainly due to the lengths of the instruments, as this determines their tuning aka fundamental frequency. A piano is deliberately out of tune with itself \(see: [equal temperament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament)\), which allows it to not "sound better" in any keys in particular.

  2379. musictheory 2018-05-21 08:55:28 archofmusic_dot_com
    The harmonics are a cosmic rule. They exist in nature and are a phenomenon of math and physics. No matter what tension you have on a string, the harmonics exist at the exact same locations and are the basis for 12TET music. The major and minor scales are scales that have all the modes connected harmonically about the circle of fifths. How can you deny the importance of the harmonics in music or how modes describe a relationship between it and all the other modes and that relationship can best be described by the linear circle of fifths diagram of the mode which also describes exactly all of the chords you can play with it. I’m not setting down any cosmic rules. I’m giving you all the options. And all that roman numeral analysis y’all do works all fine and dandy for the major scale but what about the other 2,047 modes?

  2380. musictheory 2018-05-21 21:54:49 private1stbrass
    Maybe you could allow users to write their own progressions on the "chords in progressions" page? Would probably just be some string manipulation, nothing too nuts.

  2381. musictheory 2018-05-21 23:27:06 Jongtr
    A C major chord needs 3 notes: C-E-G. In theory, any combination of those 3 notes, wherever and however you play them (and you can repeat any of them), gives you a C chord. So you could play a C chord with all 6 strings in open position (1st position) as either of the following: 0-3-2-0-1-0 (E-C-E-G-C-E) 3-3-2-0-1-0 (G-C-E-G-C-E - using ring finger on 6 and pinky on 5) Because the C root is not on the bottom, these shapes are known as "inversions" (1st and 2nd inversion respectively). They are perfectly correct as C chords, but if you play them you will hear the effect of adding the E or G on the bass string. They tend to sound less stable, and you may not like them as much as x-3-2-0-1-0 ("root position"), but their sounds may be useful in some contexts. (Personally I use 332010 frequently because it sounds fine to me and is easier than having to mute the 6th.)

  2382. musictheory 2018-05-22 01:19:41 agustinguerra
    Ok great, I got used to it to play it without the 6th string because I was taught that was the way. I'm reading books and trying to learn the theory by myself (also looking to get into piano) and that's why I was asking this. Feel free to add any commentary you think it might help me! Thanks

  2383. musictheory 2018-05-22 04:42:25 beaumega1
    There is something fundamental going on, most definitely. I do not personally know of these instruments or their turnings, but it is very likely they are built off of perfect fifths. Let's image a string of length X. When plucked, it vibrates at frequency F. When the string is cut in half to length X/2, the frequency of it when plucked is now 2F, an octave over F. If the same string is divided into three parts, X/3, the resulting frequency is 3F/2. In four parts, it is 4F/3, etc. The meaningful division is the second example above, with the string divided into three parts. If string length X is a C, then string length X/2 is also a C \(an octave up\). The first *new* note we get is the 3F/2, which is a G. This is where we get the interval of a fifth \(see: Pythagorus\); it's the first, natural, non\-duplicate note retrieved from this string\-dividing method. This is the root of music in the natural world \(see: harmonics\). From here, we can stack fifths, starting from C to G: C G D A E B F# C# G# D# A# F C Hopefully, you now see why our Western scale has 12 notes. If you stack enough fifths \(12\), you get back to your starting note. Interestingly, if you do this with natural harmonics \(not with a piano\), the two C's you discover are repulsively not in tune with each other. See "Equal Temperament" and "the 12th root of 2" for understanding how modern instruments account for this. Regarding flutes, let us say that a given flute's length makes it's fundamental pitch 'C'. Wind instruments have fundamental frequencies that are typically the result of their length. Add a hole to the middle \(X/2\), and now, with that hole open, you have 2 fundamental notes \(in this example, C and C\). Add another hole a third of the way up, or just blow harder, and you get a G. The natural order of fifths I explained above introduces how and why different cultures arrived at the same sounds, intervals, and scales. A flute of length X in the Western hemisphere will have the same fundamental and harmonics as a flute of length X in the Eastern hemisphere.

  2384. musictheory 2018-05-22 12:37:04 bloodhawk713
    If you're looking for a ocarina equivalent to guitar tabs I don't know of any, but if you know your ocarina's fingerings (ie, which fingering plays which pitch), converting guitar tabs into to note letters is easy enough. The fret number on any given string is the number of semitones above the tuning of the string the note is. For instance the fifth fret on an E string is an A because A is five semitones higher than E.

  2385. musictheory 2018-05-22 17:32:42 Jongtr
    Timbre is essentially the mix of overtones (from the harmonic series) produced by an instrument. The harmonic series is a group of additional frequencies which are all multiples of the main (fundamental) frequency we identify as the pitch. So an A note of 220 Hz will contain overtones (partial vibrations) of 440, 660, 880, 1320, etc., all increasingly fainter - but the actual balance of harmonics varies from instrument to instrument. A "harsh" timbre means a lot of higher harmonics, and a "smooth" means fewer high harmonics and more of the lower ones. Different instruments produce different timbres naturally due to how they make and shape their sounds. So a flute sounds smoother than a reed instrument like an oboe or saxophone. But most musicians can change the timbre somewhat by how they play. With string instruments, e.g., one can produce a more mellow tone by bowing away from the bridge, towards the centre of the string. Bowing (or plucking) the string close to the bridge excites more of the upper overtones, giving a "harder" , "harsher" or "thinner" sound. (It's not true, of course, that we *always* dislike thin and screechy sounds. Sometimes we want them for specific dramatic effects.) With singing it's more complex, governed by the shape of the mouth, tongue position, etc.

  2386. musictheory 2018-05-22 17:47:51 Jongtr
    > Ok great, I got used to it to play it without the 6th string because I was taught that was the way. As we all were! :-) The only problem with that chord shape is what to do with the 6th string. It has to be avoided or muted, which is an additional technical issue, beyond just holding the strings down. Not a huge problem of course, to wrap the thumb over to touch the string when strumming - easier than to avoid hitting it while strumming. As you're interested in theory, the most important thing is to learn the notes in all the chords you know. I agree with ttd_76, you don't need to go out of 1st position for now. 2/3 of the entire range of the guitar (over two octaves) is contained between frets 0-4. Every single chord can be played (in some form) in that region. Learn that region thoroughly (notes, scales and chords) and you'll be well set up to learn the rest of the fretboard. All I'd add on theory is that guitar is better than piano for one reason at least: Every fret is a semitone, so if you run a scale (or chord arpeggio) up one string you can see the tone-semitone structure in a way the piano keyboard obscures, because it makes all the white notes look equally spaced. So the major scale on one string runs 0-2-4-5-7-9-11-12 (or the same formula starting from any fret). It's also revealing that 12th fret (octave) is half string length; 7th fret (perfect 5th) is 2/3 string length, and 5th fret (perfect 4th) is 3/4. This connects with the harmonic series, the physics of sound, and history of scale structure!

  2387. musictheory 2018-05-22 23:06:37 65TwinReverbRI
    We can only perceive frequencies up to about 20,000 Hertz (varies from person to person, with age, and overall volume level). When an instrument rich in overtones plays a really high note, fewer of the higher overtones are perceived becuase they exceed our upper limit of hearing range. Thus, all instruments are likely to sound much more similar to each other in very high registers than in their "normal" range. In fact, that's probably partly why most of the instruments we use fall toward the lower end of the frequency spectrum for fundamentals produced, and produce plenty of overtones for those that produce them - making a violin and an flute that much more distinguishable given the same fundamental. A lack over overtones might be considered "thinner" on an otherwise "warm" instrument (like cello) but there are other factors on each instrument that make high notes for that instrument - which may not necessarily be high overall - sound "thin" and "screechy" - vibrating length of the string for example, being able to play it in tune, for example - so that part of it has less to do with Timbre (though certainly, a different timbre is produced) and more to do with the mechanics of tone production on that instrument. But yeah, I'd say overall, we prefer "richer" sounds, and higher starting fundamentals have fewer overtones, so we tend not to like those really high notes (pitch discrimination is also harder at that high a frequency).

  2388. musictheory 2018-05-23 00:35:40 jazzintoronto
    Some people would say there are 12/24 keys - counting 5 sharps and 7 flats as the same, counting 4 sharps and 5 flats as the same, and counting 6 sharps and 6 flats as the same keys, even though they look different on paper. Those people, more often than not, play instruments where enharmonic keys are played the same. This is not the case on every instrument. Even if we're using a perfectly equal division of the octave (not always the case), enharmonic keys will not always be played the same or sound the same. Take the pedal harp for example. If you play a passage in B major on the pedal harp, you will need to depress the F, C, G, D, and A pedals. However, sharp keys tend to sound a little more tense and thin than flat keys on the harp, due to increased tension on the strings. If you played the same passage in Cb major instead, all of your pedals would be in the flat position, resulting in a more open and relaxed sound. Same pitches, different timbre, different key. Some instruments are more used to reading in flat keys than sharp keys, and vice versa. If I was writing something in Gb major / F# major, I would favour Gb for brass ensemble, and probably F# for string ensemble. Furthermore, when you modulate from F# major to the dominant, you'll end up in C# major, while if you modulate to the dominant in Gb major, you'll end up in Db major. There are, indeed, 30 distinct keys.

  2389. musictheory 2018-05-24 03:57:43 gopher9
    The concept of the string length predates the concept of the frequency. That's how interval ratios were discovered in the first place.

  2390. musictheory 2018-05-24 06:47:04 Jongtr
    > Are length and pitch related so precisely? Is Wikipedia pulling my leg? Is this actually how equal temperament was created? Yes. No. Yes, pretty much. Equal temperament was known about way before there was any way of measuring vibration frequency, although it didn't become established as a standard tuning system until quite recently. (Mainly because it's entirely "out of tune" in a pure sense.) The relation of string/pipe length (also weight and tension) to pitch was always obvious, and was behind the earliest systems of scale structure: http://www.peterfrazer.co.uk/music/tunings/greek.html

  2391. musictheory 2018-05-24 16:59:59 Jongtr
    https://www.fender.com/articles/tech-talk/standard-tuning-how-eadgbe-came-to-be Guitarists have always played around with alternative tunings, of course, mostly to make playing in one key easier. They make other keys more difficult, but players get round that by using capos to play in other keys. A popular alternative with folk and acoustic players is DADGAD (invented by Davy Graham in the early 1960s), which makes a few keys easier: D, G, D minor in particular. There are a few players who play in nothing else. One or two players have invented a whole slew of alternative tunings, not just to make certain keys easier, but to offer different sonorities. [Joni Mitchell] (http://jonimitchell.com/music/tuningpatterns.cfm) is the most extreme example, but British folk/acoustic players like Nick Drake, John Martyn, Martin Carthy and Richard Thompson all have their own collections of favourite tunings. Others (a small clique) have gone for all 4ths - EADGCF (despite the criticism offered in that article) because it makes scale patterns and chord shapes more symmetrical across the neck. But it does make the guitar harder to tune by ear, and makes 6-string barres impossible. (It doesn't necessarily make all chords harder - one or two are easier - but it obviously means different finger shapes are required.) It seems that most who choose that tuning are those who like to play fast scale runs and melodic lines, and don't play any chords.

  2392. musictheory 2018-05-24 17:10:50 oracletheorem
    Afaik it was always tuned like that since the renaissance. When the first ancestor of the modern guitar, the 5 course chitarra battente appeared somewhere in Italy in the 1500s, it was tuned to ADGBE. Also, the reason why the the guitar wasn't tune in 5ths but in 4ths and a 3rd is because of the way we hold the guitar on one of our lap, it's easier to access large intervals with the standard tuning. When the low E string was added, it continued the 4ths tuning and guitar tuning has remained that way since the 16th century.

  2393. musictheory 2018-05-24 17:39:09 PlazaOne
    A hundred years ago when more guitarists were self-taught, and there was no internet, plenty of folk and blues musicians would tune their guitars to an open chord. This was especially useful for playing slide. Elmore James (Dust My Broom) was famous for using open-E tuning: E-G#-E-G#-B-E which is also used by George Thorogood. Ry Cooder was a session player on an early Rolling Stones album, and introduced Keith Richards to open-G: (D)-G-D-G-B-D Some players prefer to entirely remove the bottom string and just use five. Notice the difference between open-E with lower register roots and thirds, and open-G with lower register roots and fifths. Players like Michael Hedges, Will Ackerman and Alex de Grassi would sometimes identify a tuning that facilitated playing a specific more complex chord on open strings, then being able to recreate the same chord - parallel transposed - further up the neck. This approach frees up fingers for other embellishing fretting duties. Back in 1938, when Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco was composing his Guitar Concerto No.1 in D Major, Op.99, he specifically asked its dedicatee Andres Segovia if he’d find it acceptable to lower the sixth string’s tuning to D. “Teddy” knew that Segovia was a purist, so was smart enough to explain up-front how it would benefit the tune - and Segovia wanted great music, so he approved!

  2394. musictheory 2018-05-24 18:15:12 Jenkes_of_Wolverton
    Standard size and shape guitars didn’t properly emerge till the late 18th century. Before then a variety of sizes existed, with four, five or six courses, and varying scale lengths and tunings. Then what we’d today recognise as a standard design arrived, with three gut strings and three of overspun silk. And some fine players came to prominence. The early 19th century virtuoso guitarists had many pupils and wrote lots off exercises that became core repertoire. If the likes of Mauro Giuliani, Fernando Sor, Fernandino Carulli et al were achieving successful careers, who wouldn’t want to use the same tuning! The published works of those six string pioneers are still popular today.

  2395. musictheory 2018-05-24 18:41:24 Catbone57
    The 6-string guitar emerged in eastern Spain in the late 18th Century. Musical tastes in that region leaned heavily toward the phrygian mode, with aeolian a close second. E just happens to be the native key for phrygian, and A for aeolian. So it is probably no coincidence that standard tuning lends itself perfectly to those keys.

  2396. musictheory 2018-05-24 18:54:39 HashPram
    The modern electric guitar is an electrical cousin of the acoustic guitar, which itself is a cousin of the Spanish guitar (which you probably know better as the "classical" guitar). The Spanish guitar traces its history back to the 1770s and is a development of the six-course guitar (a "course" is one or more strings tuned to the same pitch - similar to the way a 12-string guitar is strung), which was in turn a development of a set of related instruments: the Mandora, the Chitarra, the four-course guitar and the five-course guitar - all of which were in existence during the 1500s. The tuning of the Renaissance instruments was somewhat variable depending on the instrument being played and historical period it belongs to. A few examples are: [G-C-E-A], [F-C-E-A] and [G-D-F#-B]. By 1790 there are examples in the teaching literature of Mandoras being tuned [E-A-D-G-B-E] but the conventional English tuning for the guitarra during this period was [C-E-G-GC-CE-EG-G] (this is an instrument with 3 single strings, 3 double courses, and a single string). By about 1800 though guitar makers and players had settled on six as the optimum number but had yet to decide whether this would be six course or six string and the tuning of the guitar varied from country to country - Portugal, Spain, England, France and Italy all used slightly different tuning schemes. During the 1800s - due to developments in playing technique, materials and construction (including strings) builders and players gradually settled on six strings and E-A-D-G-B-E tuning as the one that best balanced playability, harmony and melody. So - the origin of [E-A-D-G-B-E] tuning is a bit obscure but it got settled on by players and luthiers somewhere around the middle of the 1800s as the tuning that allowed the greatest range of harmonic and melodic expression given the construction methods and materials of the time. There is no one person who introduced the tuning - or at least if there was that information is either lost to history or buried in an obscure manuscript somewhere waiting to be discovered. It wasn't settled on because it made chords easier to play - it got settled on because it allowed players a good enough compromise between playing in all 24 keys, playing chords/arpeggios and playing melodies. There are tunings that make specific chords easier. Just tune your guitar to [E-B-E-G#-B-E] and you can play in E all day long. You'll come completely unstuck if you want to play in G though. But then you could tune your guitar to [G-B-D-G-B-G]. But then you wouldn't be able to play in E very easily. Oh, if only it were possible to play in the 24 major and minor keys with relative ease! Perhaps we could find some kind of compromise? I'm exaggerating for comic effect, of course. There are loads of different tunings - do what you like - it's music and if it sounds good then that's all you need. Joni Mitchell, Robert Fripp and Sonic Youth have all made entirely respectable and artistially satisfying musical careers from exploring what happens if you tune your instrument differently and/or remove some of the strings. Tune all your strings do D if you like (I've done it - it - er - well it was an experiment and not every experiment works). But! The reason why standard tuning is the way it is isn't to make things easier - like pretty much anything in life it's a compromise. In the case of the guitar it's a compromise between being able to play in any key, being able to play chords, and being able to play melodies over those chords. Besides, if "can't you just make it easier" were the sole criterion why not just get a machine to play the sounds for us so we can fuck off down the pub? Sources: James Tyler and Paul Sparks - "The Guitar and its Music" Júlio Ribeiro Alves - "The History of the Guitar" *edit* I don't know how to spell ~~renissance~~, ~~Renaisance~~, ~~Renésance~~ the 1500s. *other edits* Oh god, did I write that?

  2397. musictheory 2018-05-24 19:03:07 HashPram
    Robert Fripp, slide players, I'd be surprised if some bluegrass/folk players don't tune their guitar in 5ths like a violin to make it easier to play fiddle licks, there are a bunch of classical pieces in 6=D, 5=G, if you want to play lute music then you tune your G string down to F# and then you can read the tab straight off the page ...

  2398. musictheory 2018-05-24 19:08:58 MikeNizzle82
    My favourite is Rock Lobster tuning (B52s). From the tablature (googled it): Ah yes the immortal Rock Lobster... Let me see if I can remember this. Take your least-used guitar. Remove the middle two strings. Tune the low E down to a C. Tune the A down to a G. Tune the B string DOWN to an F and the high E DOWN to a G . Now tell the bass player to go on break (unless he or she can make decent animal noises). The early B's setup was drums, 1 weird guitar, cheesy keyboards, and vocals. Oh yeah the male singer Fred played a mean cowbell which you can hear in the second half of the intro and similar parts of the song. (I love his visible concentration when he whacks that cowbell in the video).

  2399. musictheory 2018-05-24 19:54:06 cyand1317
    Pitch is a logarithmic function of frequency. The frequency is **multiplied** by 2^(1/12), not increased by 2^(1/12) hertz, every half step. e.g. when A4 is tuned to 440 Hz, A♯4 = 440 Hz * 2^(1/12) = 466.2 Hz, and A5 = 440 Hz * 2 = 880 Hz. [Mersenne's laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne%27s_laws) state that the fundamental frequency (pitch) of a string is inversely proportional to its length. Hence to raise a note by a semitone, the string length should be divided by 2^(1/12).

  2400. musictheory 2018-05-24 20:41:51 PlazaOne
    Ah yes, of course. And for five years I'd even kept one of my guitars set up in open-E, which makes my error even more embarrassing. What I should have pointed out is that open-E requires raising the pitches and *increasing* the string tension, whereas open-G requires lowering the pitches and *decreasing* the string tension. An important consideration for those who'll want to bend notes, or have worries about potential string breakage. I'm sure you're right too about Segovia being familiar with Tarrega's practises. Indeed, when Segovia was learning guitar, Tarrega had even agreed to give the young lad some lessons, but unfortunately died before they were able to meet. Nonetheless, perhaps Tarrega's use did influence his willingness to accede to the request. From reading Corazon Otero's biography of Castelnuovo-Tedesco, I got the impression that the composer was nervous about asking - as he knew Segovia at times had some strong and inflexible opinions!

  2401. musictheory 2018-05-24 21:58:28 musical_bear
    I didn’t even know what open E tuning was before this thread, and when I saw the order of strings with G# as the second string, my first thought was how muddy that would sound if strummed from top to bottom. This order makes way more sense.

  2402. musictheory 2018-05-24 22:17:14 ANDYB1580
    Interesting. I once read in a guitar history book that that 6-string guitar began with Giuliani having one built in Vienna where he spent a lot of time and later moved. He was a friend of Beethoven and is even said to have played cello in the debut of Beethoven's Symphony IV in Vienna. This article suggests that there is much contention on the subject, but also points to Giuliani as the source of the innovation: https://www.earlyromanticguitar.com/erg/evolution.htm "Some evidence suggests that Fabricatore invented the modern guitar in Naples, Italy. Dr. Heck's biography of Giuliani has a quote from a 19th century source, which was a contemporary review of one of Giuliani's concert performances. This quote mentions that "Giuliani demonstrated the invention of the 6th string, due to Maestro Fabbricatorello in Naples.." (Heck, T. "Mauro Giuliani: Virtuoso Guitarist." p.7)." "Other sources mention that the 6-string guitar arose in Vienna, Naples, and Paris simultaneously in about 1785-92"

  2403. musictheory 2018-05-25 01:36:44 ArtieEvans
    Drop 2 voicing as well as ease of use with 3 fingers per string. Easy for descending fifths

  2404. musictheory 2018-05-25 03:16:52 cubhrachan
    You can't destroy music theory. It's an empirical study of a developing system. It describes what has been done and does not purport to be objective. It would be ludicrous if you claim that yours is objective. If anything you find is actually useful it would become part of and supplement music theory, not replace it. "fundamental limitation of the music analyzing engine is that it can't handle three or more notes clustered together" I don't know what this is supposed to mean. On its face it's wrong. I can distinguish the sound of an open G string from a G on the C string through its overtones, which are larger in number than three.

  2405. musictheory 2018-05-25 13:35:53 let_talk_about_that
    > The site that I’m looking at starts in the key of G on the 6 string third fret. Think of this G scale pattern as a template. The G root note is 6th string 3rd fret. When you start with the root note on that string and fret, and play that template, you get a G scale. Now consider that no matter which note on the sixth fret you start on, every time you play that pattern, you are producing a major scale, Which major scale depends on which note you start from on the sixth string Now, move it up two frets. That is called a major second interval (G to A). SO using the exact same pattern as before, if you play the scale, it now sounds in A. If you use the exact same pattern starting on the 8th fret, you get a C scale, using the "G" form or pattern. If you know bar chords, you can play the G chord at the third fret, corresponding to where you start the G scale. If you move the bar G chord up two frets, you are now playing an A chord, with the scale moving up the same amount. What that means in practice is once you learn the pattern, and the starting note, you can play any major scale using this template.

  2406. musictheory 2018-05-25 14:24:32 circleof5surecanjive
    > What is confusing me is when I am taught whatever note you start on, is the root note of the scale. This is the problem. Whoever told you that was wrong. I also have no idea why so many people in this thread are mentioning modes when your question really has absolutely nothing to do with them. They are only adding to the confusion here by bringing up a related area of study. Let me make this easy. There is one large master pattern that goes across your guitar. To make this master pattern easier to learn, we tend to divide it up into smaller sections, usually 5. Each of these sections usually goes across 4-5 frets. To make practicing these sections as simple as possible, a lot of teachers will tell you to start from the E-bass string and play it down to the E-treble string, then go back up. In this context, the note you start on means nothing. The note you end on means nothing. You are simply mapping out your entire fretboard in one key. In your case, you have been given the key of G. Map out the fretboard by playing through the patterns. Then learn about the concept of root notes. In this case, that would essentially mean "where are all the G's". Once you can see where all your G's are (your root notes), look at how those locations interact within the patterns of the smaller section. One pattern may have it on the E-bass string. Another pattern may have it on the D string. Etc... Whatever ROOT note you start on, is the root of the scale. Hope that helps clear up some confusion.

  2407. musictheory 2018-05-25 16:23:20 ttd_76
    What makes it a major scale is the intervals between the notes of the scale, which is important to know, but do not worry at it now. When you work out the intervals, the G major scale contains the notes G, A, B, C, D, E, F#. When you start on the third fret of the sixth string you are starting from G. When you start from the fifth fret of the sixth string, you are starting from A. But it is the same notes. The second note in your first shape pattern is A. The exact same A you start with in the second pattern. Then look at the third note in the first shape. It is second string, second fret...which is B. Now look at the second note in your second pattern. It’s the first string, seventh fret...which is the same B note, just played on the first string. You can do the same thing going through both patterns. You will see that every note in the second pattern is either the same note in the same place, but just played with a different finger as your hand position has moved up the neck two frets OR it is the same note played on a different string. Now try this. Play a one octave scale from G to G in the first shape. It’ll be the first 8 notes, ending on the fifth fret of the D string. Now do it again starting on that same low G. Only this time, instead of reaching for the A with your ring finger, just slide your hand up and play the A with your index finger again. Now you are set up in the second shape, so just keep going until you get to the same G on the D string as before. See? You just played the exact same scale. Another thing you can do is google up an image that shows you all the notes of the G scale all over the fretboard at once. Like this: http://www.guitarfriendly.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/g-major-guitar-scale-fretboard-1024x270.jpg See how each “position” is just kind of a cross section of that overall map? Their “second position” is just your first shape. And the third position is your second shape. Don’t think of these as modes. In fact it’s better if you don’t think of them as linear scales. Think of the notes of the G major scale as falling into a particular pattern over six strings and twelve frets. Each of those shapes is giving you a section of that larger pattern that you can access without having to move your hand. You can start on any note you wish in those shapes and end on any note and skip notes...but as long as you are hitting notes within any of the shapes you are playing a note from G major scale. Look up “CAGED guitar” for more info. describing this concept.

  2408. musictheory 2018-05-25 18:16:21 Jongtr
    > It’s trying simplify the major scale into patterns in order to play the major scale anywhere on the fretboard in any key. OK, that's good. The mode terms are irrelevant and confusing. > What is confusing me is when I am taught whatever note you start on, is the root note of the scale. That's NOT true! Firstly, to get pedantic, "root" applies to a chord, not a scale. Secondly (allowing the word to apply to a scale!), we only "start on the root note" when spelling a scale, or first practising it. So we'd describe "the G major scale" as G A B C D E F# G. (Notice we end on G as well as start on it.) But when *playing* it, we can start anywhere. Likewise, when we break down the G major scale into playable positional patterns (as your site is doing), G is obviously not always going to be the lowest note. So if we play the entire pattern (at least to begin with), we might *start from the lowest note" - whichever note is on the 6th string. If we're still "G major scale", that starting note is not the root. This is where those confusing modal terms arise. Some people think that if you just start the G major scale on A, you're playing "A dorian mode". In one sense you are. That is, *if A sounds like the keynote*, you can legitimately call it "A dorian mode". But all we're doing here is practising the "G major scale". G is the keynote, not A. Moreover, if you had a piece of music where A was the keynote, then you could play any position of the G major scale, you'd still be "in A dorian mode". Likewise, if your tune was in G major, then starting from A (or using such a pattern) would not create a dorian mode *sound*. In short, the mode names for scale positions are merely labels with no musical significance - you might as well call them "pattern 1" etc,. or "pattern X", or "pattern Bob". The obvious trouble with the mode labels is that modal terms have other applications in music which conflict with their application to fret patterns. Anyway... (please ignore the above if you don't get it. You can happily ignore *any* modal terminology at the stage you're at.) >What I also do not understand is how you can start on the 2 or 3 and the root note is still the 1? Why couldn't you? You start playing on any note you like. The "root note" (properly called keynote or tonic) is the note in the scale which "sounds like home". That will be the same whichever pattern you use, whichever note is lowest, or whichever note you start on. (Of course, as I said, if we're being strict about the use of "root", we could say that any scale note can be a root, because you can build a chord on every scale note. But only one note is the "tonic".) > I nothing about scale degrees That should be the first thing you learn about these patterns: which notes are 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 of the scale. (And that site should really be showing you that information.) There's really no point in learning these patterns unless you know that, because you wouldn't be able use them musically. With the G major scale, those notes equate to G A B C D E F#. With other major scales they would equate to different notes. E.g., for the A major scale, those patterns would all shift 2 frets up (towards the bridge), and 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 would refer to A B C# D E F# G#. The other thing you need to know - and this can actually help you in learning the patterns, as well as in using them - is which notes in the scale form chords in the key. So, from those 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 notes of the G major scale, notes 1-3-5 (G-B-D) form a G major chord. Notes 4-6-1 (C-E-G) form a C major chord. Notes 5-7-2 (D-F#-A) form a D major chord. Notes 2-4-6 form an Am chord. etc. This is in *every pattern* of the scale, although you may not get playable chord *shapes* for every chord in every pattern. Hopefully you can see how that knowledge will help you when improvising on a G major chord sequence. But also, chord shapes are easier things to remember than scale patterns. This is where the CAGED system comes in handy - employing movable versions of those 5 shapes in different places on the neck to help you remember scales and notes.

  2409. musictheory 2018-05-26 11:38:30 UrinalPooper
    I thought this was /r/audioengineering for a second and was going to say, ‘sit your producer in front of a veritable mountain of cocaine(1)...’ but it’s music theory so instead I’ll say that Peter Hook preferred the upper registers of the bass... before getting very synth heavy with New Order. Just as a silly one sized fits all rule- if the guitarist is playing E on their 6th (thickest) string, you’d play the 7th fret on the 5th (‘A’) string. From a stylistic standpoint he evolved quite a bit so what you hear on *An Ideal for Living*, which is much closer to punk, will be a lot different from what you hear on *Closer*. Usually it’s pushing the drums but on the slower tracks (24 Hours for example) it’s a sliding riff that gives the drums and guitar room to breathe. It’s worth listening to Daniel J’s work with Bauhaus to hear a comparable sound/interplay. I hope that was at least a little helpful. /r/bass may have better advice. 1. Hannett actually preferred booze and heroin but his antics always seemed more coke head than junkie Edit: oh to actually answer your question: Phrygian. Lots and lots of Phrygian

  2410. musictheory 2018-05-26 14:36:57 shadow_cock10
    Since it would be on bass you probably meant “7th fret on 3rd string” right?

  2411. musictheory 2018-05-26 17:15:24 aotus_trivirgatus
    No, he meant the 3rd fret on the 7th string.

  2412. musictheory 2018-05-26 17:21:48 Jongtr
    The key is Bb minor, and the chord in question is the bVI, Gb, but (as you say) weirdly incorporating both 7ths (Fb/E and F). The arpeggio is Gb-Bb-E-F. I guess you could call it Gbmaj7#13! (hmmm) With a capo on fret 1, this is an easy thing to play (and find) on guitar, as the 1st string (F) is simply being left open on both chords. There's no real functionality here, just an attractively plangent dissonance that contributes a bluesy flavour. E (Fb) is the blues #4/b5 of the key, and it's common in blues to play that note alongside the P5 (F) - just a little unusual for both to ring together as here. (Blues harmony is - or can be - non-functional.) In a minor key blues, bVI7 would be common (Gb7 in this case), but here, as I say, I suspect it was an accidental discovery made when they played a Gb7 shape (on strings 4-3-2) but left the 1st string open. Ooh that sounds cool!

  2413. musictheory 2018-05-26 19:13:03 UrinalPooper
    I did, sorry about that... Edit: Though he played a six-string bass on some recordings!

  2414. musictheory 2018-05-26 19:18:25 UrinalPooper
    According to wiki he played a Shergold Marathon six string on some recordings but also played a Rickenbacker 4001 and a Hondo 4 string.

  2415. musictheory 2018-05-26 21:04:26 betamat
    "Mixed Up", good pun :-) no I knew about that one. Finally had a chance to do my own Googling. I was listening to the Sound Opinions podcast where they talked about Bass VI's, and he was mentioned, along with Robert Smith. They were referring to his Shergold Marathon, his six string bass. While not a Fender Bass VI as such, certainly a similar tone https://www.soundopinions.org/show/626

  2416. musictheory 2018-05-28 09:55:41 DoctorWalnut
    This is a cool idea! Same drugs is a song I like a lot because of the beautiful keyboard part- You said you’d like to improve it so after a quick listen I can say two things: 1) the B naturals should be C flats without question- They are definitely functioning as IV and that would be C flat. 2) The viola part goes too low (it doesn’t have a low Bb- lowest string is the C right above it). Also, measure 45 is quite lovely! My favorite part.

  2417. musictheory 2018-05-28 23:02:43 RideTheLine
    A major element I've observed in horror films is jarring and unexpected chord progressions. Much like the film itself, many scores from the classics feature chord changes on really irregular beats to distant chords to keep that uneasy feeling of suspense. Using instruments in irregular ways always helps, I'm reminded of *Friday the 13th's* screeching string parts.

  2418. musictheory 2018-05-29 13:03:50 broodfood
    Including the black keys. Piano actually has C C# D D# E F F# G G# A A# B C, repeating. Now you're confusing guitar strings with notes. A guitar only has six strings but each fret is a different note on that string. So you can play open E, but if you pay the first fret and hit the string, now it's F. If you go up another fret, it's F#, then G, G#, A, A# etc. Just like a piano.

  2419. musictheory 2018-05-29 15:38:07 Jongtr
    > So are these notes named because they have similar frequency or something? Does this mean a piano note that plays C will sound similar to Chord that plays C? or even other instruments that play note? Yes, yes and yes. If you're interested in how all this came about - frequency relationships, where the notes came from, how scales were formed, etc. - read this: http://www.peterfrazer.co.uk/music/tunings.html As I guess you're a guitar player, you can use a guitar string for some simple, revealing experiments. 1. Measure half-way along the string. That's 12th fret, the octave. Half the string length vibrates at 2x the frequency of the open string. That's what produces the phenomenon of the octave, a note that sounds the same but higher. The A string is 110 Hz (cycles per second), the 12th fret is 220. (The 12th fret harmonic produces the same note.) 2. Measure 2/3 of the string from the bridge. Now you're at 7th fret. If this is the A string, the note is E - a "perfect 5th" above A. The same simple math applies. Turn the fraction upside down, because frequency of vibration is the inverse of the length. A x 3/2 = 110 x 3/2 = 165 = E. (The equal tempered tuning system messes with this slightly, meaning we tune E to 164.8. Hard to explain why, but look up "equal temperament" if math doesn't scare you. ;-)) 3. Measure 3/4 of the string from the bridge. Now you're at 5th fret. If this is the A string, the note is D - a "perfect 4th" above A. A x 4/3 = 146.666(etc) = D. (again, ET means we need to tune this very slightly differently, to 146.83. Don't worry, your tuner does all this for you. ;-).) These intervals (pairs of notes) are called "perfect" partly because of this mathematical simplicity (Pythagoras knew all about this), partly because of the pure sound both notes make when played together (A and E or A and D). That in turn is because of the harmonic series (see above link) - the Greeks knew nothing about frequency, they just observed length and ratio, and used their ears. (It's one reason they thought God was a mathematician, because such simple ratios produced such pure, harmonious sounds.) The spaces between frets 0-5 and 7-12 can now each be filled with two other notes, but each of these four notes can go in two different places: a "minor" position (nearer fret 0, lower in pitch) or "major" (higher). So, between A and D we can have Bb or B (minor or major 2nd), and C or C# (minor or major 3rd). Between E and A we can have F or F# (minor or major 6th) and G or G# (minor or major 7th). All these notes form "imperfect" intervals with the A root, because their frequency relationships are less simple. However, one interval is particular strong. If you measure from 4th fret (C#) to the bridge, you'll find it's (more or less) 4/5 of the whole string length. So, A x 5/4 = 110 x 5/4 = 137.5 = C#. In this case, the equal tempered version of this note is little further out. A tuned C# is 138.59. Might not seem like much, but your tuner will register the difference. That is, if you play a harmonic over 4th fret - so the string vibrates in 5 parts, 5 times as fast, i.e. at 550 Hz - you tuner will tell you that note is flat, because it expects that C# to be 554. However, it's close enough for an A major triad to sound strong and "natural". The notes C# and E are both contained in the harmonic series of A, which is why A is the "root" of the chord. If you play an A major triad up at 12th fret, as x-x-x-14-14-12, those notes are all overtones of the open A string, harmonics over frets 5, 4 and 3. The harmonics are frequencies of 440-550-660, all multiples of 110 (the open string). Frets 14-14-12 on the top 3 strings are 440-554-659 - close enough! BTW, you may wonder why we don't just label every fret with a different letter! Why only 7 note letters, why not 12? Again, this goes back to the ancient Greeks (and probably earlier). They decided that only 2 notes were needed between each of those "perfect" pairs (root-4th, 5th-root). The word "octave" itself is Greek for "8th", showing how old this notion of the 7+1 note scale is. It's the fact that the 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th notes are *movable* (to minor or major positions) that gives us various different scale types, or "modes". They decided this flexible 7-note system sounded good - and we still pretty much agree with them. (Even Indian ragas, much more numerous than our western scales, all have 7 notes.)

  2420. musictheory 2018-05-31 02:54:51 m3g0wnz
    I advise writing for smaller chamber groups first if you haven’t already. Brass quintet, string quartet, etc. Writing for large ensembles effectively is hard.

  2421. musictheory 2018-05-31 11:23:42 cookedken
    Wait I got it. It's a Bb tritone. It's Bb on the A string, E on the D string and Bb again on the G string.

  2422. musictheory 2018-05-31 11:30:54 Cello789
    > Sure, there are exceptions, but electronic music often depends heavily on the sounds. If it's **GOOD** and well composed/arranged, then it shouldn't. If your techno track sounds *weird* in a string arrangement, that's to be expected. If it sounds BORING then maybe the techno needed a little massage to get to where it needed to be. Musical notation (the sheet itself) is independent of timbre, but timbre can be written into the notation. Things like una corda for piano, con sordino for strings, whatever. We've all seen things written in like "warm, expressive, gently, bright! Heavy, harsh, furiously" and all sorts of things. A bow at the bridge for a scratchy bright harsh sound, a bow over the fingerboard for a warm gut-like sound, pizz at the bridge for cutting through the mix, bartok pizz for percussive timbre, or pizz at the 8ve harmonic for a "bell" or "harp" like sound. Those are all timbres written into sheet music, so it would be the same kind of thing. If you wrote a piece on an MS-20 and I played it on an SH101, it would sound different, sure. Just like organ or harpsichord to piano, or a clarinet piece transcribed for cello (Because Mozart loved the sound of cello, apparently... /s). We've heard classical guitar played on electric guitar, and we've seen Shakespeare set in modern movie-style productions. The author of a work (**especially** a live performance art) has no control over the way future performers will interpret it, or perform it. It could be done terribly, or it could be done in a way the original artist never could have conceived. I play an electric cello sometimes, and sometimes I even play Bach with distortion and delay! If a piece needs to remain as the original to be experienced "properly" then the correct notation is "audio recording." As is common with Techno ;)

  2423. musictheory 2018-06-01 05:17:47 Plokhi
    Well of course, but classical acoustic music is based on more or less fixed set of different timbre. As in, violin doesn't have 50 knobs to control its sound (I'm aware of expressional possibilities of the violin and that there's more to it than just pitch+duration, but my point stands). "Drawing out" spectre (What some spectralists did) is pretty useless as for understanding the actual piece/sound. It's akin to understanding how a string produces its sound. And as for analyzing an actual sound/timbre, hearing is a better approach than a graphical representation of it

  2424. musictheory 2018-06-01 05:56:30 PunkJackal
    Not quite. The 5th in the chord is implied. It still has an A, C and a G, the root, 3rd and 7th of an Am7 chord, which are the most important voices in a chord. Context also pushes this narrative as it's coming directly after an E7 voicing, making it apparent that this is a V7 to i authentic cadence in a minor key. It is stacked 4ths and typically you'd be correct about the 11th coming in above the root's octave, but guitar is generally allowed a little more leeway than piano as the string-and-fret nature of the instrument means a player will have to get a bit creative to fit all the notes into a single voicing given the limitations of one note per string, hand size and a total of 6 available strings (unless you're playing an extended range instrument). In context this is an Am7(11) chord in root position, built in a quartal stack voicing.

  2425. musictheory 2018-06-01 08:14:56 jtizzle12
    Some good books I've gone through recently are Tymoczko's Geometry of Music and Straus' 4th edition of Post Tonal is always next to me when I'm composing. Ludmila Ulehla's theory book is great too. Lehrdal's Generative Theory of Tonal Music is in my amazon cart right now. Currently reading Beethoven String Quartets by Joseph Kerman. Might want to get your hands on composer essays and stuff too. I have some great books with Schoenberg's, Babbitt's, and Stockhausen's writings.

  2426. musictheory 2018-06-03 04:21:38 65TwinReverbRI
    Yeah, just grab a bunch of bass clef only, and practice reading it. The more you do it, the better you'll get at it. Helps if you can play it in the proper register on an instrument, but even just naming the pitches would be good to start. Do a little maybe 3 or 4 times a day - just 5 minutes or so. Ramp up the amount of time you spend on it as you get better until you can read both equally well, then work on improving reading both together. I used to not read Alto very well but at one point I was reading a bunch of String Quartet music and having to figure out the Viola notes, but after about a week of doing it I actually became pretty proficient at it. Just takes doing it all the time.

  2427. musictheory 2018-06-03 06:36:16 Jongtr
    Depends which D#, which G, which F and which B. And whether you're male or female. You say if you "strain your voice" you can get down to F, but that's way lower than D#. Surely there's some notes between your low D# and the F below that that you can get? The top of your range is more believable: B is just a 3rd higher than G, which is about right for the distance between a comfortable top note and one you have to strain for. Problem is (for us), a guitar tuner doesn't tell you which octave the notes you are singing are in. Instead of using your tuner, try matching vocal notes on the guitar (or vice versa). E.g., which G would that be? open 3rd string? 3rd fret 1st string? Which D# (if you really mean D#)?

  2428. musictheory 2018-06-03 06:50:41 AmorEncantado
    The way my tuner works is open string, so if I was playing open on the E string, it would display E. I can get the matches some other time this week though

  2429. musictheory 2018-06-03 14:38:29 ttd_76
    Did you memorize just the shapes, or also where the roots are for each inversion? Or better yet, the chord tones? I guess I don’t understand the problem. Memorizing the shapes is the hard part. Once you have that, the shapes are the same in every key. For drop 2, pick a C anywhere on the first four strings. Play the drop 2 inversion that has root on that string. Now look for the nearest F on same four strings and use the proper inversion drop 2. You basically know F is a fourth up, so you will move up one string (and maybe a fret) from wherever your C was. Or, just use fretboard knowledge. You know the I is going to be two frets down from your initial ii. Or a fourth up from your V(meaning you can play a ii-v-I just by moving the root up a string each chord). The melody of Autumn Leaves is pretty much just the thirds in the chords. So as long as you are hitting the right chords, you will be getting the main notes. Now just figure out how to walk from each three to the subsequent one. One way to think about drop 2 is that it is always a stack of key notes stacked together and then the chord tones stacked together. Eg R573, 5R37,37R5,735R. See how the R and 5 are always together? And the 3 and 7? If you know your interval relationships, you can make a drop 2. You should know how to make R5 and 5R if you can play a powerchord. And those two never change no matter which drop 2 you are playing except for b5 dim. And if you know your guide tones, then you should know all your 37 and 73 combos. So you just have to stack your guide tones on top of a powerchord or vice versa.

  2430. musictheory 2018-06-03 21:03:00 theredwoodcurtain
    Yeah... this isn’t a good way to determine your vocal range, unless the highest and lowest notes you can sing just happen to match the open strings of a guitar, and don’t fall on any of the other 19 notes between the low and high E. I’m still confused about how your “open string” tuner gave you D# and F, as those aren’t standard open strings on a guitar. I think you might have a chromatic tuner.

  2431. musictheory 2018-06-04 04:05:24 65TwinReverbRI
    I didn't know Sinister Resonance - that's a really superbly done video to show what's going on thanks for sharing it!!! Don't know if you know, but he's playing harmonics at the beginning and later when it shows the pins along the length of the string. That opens up an entirely different can of worms in terms of overtone production! And the other section did sound quite Koto-like. Very cool.

  2432. musictheory 2018-06-04 04:14:35 65TwinReverbRI
    Don't "memorize". KNOW ! IMHO, or, at least for me personally, there's only ONE blues scale: 1 b3 4 b5 5 b7 Now, that's not to say there aren't other blues scales, but what I mean by "ONE" is that there is ONE **FORMULA** for this particular blues scale (let's call it Minor Pentatonic Blues Scale, or MPBS for now). What you then need to know is your KEYS so you can play those "numbers" no matter what the KEY. So, key is Bb, then the scale is: Bb - Db - Eb - Fbb (or E) - F - Ab done. Key is F#: F# - A - B - C - C# - E done. Obviously, to do this, you need to know what the 4th scale degree in each of those keys is for example. But if you learn it this way it carries over to everything you do. So when you learn the so-called "Composite Blues Scale" which is: 1 - 2 - b3 - 3 - 4 - b5 - 5 - 6 - b7 you can just play those notes from the Key. IOW, trying to learn "the G Blues Scale" then the "Ab Blues Scale" and the "A Blues Scale" as separate things and a string of notes is a lot harder and there's no underlying principle you can use for other scales. But if you learn your Keys, and then Scale formulas, it becomes super easy. Scale formula for major scale: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 -7 - (8 or 1). Easy :-) So if you learn you Keys (and Key signatures) and know which notes are in each key, then you apply that formula you just play the notes of the key. Easy. Of course, you have to learn all your keys - that's the hard part. And really, it's OK to "memorize" them but you really need to practice them every day to be really familiar with them - including playing them in actual music. HTH

  2433. musictheory 2018-06-04 04:59:58 jazzadellic
    Use all the different learning methods: visual, aural, kinesthetic, intellectual. I have found if I am having trouble learning something on guitar, it's because I have neglected one of those 4 things. So for example visual is having the actual visual pattern memorized. To test this, get blank fretboard and draw all of the scale patterns from memory. Use only your visual memory of the patterns to draw them in, i.e. don't label all the notes on the diagram and use your theory knowledge to place the notes. If you can't do that without thinking about it, your visual knowledge of the scale is not 100% The aural approach is being able to sing the scale, or pre-hear each note in the scale as you play it. If you can "hear" the next note in the scale before you play it, your accuracy with the scale will be better, not to mention you'll be better at improvising with it. The intellectual approach is using some form of logic or verbal description of the scale to help you remember it. I often use the fingering for this. So for example, I could tell you the fingering (at least the one I use) for the major scale in any key and any position, without having to think about it. So for example, Bb major in 10th position is from lowest to highest string 1-2-4, 1-3-4, 1-3-4, 1-3, 1-2-4, 1-2-4. The fact that I can do this instantly for any key / position means that even if my visual or aural memory of the scale completely fails or is not there, I can still play the scale. Finally, there is kinesthetic which is just that muscle-memory you get from repeated practice. The test I use for this is playing the scales as fast as I can legato (pick only the first note of each string and then hammer-on the rest). If I can do that and not make any mistakes, I know I have the muscle-memory. If any 3 of those 4 fail me completely, but one works, I can still play the scale. But what happens is when you are say performing live on stage, even if you have 1 of those consistently work in practice, it can still fail on stage due to nerves etc...That's why you have all four in top shape, then it makes it almost impossible to screw it up, even under pressure. You want one of the other four types of learning/memory to be there as backup, when one or more of the others fail.

  2434. musictheory 2018-06-04 08:42:56 YTubeInfoBot
    #### [Glenn Gould - So You Want to Write a Fugue? (audio + sheet music)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHW1I8T0caI) ##### 121,168 views &nbsp;👍2,262 👎30 *** Description: "So You Want to Write a Fugue?" is a satirical vocal piece for four voices and string quartet or piano accompaniment by Canadian pianist Glenn Gould a... *thenameisgsarci, Published on Oct 10, 2015* *** ^(Beep Boop. I'm a bot! This content was auto-generated to provide Youtube details.) | [Opt Out](http://np.reddit.com/r/YTubeInfoBot/wiki/index) | [More Info](http://np.reddit.com/r/YTubeInfoBot/)

  2435. musictheory 2018-06-04 14:18:17 coklash
    Well I've been playing classical and jazz guitar for some years now so im familiar with where all the notes are on the fretboard and remember that the 12th fret is the octave for all the open strings. So basically once you know the 3rd fret first string is G, then you know the 15th fret first string is also G. It really just comes down to time and reading music. I thinking working your way up in sections from the beginning of the fretboard is the best way to go about it. Also learning pentatonic and major scale forms also help a lot. Just a little at a time and you'll get it!!

  2436. musictheory 2018-06-04 16:12:00 Jongtr
    No. They're two separate things. Notation is just a grid on which symbols denoting pitch and duration are placed. The vertical dimension is pitch and the horizontal dimension is time (roughly). Why would you think the lines have anything to do with strings? Singers, horn players, pianists - *every other musician* - reads music. They don't think "the lines must be strings". Ah, I get it - you must have seen tab! ;-) Every musician has to learn where and how to find the notes on their instrument (including singers). This is really not difficult. Only guitarists (and players of similar string instruments) seem to have trouble with it. Admittedly, there is a slight problem, in that most notes can be played in more than one place. So how do you choose? For the beginner, the best answer is "in 1st position", or "open position" as many of us call it. Between frets 0-4, there is only one place to play any given note. And that region of the neck contains 2/3 of the entire range of the guitar, so should keep you busy for some time. As soon as you get ledger lines above the staff, then (and only then) do you need to move up the neck, to higher positions. Of course, you should get familiar with fret 5 and above as soon as you can - but not until you're fully familiar with the lower ones. Just because every note on the staff (and below) can be played below fret 4 doesn't mean that's always the best choice. But by the time you need to think like that, you'll understand why, and you'll be able to adapt any notation you see to choose the most suitable position. It's called "learning your instrument" ;-) I'm not opposed to tab, at all, btw. I give my students notation and tab combined, and allow them to read from the tab if they like (generally they do). The real advantage of notation is that it allows you to play from music written for any instrument (or voice) - which means you can teach yourself from any songbook or score you like. And it shows you the shape of a melody too, so you can see how it will sound before you play it. Plus, if you read notation, you become a literate musician, like all (or most) others. (But still, as a teacher, I don't insist my students learn it. Most of them have no plans to be professional, or to play classical guitar or jazz. As amateurs playing rock or folk, tab and chord shapes will be enough for most of them.) In fact, if you want, the fretboard can be compared with notation to some extent; but it's the frets - not the strings - that are analogous to the lines on notation. Turn the guitar so that the neck is vertical and the headstock is towards the floor - then you have a rough analogue of staff notation (low pitch down, high pitch up); except that each fret represents one semitone, while lines on notation are a minor or major 3rd apart - equivalent to 3 or 4 frets. The distance from fret 0 to fret 12 (in fact fret 14) can be accommodated in just one 5-line notation staff. And of course there is no time dimension on the fretboard...

  2437. musictheory 2018-06-04 16:23:28 Jongtr
    I could certainly tell you any note on the fretboard in less than a second, probably less than half a second. But you don't need to know that as a beginner. As I said in my (long) post, every note on the staff - including the G above and ledger lines below) can be played below fret 4, with only one position for each note. Learn that fretboard region first - and C major scale only is enough. You can of course calculate any note on any fret of any string if you want, by counting up from the open string (whose note you know). One fret = one semitone. As a beginner, that might take you several seconds. Knowing piano will speed that up, you just have to remember that the black notes are strung out alongside (in between) the white notes, given equal space. A to B is 2 frets, B to C is 1. Etc.

  2438. musictheory 2018-06-04 17:17:15 cookedken
    Try to find a book that includes indications of fret board position, strings and fingering. If you keep to the 1 finger = 1 fret rule whilst learning scales and reading exercises it's pretty easy to develop good practice. For example, check out a 2 octave E minor scale in open position. If you're working from a particularly detailed book, the notes will also have numbers next to them which refer to your fingers. If you keep your index finger covering the first fret, and your pinky at the fourth you can follow the numbers (fingering) and you'll end up with this: E 0-2-3- A 0-2-3 D 0-2-4 G 0-2 B 0-1-3 E 0 I find that this method of notation is quite similar to tab. I'd imagine that if you learned piano from a piano book you would have read the fingering numbers instead of the notes, because at one stage that would have been a good way to play the "right" notes. It's a similar concept with this. I would recommend also learning your root position triads on the guitar. They appear to not be as logical as piano chords, but once you've got some practice under your belt, the patterns emerge! ~~Guitar chords are often chord inversions~~ (with the root on the bottom**), Guitar chords are often not voiced in stacked thirds as you could play easily on the piano, so learn how to identify chords on the page spelled out in fourths and fifths and sixths instead of stacked thirds. Also, do a lot of practice from the G to the B string because they're only a major 3rd apart compared to the fourths between all other strings. ** I have a question, too! Is "inversion" the right term for a chord built from the root, with the remaining notes in a different order? For example I know C7 spelled E-G-Bb-C is an inversion but what about something like C-G-E-Bb?

  2439. musictheory 2018-06-04 23:10:01 Tim_Gilbert
    There's a lot of ways to yo about it. When you are brand new I recommend first learning the open chords. Also learn tab. Tab is incredibly easy, but I would recommend not trying to sight read it in order to become more familiar with your guitar. Look at tan to try to learn something, but try to play it without looking. Once you start to get better with guitar, I personally recommend trying to distance yourself from tab and use your ears as much as you can--i know that doesn't answer your "learn notes" question, but I think it's an important skill to connect sounds in your head to frets on your guitar, instead of thinking about it in numbers. As for learning notes, there s a lot of ways to go about it, but here's something I like to do because you can exercise while still playing music, insurance if just doing a drill: once you can barre, learn where the root note is in common chord shapes, then play easy 4 chord songs using only one shape. The easiest chords (I think) to start doing this are the shape used for e Maj and e min (this will teach you the e string) then the a Maj and a min (this will teach you the a string). After that you can use more difficult barre shapes like c maj, d Maj/ min, etc. E.g. a song that you would normally play as em open chord, a c maj open chord, and d Maj open chord, play it using the barred shapes using the e string root. Focus on the root note. You will learn the e string quickly. You can do this with different shapes to learn different strings. Hopefully that makes a bit of sense. I can try to make a quick video sometime if you'd like! First step tough: learn enough to play music and have fun. The rest will come

  2440. musictheory 2018-06-05 00:49:43 65TwinReverbRI
    "A beat", is the modern slang for "a song", or "a track" or "a backing which to rap/sing over" etc. As u/RJrules64 points out, this can be the entire instrumental parts to a song, including backing vocals and so on - IOW, everything but the main vocal in some uses. "beat" traditionally means a couple of things. But at the base level, the "beat" is NOT HEARD. It is "felt". And musical elements - sounds - either agree with the beat or not. "the beat" is implied by the sounds, or, we infer it from what we hear. If we hear a steady stream of notes each the same distance apart, we will assume that they are happening on the beat and thus the beat coincides with each note - if each note is one second long, and happens on each second, we'd say the beat is "one beat per second" - or what equates to 60 beats in a minute (60 BPM). Traditionally, musicians make sounds that mostly agree with the beat, or fall on multiples or divisions of the beat (like one note per two beats, or two notes per one beat, etc.) so that the beat is not obscured - and when we hear music where musicians "play on the beat" we will be able to infer the beat from the sounds we hear. Musicians may intentionally obscure the beat for a little bit of time - Syncopation - but if it's done for too long, we will infer a different beat than was intended. The pulse we "feel" and interpret as the beat, is typically like a clock ticking - steadily at a fixed rate. For a clock, it ticks once per second, or at "60TPM" (ticks per minute). That is the "tempo". If, the pulse is 80 BPM, musical sounds that happen on the beat will be "at a faster tempo" than the same thing at 60 BPM. However, because we can play divisions and multiples of notes and still stay "in time", music that has a lot of activity - playing 4 notes per beat for example - might sound fast, but the beat itself is actually slower. What this means is, not every musical sound you hear is "on the beat". Many of them are on various divisions, or "sub beats". So in other words, if you heard a string of notes that went 1 note per beat, then 2 notes per beat, then 4 notes per beat, then 8 notes per beat (as if often heard in the EDM cliche pattern) the beat is NOT actually speeding up - there are just more notes happening per beat so the RHYTHMIC ACTIVITY is increasing in pace. The beat - and tempo - may change in pieces - it can gradually speed up or slow down, or suddenly speed up or slow down, but in general, the implied pulse stays consistent for usually extended periods of time - often an entire song for example. HTH

  2441. musictheory 2018-06-05 06:49:42 Jongtr
    Just one point if you're coming from piano. Guitar is written an octave higher than it sounds, so middle C is written on 3rd space up (played on 2nd string 1st fret). This is because guitar is a mid-range instrument, but only uses one stave - so the treble stave is lowered by an octave, sitting across middle C.

  2442. musictheory 2018-06-05 14:56:43 Vice4Food
    I'm not sure if you are looking for that exact voicing on piano or if you want the same chord, but a voicing that is more idiosyncratic to the piano. I'm going to try my best here. So guitar chords are often "spread voicings," with intervals of 5ths and 4ths instead all 3rds like many piano voicings. The chord you mentioned is an Eb7(b9), if we ignore the upper b and e strings. If you include those notes it's an Eb7(b9, b13). The e in the g string at the 9th fret is the same note as the open string, so I'm going to forget about that. From the lowest note to the highest that exact guitar voicing would be: Eb, G, Db, E, B (Cb) This is very common for jazz pianists, a shell voicing in the left hand (Eb, G, Db) and tensions in the right (E and B). I would suggest learning close position triads and seventh chords on piano first, and then learning to use spreads and tensions. You'll notice that you can play tight clusters of notes on piano, and not on guitar. At the same time, you can play wide spread voicings on guitar that can be awkward for beginner pianists. I hope this helped.

  2443. musictheory 2018-06-05 16:19:11 Jongtr
    You need to know the notes, basically. E = 0 = E B = 0 = B G = 9 = E D = 11 = C# or Db A = 10 = G E = 11 = D# or Eb It's pretty easy work all those out. (Ask if you're not sure how.) From low to high pitch (which you can determine by playing and listening), that's Eb-G-B-Db-E-E. (No need to know the chord name....) To transfer the exact same voicing to piano (which may not be necessary), you then need to know which octave those notes are in. Middle C on guitar is B string fret 1, G fret 5, D fret 10, A fret 15. So the B and Db in your chord are either side of middle C on piano. The others are all in close voicing - i.e., the nearest examples of each note below and above the B-Db. The top two E's are the same pitch (G fret 9 and open E), so you'll only get one of those on the piano! Of course you could just do this by ear, if you had a piano handy. ;-) Then you wouldn't even need to know the note names! - let alone the chord name, which btw I'd call Eb7#5b9 (Eb7b9b13 is also correct but suggests the chord could have a P5, Bb), a typical jazz altered dominant (of Ab minor or major). Tell a pianist (or indeed another guitarist) that chord name, and you'd be unlikely to get the same voicing. There are all kinds of ways a pianist could play Eb7#5b9, and a few other ways a guitarist could. IOW, if the voicing (shape) isn't an issue for you, then it's quicker (for transmitting the information) to use the chord name. If it's that exact shape/voicing you want, then the note names are enough, ideally notated. In that case, of course, you need to know piano notation and the difference from guitar.

  2444. musictheory 2018-06-05 21:23:58 Jongtr
    > These compilations of Bulgarian vocal music have more in common with early modernism than with the local traditional music. They are arrangements of folk tunes with modern accompaniment. I realise that, but it sounds to me as if they are deviating from western tuning. Is that an illusion? > I loved the Ethiopian lyre music - imagine going to church to listen to some pentatonic blues, awesome. I like the idea that this is the oldest type of string instrument still in use. It certainly sounds ancient.

  2445. musictheory 2018-06-06 06:01:04 LeeBears
    Lots of good points by others here already, namely that it isn't the specific chord progressions that make the music effective, but the way it's executed. As a long time Velvet Underground fan, I'll try to develop these points a little further. Let's take [white light/white heat](https://youtu.be/62ckXALWn1M) for example. The chord progression is very basic, to the point of cliche. It's all in the instrumentation that make it interesting. You have Reed and Sterling Morrison both playing heavily distorted guitars in a kind of growling, understated way, as opposed big bombastic ROCK N ROLL riffing. Against this kind of background of fuzz, we have some kind of demented Jerry Lee Lewis-like piano pounding. Mo tucker's primitive style drumming adds more to the texture, not so much accentuating the beat, but instead pounding out the subdivisions into your head. Under it all, we have the bass (I forget if John Cale was still with them at this point or if it's Doug Yule) which is just playing straight eighth note roots, with a little bit of fuzz. Add it all up and its somehow more than the sum of it's parts. A kind of fun, understated edginess (not using that term in it's current derisive context.) One can definitely see how a song like this laid the foundation for the punk genre that came later. Check out [Mick Ronson's cover](https://youtu.be/Ig3OS1SiBBI) of this song from a few years later. It's all the same instruments, but (to borrow your term) "cheesy" (but in a good way IMO). I think a lot of that great Velvet Underground sound can be attributed to their willingness to experiment with their instruments and the overall sound of the ensemble. Things like John Cale's viola in their early works, sometimes adding a nice string affect to their songs, sometimes morphing into a screeching cacophony. Nico's unique voice on the first album, awkward yet darkly beautiful at the same time. Things like Lou Reed tuning all his guitar strings to D on Venus in Furs. Well, I'm starting to ramble here, but I'd say don't focus solely on the chords, but how they are played instead.

  2446. musictheory 2018-06-06 18:08:09 grunfy_com
    CAGED, circle of fifths. Other than that, there are "tricks" to memorize scale patterns e.g. by using intervals, this guy has a nice video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3DCpJlGQFA&feature=youtu.be&t=126 Guitar is bit trickier than piano, especially because of "shift" between 3rd and second string. I think he explains it quite well. I created interactive diagrams based on above explained system which can help you visualize it (hopefully). Note: it is not very mobile devices friendly. demo gif: https://imgur.com/PU501BC link: https://grunfy.com/pentanizer.html announcement: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guitar_Theory/comments/8c1s9i/pentatonic_shape/

  2447. musictheory 2018-06-07 01:31:35 stratofax
    Since I've played guitar in a number of bands with only guitar, bass and drummer, I've learned how you and the bassist really need to work together to fill out the sound. Basically, you and the bassist, the two harmony instruments, need to cooperate to fill the harmonic space between the lowest note bass is playing and the high notes the singer is hitting. Note that many of these tips need to be modified for the genre you're playng. For example, some types of bass lines might sound good in country or jazz, but will sound stupid in rock. Here are some tips for the bassist (I've played a lot of bass, too): * Play intervals instead of just the root note of the chord. Slap bass is an example of this, where you whack the root with your thumb, and pluck the octave with your finger. So, the octave is a great interval. So is the fifth, both above and below the root note (inverted fifth). * Play a triad or a scale (walking bass). The triad is of course the set of notes that make up the chord (root, third and fifth) that the band is playing. By extending that with a scale, adding notes like the sixth, 9th, and 11th, for example, the bassist can cover a wide harmonic range, and really fill out the sound on the low end. * Try playing the bassline up an octave instead of playing it down below the fifth fret on the E and the A string. This may fill a gap in your sound. * Generally, the bassist should nail the root on the "1" beat (chord change) and then they can play pretty much whatever they want for the remaining three beats in the measure. * The bassist should always focus on syncing up their rhythm with the kick drum. When this happens, you'll know, because everyone will get up and dance. Also, it makes the rhythm section sound **HUGE**. Tips for the guitarist (that's you): * As the guitarist, you have to do a lot of work, because your instrument can fill the harmonic space between the bass and the singer. You also may be tempted to play single note melodies. Avoid this whenever possible, because this will really thin out your sound. * Learn different chord voicings for the major and minor chords. The CAGED system is a great way to organize this information up and down the fretboard. Learn to play the chord triads, and learn how to play them up the neck. * Don't just play the "cowboy chords" in the first position. play chords with only the top three (unwound) strings. Play up the neck. Listen to how these different voicings change the sound of the band. * Try incorporating open strings in your chords. For example, if you're playing an E chord at the 7th fret, use the open low (or high) E string to make the chord sound even bigger. * Advanced: use a capo to play open strings in different keys. Extra credit: Experiment with open tunings. * Just strumming a chord can get boring fast. Try different right hand techniques to make your chords sound interesting. Examples: cross\-picking (picking each note individually but letting them all ring together); finger picking, hybrid picking (using both a plectrum and your fingers) and arpeggios (play each note in the chord in sequence). * To add melodic movement to your rhythm playing, try sliding chord shapes up and down the neck, or add notes, like the sus4 or sus2, to your chords. * If it's time for you to solo, try using double stops (playing two notes at once) to make your sound bigger. Or, build your solos around chord arpeggios. Since most music coming out today is multi\-track studio stuff, it's hard to find many examples of good rock power trios (if the singer isn't playing an instrument, he doesn't count). You have to go back in time to hear the really good stuff. Here's the best of the best: * Jimi Hendrix, with the Experience: he's the guy who showed us how to play rhythm and lead guitar simultaneously. Listen to how he adds melodic flourishes to the rhythm parts in songs like Fire or Purple Haze. Listen to Little Wing to hear the primer in how to make one guitar sound like an orchestra. * Eric Clapton with Cream: Clapton, Baker, and Bruce sounded huge, even though it was just guitar and bass. Check out the live version of Crossroads to hear how they did it. * The Who: John Entwistle was one of the best bass players in rock. Pete Townsend said that when he died, they had to replace him with a bass player and *an entire horn section* to fill the hole his absence left in the band. Townsend was also an amazing guitarist. He didn't focus on singing single\-note leads, but his guitar sound was huge. He was a master of using interesting chord shapes. Listen to Live at Leeds if you want to hear the Who at their high decibel peak. * Stevie Ray Vaughn and Double Trouble: SRV studied Hendrix and Clapton, plus other blues masters like Albert King, to develop his own sound. Their first album was basically recorded live \-\- there are very few overdubs. Listen to how he works with the bass to create a massive sound. * The Black Keys: when these guys started, it was just guitar (Dan Auerbach, who also sang) and drums. The guitar parts fill up a lot of space, even after they added a bassist. These bands will show you how it's done! I may have missed a few good examples, which I hope will be remedied in the comments. By the way, playing in a trio like this will do more to improve your guitar playing than practically anything else, since you have to cover so much ground. Good luck and rock on!

  2448. musictheory 2018-06-07 10:01:28 HammerAndSickled
    Augmented 6s are more like a specialized form of tritone sub. Tritone subs can lead anywhere, not just the tonic. You can do a string of tritone subs around the circle of fifths to get a chromatic bassline if you want!

  2449. musictheory 2018-06-07 12:38:12 ttd_76
    3 notes per string where the patterns work sort of diagonally rather than up and down. Leavitt/Berkeley where you subdivide the frets into groups of five with your index finger covering two frets. Really more about coverage and fingering than patterns. Or any number of nameless “grips” that people use. They are all just ways to chunk up the fretboard to help you visualize noteshapes and ways to finger them. Really, they all kind of blend together. Each Caged shape is really just two octave patterns stacked on top of each other. If you see the basic pattern building blocks then you can figure out CAGED shapes for yourself. And each pattern block is just a series of intervals so if you know all the Seconds, thirds, etc. then you can work out any scale or mode. You end up having to know them all in the end, anyway. There is no perfect fingering or shape that works perfectly for every situation. 3 NPS works great for fast scale runs if you like metal. Also good for modes. It’s not so good for chords/arpeggios. CAGED is great for seeing shapes but the fingerings can get awkward.

  2450. musictheory 2018-06-07 15:49:37 circleof5surecanjive
    It is relevant to know note names on the E A (and D) string, but beyond that, you should be playing by distance and location based knowledge, ie: a 5th is above the note I am currently on (except for B string variations). Also, knowing relative minors, notes of particular chords, etc... is something that I always memorized like how I memorized times tables in math class. I know the theory behind how they are created, so now I am simply going to memorize them. [Look here for memorization charts.](https://eatsleepguitar.com/mental-musicianship/) I also eventually found "a trick" for practically playing modes without needing to do any theory-based "equations" in my mind as a pre-step. Feel free to check it out: [Modal Magic](https://eatsleepguitar.com/modal-magic/).

  2451. musictheory 2018-06-07 19:14:10 LiamGaughan
    IF it's a total beginner guitar player, reading notation then make sure they are using 'finger per fret' for playing the notes in the open position, so on the high E string, first finger for F, third finger for G, and on the B string, first finger for C and third finger for D. Just make sure you don't let them fall into the habit of sliding one finger all over the guitar, which a lot of young children love to do. If they are learning chords, I like to start with chords like Em using fingers 2 and 3 on the left hand rather than 1 and 2.... this makes E and Am a lot easier, rather than having to rearrange the fingers.

  2452. musictheory 2018-06-07 21:33:22 JarsusCrust
    Guitar teacher here. Okay, for melodic playing, start on the first string (high E string) and drill the 5\-note chromatic scale, starting with open E, then F with finger 1, F# finger 2, G finger 3, G# finger 4 and back down. Have them say the pitch names as they go up with sharps and go down with flats. Next move to chords, start with Em, then in the first month they should know C A G E D Am Dm G7 D7 C7 A7 B7 F. Make sure to understand that not all strings are played for chords like C and D. While learning chords, teach them how to read chord diagrams. Show them the first few, then have them figure it out on their own. Make sure fingers are as perpendicular to the fretboard as much as possible. Firm fingers always. "Practice chords 10 minutes a day, and then the pain will go away" that's your mantra for them. I think Justin Guitar is a pretty solid resource: [www.justinguitar.com](https://www.justinguitar.com) First goals should be to 1) play a monochromatic melody, like Ode to Joy and 2) play 2 chords in progression. Like C\-G\-C\-G. Switch it up and have checkpoints and make goals. Sorry if seemed rambled, kind of in a hurry. If you have any questions, LMK.

  2453. musictheory 2018-06-07 22:18:24 LiamGaughan
    I see it from students who taught themselves wonderwall.... Because the first chord is an Em7 voicing that needs 1 and 2 where Em is and then 3 and 4 adding D and G on the B and E strings at 3rd fret. Using 1 and 2 you lose the advantages of having spare fingers for little melodic licks, E string bass fiddles, or easy changes to other chords. You gain nothing from doing it, and it's not any harder to use 2 and 3. Usually just ask them to play Am afterwards and they'll realise it makes more sense to use 2 and 3. This also leads me to teach A with 2 3 4, because it's easier to learn from Am, you just swap a finger. Again, lots of people do A with 1 2 3 but then you might have Am as well, and the whole hand has to change. There's a time for both common ways for most chords I suppose (wonderwall blegh) but 2 and 3 gets you to more chords, quicker and easier. G is another one, I like the C shape moved down , 32xxx4 because it's better for melodies but some like 21xxx3 or 21xx34. It can depend on context, but I've found the 324 fingering to be way more useful over time, you can move to G7 much easier as well.

  2454. musictheory 2018-06-07 23:54:57 LiamGaughan
    Also forgot to add, if they are young then the first chords they learn can be 3 string chords (Some may be too small to reach to A and D string for the proper Em), just the high strings, so a G chord can just be them holding the high G note (3rd fret of E string) and strumming the three strings. Same for a C chord, hold the note C on the B string, and strum the top three strings. Em is even easier, just strum the three strings open.

  2455. musictheory 2018-06-08 01:26:29 MrHarryReems
    If you were switching to the F chord, you'd be in the perfect position, which is precisely why I use this fingering. Just move up one fret and place your index for the barre, and the middle finger on the A on the G string. Ultimately, it's a matter of what works best for you. There are no absolute rules regarding which fingers to use for chords, so long as all of the correct notes are used.

  2456. musictheory 2018-06-08 04:10:28 d3tra
    Ok so dude I started learning on the guitar. I'm going to give you a guide to learning guitar for the sake of being applicable to PRODUCING music. I was in your exact position not to long ago. Learning music theory on a guitar can be really easy, first you need to learn the location of notes across the first two top strings (A and E), and if you can mentally form an image of those two strings and where the notes are located you can technically utilize any piano/guitar lesson to learn. Also with this information you can use this information across ANY of the strings. Learn locations of these notes to the point where you can use this website [https://random.bretpimentel.com/](https://random.bretpimentel.com/) and be able to play these notes in 5 seconds or less. (confined to one string at a time) Then practice a melodic/harmonic/major scale and learn it. Practice building chords, and learn basic chord shapes. (Major, minor, major 7th, minor 7th, 7th, add9's) Also this is just a general guide to understanding music theory on any instrument, but this is how I would do it for guitar. At this point all you have to get down is switching chord shapes. Also I recommend for producing you purchase an electric guitar and either use an audio interface to directly plug into your computer, or a realtone cable. I have a really shitty guitar, but with some decent strings it sounds fine plugged into my interface through some digital pedals and amps.

  2457. musictheory 2018-06-08 12:55:47 jazzadellic
    I played guitar for about 6 years before I entered college and began studying music. In that time I learned quite a bit on my own - all my diatonic scales, modes, arpeggios, circle of fifths, etc...I knew all the chords in all keys. I taught myself to play jazz, which is quite a challenging style of music to learn by yourself with no help. But when I entered college there were far more things that I didn't know, then that I knew. I first took a fundamentals of theory class which taught me how to read standard notation (for theory analysis purposes, not for sight reading purposes). I learned all kinds of useful things that I didn't previously know. Yes there was some overlap. Some of the things we studied I knew about. But even though I knew how to play my scales very well at that point, I didn't really understand them as well as I thought. I learned about intervals and all kinds of other nifty things that were new to me. As much as I knew, there was still plenty more smaller details to learn about. Maybe you "know" more theory than I did when I started taking my theory classes. But going through those theory classes gave me a very thorough understanding of theory. And I can see how it all connects. I use it regularly to help me with my improvisation as well as composition. I wish I had learned it sooner. Think how difficult it would be to learn say string theory or astrophysics, if you had skipped basic math in 6th grade or algebra in 9th grade or whatever. And then you say "I want to learn astrophysics, but don't want to waste time on basic math courses, because I know if I have a bag of 10 apples and I eat 2, I have 8 left." Or something along those lines. Well there are still a lot of basic procedures you would need to learn in the basic math class in order to learn string theory properly. You'd in fact never be able to understand the advanced physics if you didn't go through that 6th grade math class that you skipped. Just get it over with and don't over think it. You'll breeze through the easy stuff like the bag of apples, but you'll find you'll learn some critical basic stuff you need in order to understand the advanced stuff later.

  2458. musictheory 2018-06-08 21:23:48 crucadi
    Try blending in tasty suspense by playing around (just minor variations, nothing big) with the g-string, if you’ll pardon the pun, in major chord progressions. I find that some dissonance to some extent can make it interesting and potentially lift the progression.

  2459. musictheory 2018-06-09 00:15:55 65TwinReverbRI
    Hmmm, it's most likely something to do with a psychological effect - perception as you say - and may have a name in psychology or psychology of music circles. For some reason, we "conceptualize" harmony from the lowest note. This may be a question of why some cultures read left to right, and others right to left (and IIRC, some bottom to top). The Greeks apparently conceptualized music differently - their modes, which ultimately became (or at least inspired) our 8 Ecclesiastical Modes were calculated from the HIGHEST note down. There's not necessarily any logic to this either, but one of their instruments had strings and they named the strings according to their relationship to the body "the string closest to the body" for example - whether it was high or low. So the way we conceptualize notes can be influenced by practical factors rather than solely aural ones. Even with the first harmony, there doesn't seem to be a preference for whether the added voice was added above or below the Cantus Firumus. But somehow, along the line, we formed a preference for "low to high" thinking - in the listing of the 8 Modes for example. This may have simply been tied into Left to Right, "listing" common in the language. So unlike the Greeks, early western theorists organized the modes from low to high. That probably set the stage for our "hearing" the "beginning note" which was also the lowest note, as "more important" and what everything else "related to" or later "was built on". One of my musical pet peeves is when someone spells Bass "base", but the word does come from the same root - the "base" or "foundation" of what something is built on. So we have learned, through thousands of years, to judge everything else in relation to the bass note. So as the other poster said, all the interval relations *in relation to the bass note* change and thus change the "quality" of the sound to make it match other things we are *very* familiar with and define/categorize as other things. But, we should realize while this is a pretty powerful effect, the same can be said about many other things. For example, one of my teachers early on played a bunch of C and G notes on the piano then played 1 Eb. His point: It only takes one 3rd to really tell us whether the chord is major or minor. And we can also take the example of adding 7ths - if you take a triad progression, and add a line at the 7th, we'll hear those as different chords too. And, if you did something like the following: G - D - F# - Eb C - G - B - Ab with a static Bb over top, we're going to hear those as Cm7, Gm, BMaj7, and Abadd9 most likely. And if we reverse your example, and play a static bass line with moving chords on top, playing A - C#m/A is going to sound like you changed the A to Amaj7. So it's not just the bass line phenomenon but because it's something that happens a lot in pop music people probably notice that one more.

  2460. musictheory 2018-06-09 00:56:36 Seafroggys
    Chord progressions are just one part of making something sad or serious. Like, minor keys are generally considered "sad.". But writing a tune at 140 bpm with jangly guitars in a minor key will not sound that sad. Whereas a song in a major key, generally considered a "happy" sound, at a slow methodical tempo with dynamic string swells can be incredibly sad sounding.

  2461. musictheory 2018-06-09 01:05:21 65TwinReverbRI
    Basically, here's what's happening: 1. We have had musical pitches, and what we can call "scales" for very a very long time. 2. The Greeks, with their fascination for numbers, wanted to explain why the notes they use in their scales were chosen (and the real reason is lost in time). 3. Now, while maybe not the reason "why", these attempts to explain things actually did result in mathematical models that could be used for things. Thus, the Pythagorean School is credited with coming up with a TUNING SYSTEM to tune the existing Greek modes. They used Ratios. What they realized was - and this is the important bit - that by using certain ratios, they could generate different tunings. But the problem was, no matter what they did, the system was infinite - IOW, just to take a comprehnsible example, if we take F, and tune a C exactly 3:2 above it, and then continue to stack this interval, F-C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#-D#-A#-E# what we find when we get to E# - which is a note we consider "enharmonic" to F - the "same note" - is that they're out of tune with each other! This is called a "comma" or the "Pythagorean Comma". 4. We like our system to be bounded by the Octave because it's 2:1 - exactly double the frequency. But the problem is, the numbers aren't really divisible by 12 chromatic steps. We can't really BOTH divide the 8ve into 12 equal parts, AND have the ratios be correct. Because this darn comma gives you a "remainder" or some leftover distance that's not quite a semitone or tone. A great analogy is our year - 365 days right? Well, no, becuase every 4 years we have a leap year. See, the musical scales we decided to use are like days and the octave is like a year - when we try to divide up a year into an exact number of 24 hour days it doesn't work - there's a "comma" - some left over. And we have to add a day every 4 years to get it back on track. 5. So what people have been doing throughout the course of history is trying to "improve the calendar"! In fact, the various calendars - Julian, Gregorian, etc. are great examples of this - should we do it to the moon phases, or our position around the sun, or only when Venus is in transit, or only when the Crabs come out on the beach to spawn? And you'll notice that different cultures have different calendars based on their NEEDS - based on what they need their calendar to do for them - like, when they can go hunting at night because it's a full moon, or when they can plant a certain crop because it's the same time of year. 6. So there are two types of people - those who try to "perfect" the tuning system (based on some arbitrary measure) and those who "bend" the tuning system to meet their musical and artistic needs. For example, we currently use a system of tuning called "12 Tone Equal Temperament" or 12TET. We use this system because we had a desire to play in any of 12 keys. If we use a tuning system that favors one key, and not others, one key will sound good but the others will sound "out of tune". By dividing the octave into 12 equal parts, we've been able to produce a tuning that allows us to play in all 12 keys, essentially treating them the same - so for example, when you take a piece in the key of C Major and transpose it to Bb major because a singer needs it a bit lower, neither key is more or less in tune than the other. 7. Now, the Key system didn't always exist and even early on, there wasn't the desire to play in all 12 keys. In fact, prior to the Baroque period, music was still Modal, and "keys" as we know them weren't a thing. So since they had no keys to transpose to, there was no real need for a 12tet system - so it didn't evolve. Instead, they used other tunings that made the music they wanted to make "more in tune for them" and if it made another key out of tune, it didn't matter because they just didn't use it anyway. 8. Along comes Bach, and on the heels of this change from a Modal system to a Tonal one, and a lot of re-vitalized interest in tuning schemes that will work with this new system, someone comes up with a system of "Well Tempered" tuning. Essentially "Well Tempered" is somewhat like "Equal Tempered" in that it allowed Bach and other musicians to write in all 12 keys, hence Bach's two books called "The Well Tempered Clavier" which feature a Prelude and Fugue in all 12 Major and Minor keys - twice! 9. There is a, let's call it "difference of purpose" amongst many musicians, scholars, and theorists. Many composers were looking for a system that was "as in tune sounding as possible" but also had other practical advantages, such as "playing in as many keys as possible, in tune as possible". But others sought, or seek, a "perfect" system. No such system exists for keys as we can't change how long it takes the Earth to go around the Sun and at what point in its rotation the Earth will be when it meets the same point in its revolution. But, if you throw out the need to play in all keys (which is what people did before keys came along anyway) you can get more "perfectly tuned" - at least to a non-musical standard. 10. In acoustics, and science, and physics, and math, we can describe things like "perfect ratios" - 2:1. Well Tempered, or 12tet is not unlike Pi - 22/7 - 3.14 then some huge string of numbers. What we do in other systems is "round up" to make it work. But it is possible to tune to "pure ratios" or other whole number intervals and so on. Doing so with a 12 note octave will produce notes that won't be "in tune" with what we call in tune in 12tet, but 12 notes - or 7 notes, or 5 notes, or 19 notes and so on could be divided into an octave and tuned. Now, here's one catch - the Greeks didn't have 12 notes and they didn't try to tune the 7 they had equally - they were cool with some being what we'd call whole steps and others being half steps - or even smaller and larger! So many cultures developed tuning systems where notes are not necessarily the same distance from each other. They were cool with that. So some people are interested in just creating scales that sound "really in tune" for the notes they use, while others are still looking to calculate Pi to the final digit and hopefully find a small enough ratio they can adjust notes buy to get them to work out right. 11. In this line of thought, "in tune" means "matching perfect ratios" which actually has an acoustic precedent - the Harmonic Series (it actually is a Physics things, but sound, being a physical phenomenon, adheres to the laws of physics). And when intervals between notes have "pure" ratios, they don't cause sum and difference frequencies that don't align with their fundamental frequencies. What this means is, if you put 100 and 200 Hz notes together, you'll get additional frequencies of 100 and 300 produced (the difference and sum) but since they're all whole number ratios, they don't produce any "unpleasant" sounds. But if the numbers don't line up, we get "beating" - a phenomenon where the difference is so low it doesn't sound like a pitch, but fast enough to be annoying and "unpleasant" and something we describe as either "dissonant" or in this context, "out of tune". 12. So in 12tet, you get "beating" between intervals - but they all beat equally and aren't so bad as to be considered horrible - all the music you hear most of the time - that's all 12tet and no one's running around screaming about how "out of tune" it is (in fact, our brains can tolerate a pretty wide range of "out of tune-ness" before it bothers us). In other temperaments, you don't get any beating that sounds bad. 13. So the trade-off is, you can either tune "beatless" and get a "perfect" tuning, but you can't play in many different keys or only certain note combinations will be "in tune" while others will be noticeably out. You can try and "absorb" the comma in a 12 note system by either assigning it to just one place (a "wolf" interval) or averaging it out (where we get "mean"tone temperament and equal temperament) over the whole scale. This allows you to play in many or all keys in tune, with only certain intervals or none sounding horribly out of tune. And basically, if you take the average of 12tet and start making some intervals more in tune, others will have to become less in tune, so there's sort of this continuum where you get maybe half the the notes really in tune and the others way out, or all of them equally out of tune at a level we don't care about. 14. Of course, as with anything, there are those who have ulterior motives such as trying to say one tuning system is "better" than another and should be "universal" and so on. Or since it's "nature's tuning" we should adhere to that, blah blah blah. But the fact of the matter is, we have decided to tune our systems IN SPITE OF any "natural" mathematical models in order to achieve more practical results, such as playing in multiple keys. I don't know that the article you quoted is necessarily taking that position, but it is a common position or an undercurrent in a lot of those kinds of writings. That said, this development of "Well Tempering" is actually a fascinating and important step along the evolutionary path from "purer tuning" to "tuning we can use in all keys" and that Bach wrote this monumental work to "show it off" makes it worth studying on those merits alone. It's kind of neat in a theory buff way :-) HTH

  2462. musictheory 2018-06-09 01:48:07 65TwinReverbRI
    Theory is not instrument specific, so it really doesn't matter. There can be a slight difficulty when you use a dropped tuning - let's just use Tuned to Eb for example - 6 string guitar down a half step. If you call the open string E, but it sounds Eb it could throw you if you're doing exercises with audio, or comparing to another instrument, etc. IOW, some people, if they're tuned down to C, still think of an E chord shape as producing an E chord. Essentially, it means it's a "transposing instrument". But instead you work on SOUNDING pitches, seeing what would be "G#" on the 4th fret as an E chord (because the "open E" is really a C and the 5th fret would be an E) then you'd be OK. It's just the confusion between sounding pitch and instrument pitch that could get you. But if you know you're playing an Eb - that's what you call it and that's what it sounds like, it takes care of itself. So either just know the difference between "concert pitch" and your pitch, or do everything in "concert pitch". IME, theory is better thought of as "in the air" or "on paper", not on any instrument. But yes, doing examples on an instrument is the perfect way to reinforce it. Theory is no good unless you apply it.

  2463. musictheory 2018-06-09 07:38:12 65TwinReverbRI
    Not sure about the app, but usually what you do with something like Just Intonation is tune it to a particular note. So a just intonated scale "on C" will sound great for chords in the key of C, or at least the notes and basic intervals of the key of C. But, if you play an F# chord, or other chord out of the key, they can be wildly out of tune. So your app may be selecting JI for a keynote you pick - if you set the key to D, it's going to JI the notes according to that keynote rather than C. In fact, I'd say that when people are talking about non-12tet tunings in general, the starting pitch MUST be included as it dictates all intervals. We assume C but you can just tune from F, or G, etc. So basically your phone is probably "transposing" the interval ratios up or down for each key (as it should actually!) rather than keeping C always tuned to the exact same frequency, and D tuned to the exact same frequency (they would be in JI on C) and so on. When you say a "pure" 12 note system the answer might be "maybe" - that is, if we don't want all intervals to be the exact same size. Now, the good news is, we can't really discriminate these small pitch differences anyways - that's why 12tet sounds OK to us. So if we had to "round up" or "round down" all the interval sizes until we got pure ratios, we could possibly end up with a 12 note system where the tuning is not equal between all notes (i.e. not all of them 100 cents) but they do produce pure reducible fractions - even if they're extremely large numerals in the ratios/fractions. But I would think enough people have already messed with that by now to determine that it's either mathematically impossible or it's like Pi - an irrational number, etc. I'm no mathemetician either. One issue that's never discussed in these things - becuase they all assume a "perfect" system - is that in real life things aren't perfect. One of the "complaints" in Electronic (Synthesized) music early on was that even using perfect 12tet, the music sounded "sterile" and "lifeless" and even "out of tune". So how can that be? Takng the piano for example, piano strings have mass and physical dimension. So there's a theoretically infinitely small node at half the length of the piano string that doesn't vibrate, so that the string can vibrate in 2 halves to produce the 1st overtone, while the whole length vibrates as well. But the problem is, in the real physical world, the mass of the string and its diameter means that this node takes up physical space, which means each of the 2 halves are actually a bit shorter than the total length of the string/2. Shorter string at same mass and tension means higher pitch. So the first overtone on a Piano string is NOT exactly 2:1, it's like 2.0000000487:1. And this varies with the length, diameter, and mass of the string. This is called "Inharmonicity". So it turns out that most sound-producing things - strings, drum heads, columns of air, etc. have varying degrees of inharmonicity. Our piano tuner (person) at the university has a piano tuner (device) that is able to "hear" the overtones and map them for a piano. Every string is different, and EVERY PIANO is different. Part of the beauty of this device is he can store in memory, the harmonic structure of every piano he tunes. And this means he can recall the presets for each place he goes. Now, the reason for this is, if you tune a C a 2:1 octave above another C, that C will be out of tune with the 2.00000000487:1 overtone of the lower note! So pianists use a thing called "Stretch Tuning" which means each octave is "stretched" a little bit (a little wide) because each octave is not tuned to the fundamental of the lower octave, but the "slightly sharp" overtone of the lower octave. It sounds "more in tune" to us if the higher notes agree with the lower notes' partials, rather than every note just being tuned to the exact frequency a chart says it should be - there's an "art" in piano tuning (though his device kind of takes the quesswork out of it!). Some modern synths not only include other Temperaments, but Stretch Tuning as well. Theoretically, on a Sine Wave with no overtones, an electronic instrument shouldn't cause the same issue with tuning and wouldn't need to be stretched. But we're so used to it, it actually sounds "wrong" when perfectly tuned. And don't forget that even though keyboards may play 12tet or stretched 12tet, other instruments like strings or voices have the ability to adjust their intervals (and so do others with embouchure, etc.). So what it really means is even though we say we use 12tet, we really don't, and we still make minute adjustments on the fly - any violinist worth their salt will tell you F# and Gb are tuned based on the context - 3rd of the chord, or 7th? Coming from G or going to G? String Quartets/Ensembles often "tune on the fly" the Bass or Bass part. This practice is centuries old - we now believe that many Renaissance composers actually took advantage of the just tunings on the fly to make piece modulate in sound when they really didn't on paper. But back to electronics - I have a synth at home that lets me tune any note within a range so a scale could be with the lower part of the scale really high and the upper part really low so it sounds "crushed" or "squeezed in" to a space smaller than an octave (hell, wouldn't exponentially decreasing interval sizes be more interesting than equally spaced intervals!). I can also to all kinds of temperaments, make up my own, Stretch tuning, etc. It's not a super amount of control, but enough to give you a taste. And there are certainly plenty of people toying with 1/4 tones, 1/8 tones and smaller. My question is more of, why don't they develop a genre based on these tunings rather than just composing the same old stupid way (and usually pretty simplistically in most cases) in some weird tuning. And really, the answer to that is really that IRL, a musical style develops that necessitates a new tuning, rather than the reverse. So until a new musical style develops, that breaks ties with Tonality, any other tunings are simply considered tinkering, and not "improving" or perfecting the existing system, because since Tonality and 12tet (ultimately) evolved together, they are perfect companions. And since most people want to compose music like they know, or can make money with, or have experienced, messing with the tunings just sounds like "out of tune regular music" (I'm over-exaggerating to make a point)! I think the style that necessitates a "more pure tuning" will have to evolve first, otherwise it will likely always sound contrived.

  2464. musictheory 2018-06-09 15:21:37 DarthFeminist
    When a string player plays quadruple stops, they don’t bow all four strings at the same time! They play the bottom two quickly followed by the top two. Do you understand that?

  2465. musictheory 2018-06-09 19:39:05 Phrygiaddicted
    >Is there a name for this effect? inversion. the harmonics (vibrational modes of an object) only project upwards, into higher frequencies. a string can't vibrate at a wavelength longer than the string itself, so that's kindof a given. since energy is projected upwards and not downwards, this makes harmonic intervals sortof unidirectional. the bass and it's harmonics become the frame against which the intervals above it are measured. this is why droning a note in the bass is a solid way to force a specific mode: you are forced to measure everything against that bass note and it becomes the "centre" and important. so on the one hand, while CCEG and ECEG and GCEG are all Cmaj, they do sound different, yet share a similarity. it's sortof like looking at an object from different angles. it's the same object but you get a different perspective. and some orders are more stable than others. like a tower of hanoi, root position would be in order from biggest to smallest: stable, hard to knock over, but 2nd inversion would be like having the smallest disc on the bottom and it's prone to collapse: even though you're using the same sizes of disc just in a different order. maybe thats a bad analogy: idk. regardless of the order: the notes C E and G will imply that you have a fundamental frequency of C. if you don't have the C on the bass, it sounds like something is "missing" and it will wobble as the bottom C is not there to support it. this is one reason why regardless of inversion: they are all Cmaj.

  2466. musictheory 2018-06-10 03:55:39 pipco
    oooh yes! i was just a kid and was in a studio with this horn band -real jazz dudes- and i had a solo in "Song For My Father" i wasn't prepared. I hit an open E string over a Eb major7. BOINK! worst day of my life. they were friends, got my balls broken forever. saw the tenor player a few months ago, after some small talk He asked if i been jammin' on "song for my father" lately. prick. heh heh

  2467. musictheory 2018-06-10 05:08:21 65TwinReverbRI
    The definition of any scale, really, is the "pattern" or "formula". We can state that in a number of ways, but, for example, with a Major scale, it is defined as having a whole step between the 1st and 2nd note, a whole step between the 2nd and 3rd note, and a half step between the 3rd and 4th note, and so on. This gives us a "pattern" of: W W H W W W H for a major scale. So it doesn't matter what note we start on - or what instrument we play it on, that pattern is the very definition of a Major Scale. What makes an "F Major Scale" or "G Major Scale" is simply starting that pattern on F, or G, respectively. These patterns happen on EVERYTHING, but the way many instruments are designed, it's just not as easy to see. Guitar is "multi-linear" in that you can map out this pattern (W=2 frets and H=1 fret) on a single string - for each of the 6 strings. So you can produce an E Major scale on the E string, an A Major scale on the A string, a D Major scale on the D string, and so on, and by starting on other notes than the open string, such as fret 1, you just add 1 to everything in the pattern - thus preserving the pattern, in this case to make an F Major scale. But on guitar, you can also play "across" the neck - from string to string. Piano, by contrast is just linear - it's one long row of notes - but as long as you preserve the pattern, whatever note you start on will produce the major scale for that note. It's just that on Piano, because of the way it's laid out, each scale will "look" different - for example, C Major is the only major scale that uses only the white keys. Any other Major scale is going to include some black keys - so it doesn't "look" the same as obviously. As another poster points out, the Flute - or clarinet, or Trumpet, etc. is not going to be a "linearly" laid out. One of the reasons so many recommend piano for learning theory is because theory "on the staff" is linear too, so piano makes the most logical sense. What you've said Holdsworth said (I didn't watch the vid) is pretty much common knowledge amongst guitarists and not something special he's doing. If you want to get a really good handle on it, check this out: https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/music-theory-made-simple-0-index-toc.1371119/

  2468. musictheory 2018-06-10 05:09:47 blue-cheer
    For a guitar solo, I usually come up with a framework for an introductory lick a few bars ahead of time based mainly on the rhythm. Not necessarily planning out every note in the lick, but getting a vague idea of what I'll do. I also try to come up with a rough framework for how the solo will progress, whether it's moving up the neck to build intensity, building around quoting the vocal melody, landing on more dissonant notes, whatever. That first lick inspires me to finish it and follow it up with something I come up with on the spot. After that, I generally think about a specific moment spent with a specific person. What moment and what person depends on whether I want to play a happy energetic solo or a slow sad one or a manic worried one or whatever. Some of the things I play will be note for note lines that I come up with in my head; some will be stock phrases that I'll vary, expand, or string together; some will be things I stumble upon without realizing it. As I'm playing, I listen to the rest of the band and throw in things based on what the others play. Some of these things are stock phrases, some of them are call and response things, some of them are unison lines, some of them are new ideas for a different direction to take the solo. For rhythm embellishments, lead fills during verses, bass lines, and things like that, I'm generally thinking about shapes and stock phrases which I'll twist around and modify based on context from the rest of the band. This is all the same method for improvising no matter what kind of music I'm playing.

  2469. musictheory 2018-06-10 11:10:20 Primatebuddy
    This is going to sound rinky-dink, but I play P&W every Sunday at my church. I don't particularly care for most P&W, but some songs really get me going, and just about *everything* is major; basically find the key, play some notes. I experiment with different modes and scales, and sometimes I come up with things that sound pretty good. Most times I play it safe--major scale and fallback patterns, but sometimes the order of the day is spreading out; wide intervals, playing on one string, etc. It all depends on how I feel and how much practice we get in before Sunday morning.

  2470. musictheory 2018-06-10 21:45:18 archofmusic_dot_com
    I have two understandings of what the tonic is. In traditional theory it is the key and scale you are basing your song on. So in the case of C Ionian, C is your home note or the note your music resolves to. I typically start my songs with the tonic but don’t necessarily end on them. It just has to do with the way sequencers work. If you end your sequence on the tonic then the note would play twice when it reached the end of the sequence and started over. And honestly I think not ending on the tonic adds this unresolved tension that leaves you wanting more. Personally I write everything in the key of D Dorian. Why? Because I see it as the actual tonal center of all the other modes. It is a symmetrical scale and lies perfectly centered among the other notes around the circle of fifths. Hence why I consider it the tonic. D is also the only symmetrical natural note on the piano and I don’t think that was an accident. Moving from D Dorian to D Mixolydian+Aeolian combined adds two symmetrical sharp or flat notes to the Dorian scale. So it’s easier to learn and play things on the piano in the key of D if you are using symmetrical scales. And I kinda like the idea of looking at the piano in this symmetrical way. You learn what notes you can transition to the two newly added sharps and flats symmetrically. Since the piano has such a wide octave range the key of a scale doesn’t really matter. The key of a scale simply makes a scale easier or harder to play. For instance. With the Dorian scale, the keys of D, E and G are the easiest to learn because they contain mostly natural notes. D Dorian is all natural notes. And E and G only contain one sharp or flat and is missing only one natural note. All the other keys of the Dorian add varying levels of complexity of combinations of natural and sharps and flats. So I choose simplicity over complexity as it frees me up to just sit down, explore, and compose without having to think about an unnecessarily key. Sure, any note can be considered the tonic. I just like D because it’s centered among the other notes around the circle of fifths and is why I consider it the tonic. The C Ionian mostly ascends around the circle of fifths. As such, I just can’t see it as the tonal center. With other more complex scales, the mode you choose and the key of that mode can make the scale simpler or more complex to play. For instance. There’s this scale called the Raga Kokil Pancham that has three connected notes centered on the circle of fifths, and then two connected notes disconnected by one P5 interval descending around the circle of fifths. If we descended the entire scale one P5 interval to the next mode, in a certain key, those two disconnected notes would both be sharps and flats. And the other three notes would be all natural notes. So this basically helps to distinguish the two disconnected notes from the other three notes making the scale easier to play. You know the two sharps or flats are a P5 interval and you know the three natural notes are also connected around the COF. Any of the notes could be considered the tonic. It’s just your home note or what your music resolves to or whatever. But I honestly don’t really think about it much. I just write what I think sounds good. I like my music and I really don’t care if anyone else does. Like I said. It’s just fun to me. I like not having to think about it or over complexifying it. Honestly, Punkjackal, with all his theory knowledge, shared a couple videos of of his music with me and I wasn’t impressed by it at all. I thought it sounded like Phish. I hate chromaticism. I believe in staying within the limits and bounds of the scale you are playing. On the guitar sometimes I’ll modulate by playing something based on the low E string and then playing the exact same thing on the A string. My book has five scales, the Suspended Pentatonic, Dorian, Mixolydian-Aeolian Combined, Symmetrical 11-Tone (a scale I discovered and named) and the Chromatic. In months I went from playing the Dorian, to the Mixolydian-Aeolian, all the way up to the Symmetrical 11-Tone. And I could play the dickens out of that Symmetrical 11-tone. It’s just something you naturally learn to do by learning progressively more and more complex scales. But for some reason I just couldn’t get to the Chromatic. I just couldn’t figure out how to play it harmoniously. And on the guitar it’s the Keys of E, A, and D Dorian because those are the keys that contain all the open notes. All the other keys of the Dorian would be easier to play with a kapo.

  2471. musictheory 2018-06-11 02:29:44 65TwinReverbRI
    >An understanding of the term frequency already assumes a logarithmic containment and logarithmic definition of a number which is geometry and which is irrational. This is not music theory. It's Acoustics. >A logarithm assumes an irrational number as a geometric mean “containment”. This is math. Not music theory. None of this has anything to do with music. It has to do with SOUND. Sure, music is made of sounds, but you don't really have to know the tensile strength of steel to make music on a guitar. In fact, you don't even have to know how mass and tension and length are related. It's pretty obvious that the pitch goes up if you tighten the string. Sure there's some math that explains WHY the pitch goes up when you tighten a string, and can even define or predict how much it will go up. But it does you no good to have a string that is 4 Hz low, and knowing how to calculate exactly how much tension you will need to add based on the string length, diameter, mass, humidity, temperature, amount the neck will flex to compensate and the logarithmic difference between 20 and 24 Hz, and 6,000 ad 6,004 Hz. Because the ONLY way you have to practically measure the tension is by the resulting pitch increase. It's flat, you tune it up to the right note. All that other stuff be damned. It happens "in the background" and is unimportant for the act of music-making. In fact, once we're done tuning, that bit becomes irrelevant as it turns into WHEN you play the notes and in what order, versus any mathematical explanations of why X pitch is higher than W pitch. Do you know all your pitches? Do you know how to read music? Do you know your clefs, and key signatures? What about Major and Minor Keys and Scales? Do you know your intervals? Your Chords? Time Signatures? Rhythmic Values? Phrases, Cadences, Periods, Musical Form? Part-Wrting, Chordal Analysis? Non-Chord Tones? Diatonic versus Chromatic Harmony? If you are interested in Music Theory, then THOSE are the the things you should learn. And those are really just the "fundamentals". 99% of the people out there who THINK they know music theory don't even know what Non-Chord Tones are. And worse, they think that Acoustics is "music theory". If you're interested in Acoustics, fine. But if you're interested in Music Theory, you should never even trouble yourself with words like "Overtone" or "Harmonic" until you've mastered all of the things listed above.

  2472. musictheory 2018-06-11 07:22:58 avoqado
    **Some solo pianists:** [Duke Ellington - Take the A Train](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGK70IkP830) Duke Ellington is the OG of Jazz piano, solo or orchestra. Take the A Train has been covered a billion times, so maybe [African Flowers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLyplzFmTcQ) is a better example. [Thelonious Monk - 'Round Midnight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC68NtEmAcc) Thelonious Monk had the gift of being on time while sounding off, harmonic with wrong notes. He also sometimes choose simpler, harsher chords over larger, harmonic chords. You can really hear his personality in how he chooses to play, which isn't always the same every time. [Thelonius Alone in SF](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4mVNZQC9DM) [McCoy Tyner - Giant Steps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PukuQPUKfyU) Although he didn't record Giant Steps with John Coltrane, McCoy Tyner really put his work in to play Coltrane's old classics like they're supposed to, but also was part of Coltrane's journey into new music. Tyner is known for his block chords, forth chords, & a very fast right hand. He was also able to make sense of "Coltrane Changes," which is a triangle system between the circle of fifths. [For Tomorrow](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x6fvsLmf_Q) [Charles Mingus plays Piano](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_916snRF_g) Mingus is known as a bassist turned composer, but only worked with a couple pianist he liked. He wrote many songs from the piano then transposed it to whoever was working with him. He would also play for his kids to get them into music, as well as remanence Duke Ellington. Bluesy but explores a lot of emotions. [Keith Jarrett - Koln Concert](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzVlpPY2gsY) Grew up listening to this album. KJ has a wide range of genres he pulls from. Very soothing. He also sings with his melody. [Chick Corea - Jazz in MARCIAC](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2stYKZF-d4) Played with KJ in Miles Davis' band. Just as much of a genius as both of them. He can come up with any melody or chord progression on a dime. [Tigran Hamasyan live at Montreal](https://youtu.be/pNsOl-A6JAA?t=40s) In this performance, he uses a couple extra instruments in the first 5 minutes, but many of these songs are solo piano. He's Armenian, but uses a lot of influence from Egypt to India. Like KJ, sings his melodies. edit: almost forgot [Hiromi Uehara- I've got Rhythm](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JfKY0K_NQk) She's amazing [Tom & Jerry Show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HcKrd3K8_A) I mean comon [Old Castle, by the river, in the middle of a forest.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1FCKaep2R0) **A couple of other instruments:** [Javier Reyes - Suspiro](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-JfPkV74mc) I'm sure there's better solo guitarists out there that aren't also a part of a metal band, but Javier Reyes as brought Spanish classical guitar to 8-string guitars. He can do things like play a chord while playing a bass-line, or create chords that pianists can hit. [Zakir Hussain - Documentary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4u0AEl7xHw) Usually Zakir Hussain plays with a string or accordion instrument, or something resonating in the background. But Hussain has amazing skills with the tablas and is so far in the foreground that it takes center stage. His father played with Ravi Shankar (and probably knew George Harrison) & is known for his intense speed & calculating rhythms. He also performs "Bol" which is like a rhythmic speaking of what to play on the tabla. [Better representation of his work, with a string instrument providing melody/rhythm but him going off in Bol & on the tablas](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZpNazAVts) It's fun being sick on a sunday haha hope you enjoy.

  2473. musictheory 2018-06-11 08:18:34 jtizzle12
    There are great books on these things. I own a book I can’t remember the name of but it’s on the music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Really check out the Haydn stuff, because he was very much the template for everything that happened after. I think the next step in analyzing is the “how”. Right now you have the “what”. You know it’s a sonata form, you know it how many movements a sonata form has, you know what the exposition, development, and recapitulations are. You know how the theme is split, etc. So now, try to figure out the “how”. How he orchestrates certain things for them to pop out. How he develops the melodies in development sections, how he transitions from section to section (this brings you back to the “what”, what is he using to do these things). After that, there is the “why”. Why is he using specific things. It may be the result of instrument limitations, or maybe he wants certain things to work compositionally. A really great book, while not orchestral, is about Beethoven’s string quartets written by Joseph Kerman. He talks about a few quartets. A really good one is about the one in C minor. He talks about a certain pitch (specific to register) that every time it occurs it activates a change in the music. Can’t remember many details but it’s a great analysis to check out.

  2474. musictheory 2018-06-11 18:17:36 HashPram
    I think if I were looking at creepiness I'd probably start with film music for creepy films, and almost certainly I'd go straight for Penderecki because I like The Shining and I like Penderecki and I like the way Kubrick used experimental compositions to accentuate Jack Torrance's mental deterioration and disorientation. The thing to bear in mind though is that very little of the music in the film was composed for the film itself and so very little of it was composed with the express intention of sound 'creepy'. So if I take one example - [Polymorphia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cg5OzWGAms). This piece (like [Threnody](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HilGthRhwP8) and [Flourescences](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwImX18AS_E)) was composed as a notational and technical experimentation exploring ["noise as sound in music"](https://www.loc.gov/collections/moldenhauer-archives/articles-and-essays/guide-to-archives/polymorphia-and-fluorescences/). None of that stops it being creepy but it does mean that if you want to write creepy music you might want to put aside the idea of chord progressions and try approaching the subject from a different angle - either exploring the idea of "noise as sound in music", or deliberately using some of the technical devices Penderecki uses in his early works. There's quite a [nice video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DD7gzDYBgY) - a companion to the Threnody video above - that explains how the score works. You can see that you have 24 violins, 10 violas, 10 cellos and 8 basses split into smaller sections. There are instructions about playing the highest note possible on your instrument, there are instructions about assigning a specific note to each member of a section or subsection and getting them all to play those notes at the same time, there are [sound-mass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_mass) structures, various kinds of tapping gestures to be performed in usual places on the instrument, playing strings on the bridge, on the tailpiece, use of very slow vibrato - in Polymorphia he does things that sound very similar to Xenakis [sound mass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_mass) [glissandos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastaseis_(Xenakis) - look at the image halfway down the page to get an idea of what's going on). Of course you'll struggle to replicate the exact sound Penderecki's pieces make without a large(ish) string orchestra but that doesn't mean you can't use the same or similar techniques and try and work out a way around the limitations of the instrumentation you're dealing with. Plus if you're not intending to perform this - if it's just being done in the studio - there's no reason why you couldn't achieve a similar effect with multi-tracking, multiple delays and just [general silliness](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wwqG56BTeE). Either that or just play a [childlike tune on a plinky-box](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VKYzTu2v3k) with a bit of reverb on it. *edit* bloody formatting syntax.

  2475. musictheory 2018-06-11 18:58:12 Jongtr
    The most famous pseudo-Bach pop song is probably Whiter Shade of Pale, with its organ melody derived from Air on the G string.

  2476. musictheory 2018-06-12 03:33:21 beaumega1
    I'm gonna say no. Instruments of all types have complex, non\-sine wave waveforms, and they still adhere to the overtone series. Remember how the OT series is derived. Theoretically, we could have a saw wave on a plucked string, and we could still derive OT's from the 3/2, 4/3, 5/4, etc. relationships. Edit: The overtone series is a cosmic fingerprint of sorts, a constant. You know those percussion instruments which are just plastic tubes you can swing over your head? Swing 'em fast enough and you'll generate the overtone series.

  2477. musictheory 2018-06-13 01:35:25 beaumega1
    Here's the interval pattern: octave \> fifth \> fourth \> M3 \> m3 \> m3 \> M2 \> M2 etc... An octave has a frequency ratio of 2/1 A fifth has a frequency ratio of 3/2 A fourth has frequency ratio of 4/3 A M3 has a frequency ratio of 5/4 A m3 has a frequency ratio of 6/5 Etc. To reproduce this practically, pluck a guitar string at each of these ratios, and you'll get these intervals above the open string pluck (aka the fundamental frequency) Edit: This is also the series of intervals you get on a brass instrument when you play all notes with the same fingering as you ascend. Bonus\_Edit: Like the professor said, different amplitudes for each of these harmonics over a fundamental gives way to timbre.

  2478. musictheory 2018-06-13 02:04:55 65TwinReverbRI
    The Harmonic Series creates TIMBRE or "tone quality". It's what makes a Clarinet sound like a Clarinet and not a Flute. If you have a Clarinet and Flute play the exact same note (frequency) at the exact same volume (amplitude) then the Clarinet will sound like a Clarinet and not the Flute. The reason is, when you excite the air column in a Flute, the entire length of the air column vibrates, and then that length of air also subdivides into some smaller portions (like 2 halves) that vibrate as well. When you do the same in a Clarinet, the same is true, except that there are MANY MORE subdivisions of the air column that vibrate, and produce "overtones" that "color" the resulting sound - tone color. "The Harmonic Series" proper is a set of infinite numbers that are related in a specific way. These numbers describe a "perfect state" for various physical things, such as vibration in metals. It so happens that sound, being vibrations of air, and air being a physical medium that must adhere to the laws of physics, also follows this same pattern. To comprehend it for musicians, we generally use a string as an example. When a string that is fixed at both ends is plucked, it will give a "fundamental" frequency - the number of times it vibrates in seconds, which we use Hertz (Hz) as the unit of measure. But, because of this physical thing, the string not only vibrates its full length, but it vibrates in halves, and in 3rds, and 4ths, and 5ths, and so on up to infinity. If we have a fundamental of 100 Hz, halving the string will DOUBLE the frequency, so the first "overtone" is at 200 Hz, which is twice as high and an Octave higher then the first. When these overtones are in an Integer Ratio - that is, "whole numbers" for non-mathy people - you get Overtones at 2f, 3f, 4f, 5f, 6f, 7,f...nf. So given a 100 Hz fundamental, we'd expect to see Harmonic Overtones at 200Hz, 300Hz, 400 Hz, 500 Hz up to infinity. Generally speaking, in this perfect mathematical model, each overtone not only increases in frequency by a whole number ratio, but it DECREASES in amplitude (volume) by the inverse - meaing the 2nd partial is 1/2 the volume, the 3rd partial is 1/3 the volume, and so on. So what this means is, as the Harmonics get higher in frequency, they get quieter. Now this is the "perfect mathematical model" and doesn't really happen in nature - or rather, we haven't really built instruments with the desire to reproduce this perfect mathematical model. We can, with Synthesizers, and some do, but most can't do it perfectly exactly. But closer than most other instruments. So a Flute, does not have all these "Harmonics". It has very few. A Clarinet doesn't have them all either. It has primarily only the Odd numbered Harmonics - and they fall off at a different rate than just the inverse. A Violin or Trumpet has probably the closest to the mathematical model, but as you probably know, it's not too difficult to differentiate between those two sounds so the Harmonics for each can't be exactly the same. For mathematical models that are close to those sounds, we use different waveshapes (which are different shapes because they contain different harmonics in different proporitions) such as Sine, Square, and Sawtooth (and the other famous one, Triangle, which is closer to a French Horn). Basically, the more harmonics a sound has, the "brighter" it may be, and the fewer it has, the more "mellow" it may be. If you think about it, Trumpet and Violin can be "brassy" or "buzzy" or "zingy" or whatever you want to say, while French Horn is "mellower" (and its waveform also only has the odd harmonics) while Flute can often be called "pure". So the Harmonics that are present in a sound are responsible for the Tone Quality or Timbre of the sound. Now, there are a ton of people out there who have allowed themselves to believe that this has, in some way, impacted music. They invoke the Harmonic Series to "prove" faulty theories they have about pretty much everything. That is likely because the Harmonic Series frequencies can be represented as musical pitches, and often are, so you'll see a chart with something like: C1 - C2 - G2 - C3 - E3 - G3 - Bb#! - C4 - D4 - E4 - F#4! - G4 - A4! and so on. This has been called "the chord of nature". There are many issues with the way people "use" (or think they use) the Harmonic Series or the ways they think it appears in music, but the biggest issue is that, even if these frequencies do in fact occur in a sound (as we've just discussed, not all of them appear in every sound, and I'm not even getting into inharmoniciity, change over time, range of human pitch and volume perception, and so on) even in the perfect model each Harmonic gets quieter. The first one is only HALF as loud as the fundamental. So we don't really "hear" these individual notes. Due to the Gestalt Effect, our brains don't pick out the individual notes, but hear instead the resultant tone color - all the overtones are subsumed into a single Tone Quality. Now, that doesn't mean you can't hear them and pick them out if you try hard on a sustained tone. But on the fly, in actual music, no, it doesn't just sound like a bunch of parallel chords moving around. The "Pattern" in the notes is that the distance between each successive interval gets smaller - notice the first two are an 8ve apart, but the next two, C-G, are only a 5th apart. Then it goes 4th, Major 3rd, minor 3rd - then it gets to interval sizes that we don't use in 12tet tuning (actually all the ones but the octaves are wrong compared to 12 tet) but we get small minor 3rds, large major 2nds, small minor 2nds, then 1/4 steps, then 1/8th steps and so on (which is why the Bb and F# have "!" by them because they're not "in tune" with 12tet and are often pointed out on charts). Many people will say things like "harmony arose from the Harmonic series". "The major scale comes from the Harmonic series". "V7 resolves to I because of the Harmonic Series". "Voice your chords like the Harmonic series". The problem is, if you look at actual music, you'll see that much of what we've done - most of what we've done is in SPITE of the Harmonic Series. And that's because while it has a LOT to do with Tone Quality, and Acoustics, it has little to do with actual music. Now, even those who "overestimate" the impact of the HS on music have often been inspired to use it in their own ways which mean - at least since the internet when all this misinformation spread - that there have been actual implementation of principles from the harmonic series in pieces of music. For example, by not using valves on a brass instrument, one can just go up and down the harmonic series for that fundamental by varying embouchure and pressure. So you could "play" the harmonics (essentially producing notes by forcing the air column into the various divisions). And thus, you could write a piece that exploits these. And people doing electronic music do stuff like add and subtract harmonics to change tone colors using timbral change in a way that resembles what we might ordinarily do with pitch. So let me put it this way: There is real science behind the Harmonic Series. However, it's direct impact on the ART of music is not as big as most people make it out to be, and there's a lot of quackery out there trying to prove a relation where none exists. However, that pursuit in and of itself as produced musical results, informed or not, that can be taken on their own merit as art. But any time anyone says "because of the harmonic series", you need to investigate further and not just accept that as fact.

  2479. musictheory 2018-06-13 03:59:58 crom-dubh
    In music, you can kind of use the harmonic series and overtone series interchangeably. The harmonic series is a sequence of integers (1,2,3,etc) that does describe the frequency relationships of overtones of a fundamental. I.e. if 100hz is your fundamental (the basic frequency, usually of the highest amplitude), your next overtone is at twice that frequency (200hz), the next one at three times the frequency (300hz), then at four times the frequency (400hz), etc. It is a natural phenomenon that exists in nature and is not a man-made device. The easiest way to observe this is to take a stringed instrument and lightly fret it somewhere along an even integer division of the wavelength (i.e. at the halfway point, at the third-way point, etc) and pluck or bow the string. You will hear a note sound that is at that harmonic. Note that if you play a division of 3, it doesn't matter whether you're at the 1/3 mark or the 2/3 mark - the same note will sound. This is because you're causing the string to vibrate at 1/3 the wavelength (or 3 times the frequency, since the two are inversely related). Likewise if you have a trumpet, and don't play any keys, if you blow through it the lowest note you will be able to produce will be the fundamental. Tighten your lips slightly and it will "jump" to the next partial (another term for harmonic along the series). Tighten them a bit more and it will jump to the next one. This is the column of air, which is the length of the tube of the trumpet, vibrating, and as you tighten your lips, that column is being progressively divided at integer wavelength divisions. In "just" intonation, these harmonics do describe certain intervals, but it's important to note that most music these days does not use just intonation. People who say a fifth is the ratio 3/2 (i.e. if 100hz is your fundamental, 150hz would be your fifth) are only approximately accurate. It might be useful in certain contexts to think of it this way but there is a lot of misinformation about how the harmonic series relates to scales and chords. If you were to sound many frequencies along the overtone series at once, you really hear the effect of a unison with varying timbres, depending on which overtones you're sounding, *not* a chord. Natural harmonics did likely influence people into thinking about intervals and such to begin with, but it has long since ceased having anything meaningful to do with our tuning systems or chord structures. The so-called "Undertone series" does not actually exist in nature. It's basically what you get when you invert the harmonic series and go down instead of up. It's a bit like negative harmony, which doesn't really have a basis in *acoustics*, but you can nonetheless describe it in terms of a theoretical musical construct. You can say that Fm6/D is the negative chord of C7, but it's very hard (if at all possible) to hear the chord as having a tonal center of C. Because that's not really how the brain processes it. Hopefully that makes sense.

  2480. musictheory 2018-06-13 10:39:27 65TwinReverbRI
    You can't do this. You know how we have both minor and major chords in a key - and one diminished? That's because the interval distances are not the same - for example, in C, in a C chord, the distance between the root and 3rd is a MAJOR 3rd. But in a Dm chord, it's a MINOR 3rd. Because of this, whenever those intervals appear, they're different. So if we take F-A-C-E you can see that it's a Major 3rd from C-E on top. This makes it a Major chord (F-A-C) with a Major 3rd on top. That note is also a Major 7th from the F. But like the D-F part of a Dm chord is a MINOR 3rd, so too is it when it appears in other chords. So it we take G-B-D-F - it's like the F-A-C-E in that it's a Major chord with a 3rd added above (or a 7th above the root) but notice here, D-F is a MINOR 3rd, (and a minor 7th from the root) not major like before. So one is a Major Chord +Major 3rd and the other is a Major Chord + MINOR 3rd. And this also means that that added note is in this case a MINOR 7th above the root. So we have a Major Chord with a Major 7th, or a Major Chord with a Minor 7th. Let's call them MM7 and Mm7. Those are different structures - so they have different names - just like Major and Minor chords - different structures - so one is M the other is m. Here the MM7 we call a "Major 7th Chord" and the Mm7 is a "Dominant 7th Chord" or when the context is clear just "major 7" and "7". - Fmaj7 and G7 in these examples. In the key of C, the 9ths would look like this: CMaj9 - Dm9 - Em7(b9) - Fmaj9 - G9 - Am9 and Bm7(b5,b9) So you can only use the same shape for the same structure. So your shape above works for the CMaj9 and Fmaj9 because they're both Maj9 chords. But it doesn't work on G because, to stay in the key, the G needs to just be a G9 chord instead (adding the 9ths ultimately works the same way as adding the 7ths above does). So G9 would be X-10-9-10-10-X (low to high). The 10th fret on the 3rd string is F - which is in the key (just like the F chords!) and the 11th fret would be F# which takes it out of the key. So you can't keep the same shape for EVERY 9th chord, just like you can't keep the same shape for every 7th chord, or every triad becuase they're different structures - some are the same, but not all. You need 3 different shapes for triads - one for the Major chords (C, F, G) and one for the minor chords (Dm, Em, Am) and one for B^o When you add 7ths, some of the 7ths get added the same, and others don't because of the intervallic structure of the notes in the key. So you actually need 4 shapes: 1 for Maj7 (Cmaj7 and Fmaj7), 1 for 7 (G7), 1 for m7 (Dm7, Em7, Am7) and 1 for Bm7b5. For 9th chords, you need yet another shape, because the Em7 is no longer the same shape as the other m7 when you add the 9th. One shape for Cmaj9 and F maj9 One shape for G9 One shape for Dm9 and Am9 One shape for Em7b9 and Bm7(b5,b9)

  2481. musictheory 2018-06-13 11:08:48 65TwinReverbRI
    Since you've sobered, I was going to say that it's not really a fair question because Haydn's orchestration style changed quite a bit over time - his early symphonies were "string driven" with winds reinforcing the harmony - but many of his early symphonies only have like one pair of clarinets, or 2 pairs of winds. He doesn't get into that "full orchestra" style like we expect of a typical Symphony until later. So it should probably be saying "mature" style for Haydn. That said, it may be really getting at what the Orchestration style between a Classical and Impressionistic piece would be. And you know, even with Debussy, the orchestra used in Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun is different from La Mer ... So really this is one of those kinds of questions where, what you really need to know is what the instructor wants you to say! Hopefully you have the study notes!

  2482. musictheory 2018-06-13 13:59:02 AHeien82
    I think this sound you are referring to is all about the context of the rest of the song. If you took just that melody line, and played it by itself, it would not have the same “heroic” feel that you are referring to. The accompanying instruments provide a lot of the feel, like the timpani drums that are giving it a strong, strident rhythm, and probably full string sections playing the chords.

  2483. musictheory 2018-06-13 19:32:04 elebrin
    One thing that might help is playing chord scales. I do it on bass, but I play the chords in arpeggio format up and down the scale. On an instrument like piano or bass, the intervals are a bit more visibly and physically apparent (represented by distances to some degree for both of us, and also by string hops for me). I'll memorize the arpeggios as finger positions relative to the root, then I can transpose that anywhere. Then I practice playing that chord up and down an appropriate scale, which means I am forced to apply that knowledge. I particularly like to warm up in the key of the song that I am going to be rehearsing, so I can get that key into my ear and into my head to make it easier to play. The nice thing about that exercise is that you can do it with any rhythm to double up on technique, you can do it with any scale including some of the more exotic stuff, and you can do it in any octave or key.

  2484. musictheory 2018-06-14 15:06:53 lacertasomnium
    I misspoke when I said acoustic, basically I was thinking any string instrument that isn't synths, theremin, or other direct electricity manipulation (as opposed to just electric amplification). So still floored they did it all with electric guitars!

  2485. musictheory 2018-06-14 21:20:48 LukeSniper
    I think what he meant is that when the bars are cut and filed (to get them in tune), the manufactures use the 2nd overtone rather than the fundamental. I've got no experience with vibraphones, so I don't know how much of this applies, but higher order harmonics can actually end up out of tune on string instruments. That's why pianos aren't tuned to straight equal temperament. The lower notes just don't harmonize very well, as the upper harmonics pull sharp (the reasons for this have the do with the physics of the string and how shorter waveforms move through it). I'm guessing by tuning to the 2nd overtone (by which I'm assuming they mean the 3rd harmonic, which is an octave and a 5th above the fundamental) they get something similar to the stretched octave tuning you get on a piano. It's not straight up equal temperament, but it generally sounds better and harmonizes in a more pleasant way across the range of the instrument.

  2486. musictheory 2018-06-14 23:36:47 oasisu2killers
    the entire Travels album by Pat Metheny Group, but especially The Fields, The Sky and San Lorenzo. edit: San Lorenzo is mainly about that ridiculous piano solo, but Pat does some crazy harmonies on a 12-string that are outta sight

  2487. musictheory 2018-06-15 01:01:16 65TwinReverbRI
    The "Line Cliche"? Really, the Line Cliche is more like String of Pearls or the James Bond Theme where you've got a constant harmony with a chromatic line within it. We'd probably need a consistent chord with chromatic bass to be called this - C - C/B - C/Bb - C/A - C/Ab and so on. "Lament Bass" Google and listen to "Dido's Lament" by Henry Purcell. Also, Bach's Mass in B Minor. They both used the descending chromatic bass line. We call that a "Lament Bass" - I'm not sure if the name is a modern coining from the Lament for or even inspired by Purcell's very famous work (which is probably just called an "Aria" and was later titled Dido's Lament as a colloquialism). I guess I could look it up. But both pieces are "sad sounding" and you'll notice that both of those Sherman songs have a certain melancholy about them as well. We ought to call it the "DCBL" ! Usually, most people are more familiar with "Chim Chim Cher-ee" (spelling always questionable ;-) so that's what I've heard most people say "the chim chim cheree progression"!

  2488. musictheory 2018-06-15 01:47:42 i_make_love_to_cows
    VST and better plugins are making doing film music soooooooo cheap. That's the big thing I have felt. I feel like I can sit down, writing a 20 secs of a full orchestra gesture that sounds near live... without hiring a single musician. And if you want to be really good at it, become your own producer and mix master. As regards to how VST relate to music theory... Some plug\-ins are slightly limiting. That small limitation restricts some of the musical options you have. This affects the writing process and some of the music theory. Just think about strings and all the textures: is all the VST work worth it, to make a make a complex string part sound perfect? Or at that point, should you just hire someone? I can think back to a project I did with a native flute for a nature documentary. I finally broke down and hired a native american musician to play it because I just couldn't get all the ornamentation to sound authentic. If I stuck with the VST, I wouldn't have had as complex of a musical line and I would have written something more drawn out and atmospheric; then, I could just post\-prod "fakeness" of the VST. So I see a correlation their. Your point about artistry: you're right. Look at Hans Zimmer and the music he did in his early days. Now, his mixed media of heavy produced orchestra and electronics style, has permeated the entire film industry. But!.. I think things will get better because the digital age has allowed people to be: 1. more educated 2. harsher critics 3. more open to listen to a wider variety of music and film genres 4. easier access to the tools to create music and films. I also feel that the reason why mainstream contemporary music is lacking any harmonic substance is more a reflection of how important micro and macro form is rather then a reflection on harmony. Its also an industry all about being catchy and memorable and singing in one key, flooded with repetition, is easier for the audience to remember then the developmental nature of romantic harmony and larger moe complex forms. This is what John Mayer said about it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time\_continue=88&v=1Q9sv9OkQBk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=88&v=1Q9sv9OkQBk) 1:40\-2:20 Its a great topic. Glad you're considering your audience and their lack of music knowledge in order to make your point.

  2489. musictheory 2018-06-15 02:43:47 jProficiency
    https://youtu.be/YzP6mkPVzm0 Chaccone in D Minor by Bach, 11 string guitar

  2490. musictheory 2018-06-15 02:55:29 atimholt
    I grew up with my dad playing guitar, but I was never interested in learning. My interest finally piqued when I heard a 12-string guitar piece from the soundtrack to Last of the Mohicans. Don’t play a 12-string, but still.

  2491. musictheory 2018-06-15 03:01:45 thejazziestcat
    To add to this (although not in a way that's helpful to OP's answer), string instruments only display inharmonicity if they're plucked or struck. In a bowed string instrument, the periodic stick-slip of the bow locks all the overtones into the harmonic series.

  2492. musictheory 2018-06-15 14:43:29 AHeien82
    At the start, he is dampening the string inside the piano to create a plucked effect. The rest of the intro sounds like it is based on the chord progression of the piece he’s playing, but he’s taking some liberties in terms of the timing and chords. I wouldn’t consider it to be in any particular style other than modern jazz. He uses a pedal note, which is a bass note that remains constant, and alters some of the chords on top of that to create a more dramatic feel.

  2493. musictheory 2018-06-15 23:42:57 brotherbonsai
    A bit of a deep cut, but in the final movement of Shostakovich’s 4th String Quartet, reaches an incredible climax after a very tense buildup. If you’ve never listened, trust me and find a half hour of privacy with a set of good loud speakers. I remember the first time I heard it... magical.

  2494. musictheory 2018-06-16 04:10:07 Super_SATA
    Elanor Rigby? Beethoven's string quartet 15 mvt III? Saria's Song? Sweet Child O' Mine? I don't know if I'd believe you if you said you disliked all four of those songs. Those four are written in the dorian, lydian, phrygian, and mixolydian modes, respectively. Also, when you say this: \>I️ don’t understand the interest, unless you’re writing historical polyphonic music. It gives me the impression that you think our 7 modes of the diatonic scale are the same as the 8 church modes. They aren't. Those ones are based of the hexachords. I'm no expert, but I do know that there are distinctions.

  2495. musictheory 2018-06-17 00:39:23 [deleted]
    High woodwinds are often combined with string section, to brighten it, like the melody in the first piece of this example (violins and flutes) https://youtu.be/mu-dxng-Aec

  2496. musictheory 2018-06-17 10:51:48 jazzadellic
    >how do I build the rest of the song without repeating the same progression over and over? >Are there any tips besides trying different diatonic chords or modulating to a different key? What else is there? You could also try the same progression, but play it differently. Change the rhythm. Go from strumming block chords to arpeggiating them. If you're lacking ideas, there's no better source for ideas than your favorite songs. Find out what they do, and then do the same. You could also just add extensions the second time around, so a C becomes a Cmaj7 or Cadd9 or whatever. You could have no chords at all, only percussion and bass. You could just have a vocal harmonization part, and no chords being played. You could change the chord tempo, for example instead of 1 chord per bar, 2. You could use modal borrowed chords, i.e. the IV-iv-I trope, or use a different borrowed chord. You could get atonal. You could have all the instruments be quiet while you sing acapella. You could have a string quartet play, instead of the guitar or piano. Woodwinds? Brass? Synth? Polychords? Bitonal? Play everything in reverse? Scream?

  2497. musictheory 2018-06-17 13:24:57 ajarndaniel
    > Why do you tune everything down a half step? Not OP. I tune a semitone lower, too. Gives a bit of slack to the strings and makes for more more radicalised bending and vibrato. I play steel-string acoustic, exclusively though. I wouldn't bother tuning down if I were playing an electric - it's already over-sufficiently slack - or a nylon string classical - which has no bend in it to begin with.

  2498. musictheory 2018-06-17 17:18:31 thunderheart23
    I think string instruments might be some of the hardest ones to learn. Keep up a regular practise session. For ear training, there's a great website called [teoria.com](https://teoria.com) that will help you with that.

  2499. musictheory 2018-06-17 23:54:52 gr00veh0lmes
    Hey, no problem. I was watching the quantum field theory video I posted below this morning and it made me think that a single note in a composition was an analogue to a particle. How a particle is the rippling of an underlying and pervasive field. Like an electron is a particle of the electron field. Consider A at 440 Hz. 440 Hz is a value in a field of frequencies, but cannot be perceived until that field is excited at that frequency. For example plucking a string of a certain length over a resonant body will produce a frequency of 440 Hz. But that plucked note contains other characteristics (than that of frequency/pitch) that can be thought of a fields in their own right, fields of duration, of amplitude and timbre.

  2500. musictheory 2018-06-18 01:36:00 Jongtr
    https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/wiki/faq/history/whytwelve Longer answer... One thing the guitar is useful for here (better than piano) is to explore the idea of constructing scales by dividing the string into fractions - based on the harmonic series. This does have some historical validity. The main thing to remember is that we don't start by dividing the *octave* (which is "why twelve?" is not quite the right question). We start by dividing the *string* - the thing that makes the sound in the first place. (Similar principles apply to wind instruments, and things like xylophones.) 1/2 string length (from bridge) = octave (fret 12) 2/3 string length = perfect 5th (fret 7) 3/4 string length = perfect 4th (fret 5) It needs saying that those terms are obviously based on the 7-note scale to start with. ("Octave" just means "8th", the repeat of the first note.) But the divisions are arrived at by *sound*, before any further division is arrived at. As you can see, we're left with spaces 0-5 and 7-12. So the octave is already irregularly divided, although those two big spaces are appealingly symmetrical. They are what the ancient Greeks called "tetrachords" (literally "4-string"). What happens next is that we take that 5-7 fret space and consider it the basic "unit". Call it a "tone". You can now see that the two 5-fret spaces can be divided up into two and half tones each. I.e., two tones and a semitone, or whole and half steps if you prefer. The 5-fret spaces can be divided in different ways, giving various "modes". One way is to divide the string again into 4/5. This marks out fret 4 (0-4 = 1/5 string length), and confirms for us that "semitone" space between 4-5. So we end up with a 7-note scale that way. The open string is the "1st" note, of course; between 0-5 we have our 2nd and 3rd notes, and between 7-12 we have our 6th and 7th. Which is why those "perfect" intervals are called "4th" "5th" and "octave" in the first place. If you know anything about mathematics, however, you'll realise that the string fraction between 4/5 and 3/4 (frets 4-5) can't possibly be *exactly* half that between 3/4 and 2/3 (frets 5-7). Frets 4-5 should be 1/20 of the string length (from fret 4), while frets 5-7 should be 1/12 (from fret 5). But that's close enough to work with, and for the idea of whole and half-steps (even if not exact) to sound musical. (The guitar frets are actually set to "equal temperament", which makes all 12 semitones artificially equal - to make our lives easier all round.) Naturally we could go on to find other divisions of the string, or we could divide the whole octave into 12 semitones (of different sizes, obviously). But that makes music sound formless - "atonal". It's the different step sizes - and the irregularity of the octave divisions - that gives our ears something to latch on to, to appreciate the different "intervals" created. It enables us to perceive a "keynote" or "root note", just from how the notes interact. We actually hear (subconsciously) how notes belong together due to the simple ratios between them - which is related to the harmonic series. As a guitarist, you probably know you can play harmonics on frets 12, 7, 19, 5, 4, 9, 16 - which are all simple divisions of the string (into halves, thirds and fifths). All the notes you get that way naturally sound related (all part of the string, obviously), and all belong to a common scale. On the E string, those harmonics give you two E's (12, 5), two B's (7, 19) and three G#'s (4, 9, 16). An E major triad! If you *fret* the string at those frets, you get other notes: A (5), C# (9). You can also get a harmonic (not quite so easily) over fret 2, which gives an F# (this is 1/9 string length, or 1/3 of 1/3). So that's the whole E major scale (or A major scale?), except for a D/D#. Interestingly, this relates to the medieval concept of "hexachords" - six note scales with no fixed 7th note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidonian_hand#Hexachord_in_Middle_Ages More on scale maths and history here: http://www.peterfrazer.co.uk/music/tunings.html

  2501. musictheory 2018-06-18 23:36:51 HammerAndSickled
    This is a bit of an oversimplification. Yes, without perfect pitch all keys are identical in equal temperament: there's the same distance between C-D-E as between F-G-A etc. but there are other concerns with playing in specific keys that do tend to effect the sound: 1. timbral differences of instruments. Your piano might have a different sound in a different register because of string tension, etc. or maybe you're playing guitar and certain keys get to use Open strings more often than others, or maybe some keys are right in the rich formant range of a wind instrument and others are a stretch and sound thinner. 2. Vocal ranges. Most people's voices fit more comfortably in certain keys. Good accompanists can transpose on the fly to accommodate but if you've ever tried singing along with a radio you know that the original key makes a huge difference. 3. Idiomatic gestures to certain instruments. This is a bit harder to explain, but some instruments have some keys that might "fit the hands" better than others. On piano, you have something like a white key glissando, where this only really "works" in C or related modes (sometimes it's used for effect even when it's not diatonic). Or on guitar, open string licks or certain uses of harmonics are tied to keys with certain naturals and harder to use in others. To the extreme, this covers all open tunings in general: licks in DADGAD tuning don't really transpose well. 4. Modulations. Even discounting everything above, assuming that every key sounds identical in 12TET, every key doesn't sound identical in relation to other keys. There's a specific sound of modulating up a fourth or down a major second and this is another compelling reason to try other keys. And if you do enough of them, it gets unwieldy, which is another reason to start somewhere else other than C major: if you start in C and move up a minor second, you're in Db/C#, both kind of tricky keys from a notational perspective (natural key to 5b/7s). But if you start in E and move up to F, suddenly it's a lot easier: going from 4 sharps to 1 flat. Hopefully this gives you some reason to try other keys. Most importantly though it just makes you a better musician: C major is easiest but it's not default in any way, and if you want to take music seriously you should learn lots of different approaches.

  2502. musictheory 2018-06-18 23:59:29 jaykzo
    I'd say mostly yes, that's fine. But keys DO matter. If I want my bass player to sound out a deep low note along with my piano, I should know his lowest string is tuned to your E1. So If I'm writing a piece in C, he won't be able to support my tonic chord with his lowest register. I can't tell you how many times I've written a song to near completion, then changed the key last minute to accommodate for arrangement/performance. Most of the time, I really don't care what key I begin writing in, I just worry about it once it comes down to actually executing it.

  2503. musictheory 2018-06-19 02:12:57 qhs3711
    I can relate as a bassist. The lowest note on standard 4-string upright and electric bass is E1, so Eb is like the least BASS key. The lowest tonic you can play is Eb2, which isn’t one of those BASS notes you can feel. However if you have a 5-string or C-extension, Eb becomes one of the most BASS keys since you can play that Eb1!

  2504. musictheory 2018-06-19 03:44:56 kayson
    FWIW: I don't particularly care about adhering to baroque rules. My arrangement doesn't sound particularly baroque as string music goes. I do, however, want to avoid dissonance, since the piece is very bright and happy as a consequence of pretty much only using I IV V, and lots of open intervals. I'll play around with D7/Dsus and see. I may end up leaving it as an open interval... Thanks!

  2505. musictheory 2018-06-19 04:29:55 strobro
    Yeah, if the guitarists are tuning down the bassist usually does as well. Not always though, some bassists will play a 5 string so they can access the lower notes without having to de-tune, but it’s all about preference. De-tuning is usually something a band does all the time or not at all. For example pretty much every Weezer song is played on Eb tuned instruments. They do it so they can play in the easy guitar keys with their hands, but in a better range for the vocalist.

  2506. musictheory 2018-06-19 05:03:02 beaumega1
    1. A P5 does not "equal 3", and an octave does not "equal 2". However, I think you are referring to these intervals' ratios as derived from a fundamental pitch. Consider a guitar string. Pluck it without any fingers down, and thats the fundamental; the string is at a 1/1 ratio. Put your finger down right in the middle, and the new remaining string has a length ratio of 2/1 over the fundamental open string, and an octave is produced. Put your finger in a place such that a 3/2 ratio is created, and you now have a shorter length of string, which will play a P5. 2. As explained above, 3 and 2 are not really "values" that go into each other in this context. 3. See number 2.

  2507. musictheory 2018-06-19 05:37:37 VanJackson
    A lot of people use 5 string basses strung with a low B instead these days, although 5 string uprights are much rarer than 5 string electrics so they usually detune or use an extender. De0tuning also has a noticable timbral difference on the bass that you don't notice as much on guitar because the sound is so compressed and distoarte, the strings will sound a bit floppier and throatier unless a higher gauge is used, a lot of people who play metal and hard rock like this sound and will try to emphasize it with more aggressive technique, EQ and light overdrive

  2508. musictheory 2018-06-19 05:59:39 kisielk
    It's not even that, although that is also a factor. Bu different lengths of the same gauge of string will produce different timbres. The guitar also has different resonances which affect the sound in different ways depending on what notes are being played. So even while the fingering may stay the same if you change keys even with a capo, the sound and feel of the music will just be different because of the nature of the instrument.

  2509. musictheory 2018-06-19 06:15:51 Sarahsota
    Just going to chime in and give an example of this question in action. Listen to Salut D'amour, on the violin in both E major and D major. They have very different vibes because of for example the string change. The E-C# leap in the A theme is often done by changing strings. Compare that to the D-B leap in D major which is usually done by portamento on the same string. The first is brighter, the other is warmer.

  2510. musictheory 2018-06-19 11:41:15 jazzintoronto
    Keys are identical ONLY in the sense that pitches have the same RELATIONSHIPS / DISTANCES between notes within the key (when in equal temperament). That is one of MANY, MANY, MANY factors. So, no, not all keys sound the same, and there are MANY reasons to do things in keys other than C. Here are a few reasons: Idiomatic playing. Open or less-tense strings (this is why bowed string instruments prefer sharp keys and harps sound more open in flat keys). Range. Timbre in different registers (on my piano, Db major sounds very warm). Transposing instruments. Also just...practice. If you're only comfortable playing in C, you're not going to have a very strong command over the instrument. Also, and this should be obvious, songs do not always stay in the same key for the whole thing. So you should really be capable of playing, writing, and thinking in all keys.

  2511. musictheory 2018-06-20 06:22:44 gravescd
    This is somewhat idiomatic to Guitar, so those notes will actually be held for the beat. This manner of arpeggiation in Guitar literature is rarely intended to indicate the duration, especially with an open string in the middle of it. It’s just too unwieldy to read if they tried to show the full duration. Trying to cut each note at a proper 16th would be really difficult for the right hand anywhere above andante.

  2512. musictheory 2018-06-20 08:07:43 Cello789
    > But who the hell understands ~~bass~~ **Alto** clef Why violas have their own clef that nobody else uses is beyond me... At least cellists reading Tenor clef can use the same string-per-line mentality.

  2513. musictheory 2018-06-21 02:30:03 65TwinReverbRI
    Evolution! As stated, early horns and trumpets were valveless and could only play the partials of a given fundamental - which was based on the length of tubing. To change to another key, you had to increase or decrease the length of the tube. That's what a Trombone accomplishes with the Slide! Trumpets (or Bugles, etc.) and Horns evolved a technique of putting in "Crooks" which are "croocked" (hooked or curved) "extension tubing" that could be added to increase the length which lowers the overall pitch. Horn players would have a bag of crooks they could put in and out of the horn to change its key. Initially, that's why we get 4 horn players in orchestras because 2 of them would have their C crooks in and 2 of them would have their G crooks in, and when the music was in C two of them would play, and when it was in G the other two would play. They'd "trade off" if you like. What Valves do is channel the air going through the tube into little extra portions of tubing. If you look at a trumpet closely it's pretty easy to see. The middle valve just has this one little tube that sticks out to the side. It lowers it a half step. What they did is figure out what combinations they needed. 1/2 step gets you that. Whole step gets you that. Use those two together and you get a step and a half. So now you can play C, B, Bb, and A partials. To get Ab, you need a tube length that can get you down TWO whole steps, so you add that. But you can also add 1/2, whole, and 1.5 to that. So that gives you: C - B - Bb - A - Ab - then G - F# That's 7 notes and if you didn't know, Trombone has "7 positions" which does the same thing - when the Slide is all the way in, it's C (to keep things consistent for example's sake), then move it out for each half step increment. The way they work is kind of funky becuase they don't really play the "overtone series" per se because they start on the 2nd partial. So this means the first available overtone above the F# note is C# - so you play the first overtone F#-C with the valves or slide, then "overblow" to get the next harmonic which gives you C# on up - so you can play a chromatic scale. Horns work on the same principle but one of the funky things about Trumpet is when you add more than 1 valve together the proportions are quite exactly right for our tuning system, which is why trumpets have a "tuning slide" for when you use the 3rd valve - you have to adjust that length a little depending on if you're using it alone or in combination with other valves. Trombonists can just adjust the slide length accordingly. Horn - and things like Baritone or Tuba, etc add a 4th Valve to help with this compensation. Now, WHY the Trumpet is Bb, and the Horn is F, and the Trombone is C - but has Bb, F, and E attachments, or there are "Double Horns" and Tuba is "in Bb" but transposes at C has to do more with convenience more than anything else. I don't know if you know this but we used to use way more Clefs than just Treble and Bass. There's Tenor clef, which is typically only used for Bass clef instruments that can play high, like Bassoon, Cello, and Trombone. The only instrument that really uses Alto Clef anymore is Viola. What happened was, most of the notes we needed were available on Bass and Treble clef for most instruments, so that's what we used. There's no point in using a Clef that's 1 step higher than Treble just so a Trumpet player's notes would stay on the staff. But that's the way it used to be - you wrote it in C, and used the crook to adjust the range. What happened over time was that the range of the Bb trumpet was the one that both kept the majority of notes on the staff and that created the sounding range of notes we really needed. Long time ago there used to be Sackbuts which evolved into the Trombone. They had Soprano, Alto, Tenor, and Bass. Now we just have "Trombone" (which is Tenor Trombone) and "Bass Trombone" and that's all we typically use - because Horns and Trumpets take over the Alto and Soprano roles in an orchestra (they do make Alto Trombones, etc. they're just rarely used). So really what's happened is, we've just settled on one common range and transposition and that pretty much covers what we call on these instruments to do for most applications. But it's why you'll see Cornets in C in wind bands, or other transpositions in Marching Bands versus Orchestra becuase they evolved differently. And whenever you get an evolution like that, you get funky naming things. Your screen name is "Les Paul Man" so I assume you know guitars and amps. What did Leo Fender call the "wang bar"? "Tremolo System" - but it actually produces Vibrato, not Tremolo! What did he call the Tremolo effect on his amps? Vibrato! And these "wrong" names stuck - and confuse people sometimes who ask a very similar question to yours! And since you know guitar I hope, you probably know a Capo. And you may know Baritone guitars, or smaller higher tuned guitars. If you want to play in E, you play your guitar. If you want to do some Hendrix, or Van Halen, or Stevie Ray Vaghaun, you pick up your guitar you've tuned to Eb - different "key", different tuning - different instrument, right? That's what a Trumpet player who is asked to play a "Trumpet in A" must do - they have to pick up a different instrument. And think of this - we say standard tuning is "in E" and when we refer to that common down-tuning of Van Halen and the like, we say "Eb" - but a Trumpet player would look at us and say we're nuts because they reference to C! So to them, an instrument that played 1/2 step lower than it sound would be "Trumpet in B". So our "in E" guitar is non-transposed, and we'd say from their standpoint "Guitar in C"!!! You hopefully know what a Capo is - that's what a Crook was like - kind of. We put a capo on and it shortens the length, giving us higher pitches. If you play your harmonics along the low E string only, those would be the exact same notes a "Horn in E" could get. If you retune to Eb, or F, or D, or G, etc. and play those harmonics, that's what a "Horn in Eb" or "Horn in F" etc. could play. When you put a Capo on at the 3rd fret changing your E to G, and then play those harmonics, that's what a horn player who had an E Crook in, and took it out and put a smaller G Crook in would be able to play as well. And when you think "I'm playing an E shape" but the guitar is in Eb, or you have a capo on the 3rd fret, you're playing what SOUNDS LIKE an Eb chord or a G chord to the rest of the world. And that's exactly how Trumpet (and Horn and transposing instruments) work. Then a Trumpet "in Bb" plays an E, it's going to SOUND LIKE a D. If they play a C note, it sounds like a Bb (hence the name - based on C). If you tune your guitar down a whole step to D, if you play a C note it'll come out sounding like a Bb! We just don't say it's a "Bb Guitar" - we call it based on the E string as a reference - they call it based on C as a reference. And notice we don't really call it "guitar in X" we just say what we've re-tuned it to. So that's why some things like Tuba are C instruments but they have this holdover name from an earlier time where they used a Bb "tuning" just to get the range they needed. So they're really not so different from us :-) HTH

  2514. musictheory 2018-06-21 06:19:45 65TwinReverbRI
    Just for future reference. No. If it's Baroque, Classical, or Romantic period music, the word "mode" (in terms of Lydian, Dorian, etc.) should be way down the list of things you should be even considering when looking at this kind of music :-) There may be a few earlyish Baroque pieces that are still "somewhat modal" and some later Romantic pieces that are "somewhat tonal" that re-introduce modality, but many of them really present any mode in a "tonalized" fashion. So Beethoven's example of the String Quartet Movement "in the Lydian mode" is not very "modal" at all and is largely a "tonalized mode" if that - as it's really similar to what's going on here where the "Lydian" aspect is really more of a V/V deal not not a true Lydian mode. If it's common practice period tonal music, then no, there's no modes. Aside from Bach (and others') Chorales on a Modal Hymn Tune (that's usually "tonalized" as well, with a few exceptions) and things like that, it's Tonal, not Modal.

  2515. musictheory 2018-06-21 17:16:31 Jongtr
    I won't attempt a better answer (or even a shorter one) than 65TwinRevernRI, who has it all sewn up. Your question is a little like asking "what percentage of popular songs from the last 50 years employ a keyboard?" (because maybe you're a keyboard player?). Obviously lots - and the percentage of keyboard content varies from zero to 100%, with the majority having some kind of keyboard content. So - if keyboard sounds were your interest - you'd maybe rephrase the question and ask "OK give me some examples of keyboard-only pop songs, or ones with none at all" - so you could appreciate the effect. It's the same with modes: 99% of pop/rock music (maybe more) is modal *to some degree.* The difference being that the vast majority of pop musicians/composers know what a keyboard is, but very few know what modes are! Few know or care about such theoretical niceties. In terms of analysis, however, it still makes most sense to see popular music as "key-based" - but fairly loosely, and there is modal inflection everywhere (at least in classic rock). The relevant principle is "mode mixture", or "modal interchange". It means that major key songs frequently contain chords borrowed from the parallel minor (e.g., D, G, C or Am in key of E major); while minor keys frequently employ major IV chords and minor ii chords (dorian inflection). The Beatles - as you asked - actually make a good case study. They had a tiny handful of songs you could describe as wholly modal. Tomorrow Never Knows, She Said She Said = wholly mixolydian Within You Without You = almost wholly mixolydian (brief dorian deviation in the bridge) Norwegian Wood = mixolydian to dorian, with a major key ii-V Eleanor Rigby = mostly aeolian, with dorian elements Blue Jay Way = brief (but significant) lydian moments What you'll spot from the above is that it's pretty much all about Lennon and Harrison. They were the ones with the "modal instinct" (drawing from blues/rock'n'roll in the first place, and then modal Indian drones later - with mixolydian offering the natural bridge between the two). McCartney had much stronger "classical instincts". (Eleanor Rigby, of course, was given that "classical" string arrangement.) But aside from those, a whole lot of their songs (again mainly Lennon's and Harrison's) had strong modal elements mixed in with traditional major and minor key practices. E.g., the opening chord to 'A Hard Days Night' is a modal chord (non-functional mix of intervals) that any jazz musician would be proud to play. The verse is then straight G mixolydian, but throws in a G major IV-V to tie it up and the bridge is pure G major. 'Day Tripper' is a mixolydian riff, and the chords are a collection of mixolydian dom7s. (Rare example of moving to the same mode on different roots. Rock mode mixture is usually different modes on the same root.) 'If I Needed Someone' is mostly A mixolydian - but the bridge is (interestingly) in B minor (using Em and F# major chords). That's Harrison beginning to enjoy the combination of drone-style mixolydian grooves and surprising modulations. Of course, they just copied the sounds they liked, with little or no theoretical knowledge. There's Lennon's famous response when a journalist mentioned the "aeolian cadences" that a classical critic had found in their music; baffled and amused, Lennon said "they sound like exotic birds." (The supposed aeolian cadence is the end of the bridge of 'Not A Second Time', where a D7 resolves to Em.)

  2516. musictheory 2018-06-22 07:06:32 Xenoceratops
    I'm afraid I don't understand. So the issue is you can't do a string of notes?

  2517. musictheory 2018-06-22 07:30:52 andrewmalanowicz
    I could also do a string of notes to a certain extent. But I guess I am saying the eventual goal is to be able to do this in real time (less silence between notes) with more complex rhythms, lengths, and harmonies. Maybe to get a constant flow of hearing the direction of something and executing accurately. I am good at this when playing classical pieces, but I would like to be able to do it in a more creative sense, and to amplify the “hearing” as to make it more real.

  2518. musictheory 2018-06-22 08:12:47 Xenoceratops
    >I could also do a string of notes to a certain extent. But I guess I am saying the eventual goal is to be able to do this in real time (less silence between notes) with more complex rhythms, lengths, and harmonies.Maybe to get a constant flow of hearing the direction of something and executing accurately. Practice, I suppose. Learn more theory, work with new rhythms and harmonies, auralize phrases instead of individual notes or small groups of notes. >I am good at this when playing classical pieces, but I would like to be able to do it in a more creative sense Do you compose? My ear training translates pretty much exactly to when I am reading a score or writing music on paper. It's just something you practice and get better at. >and to amplify the “hearing” as to make it more real. This is a perennial question here. I went back and forth with somebody on /r/musictheory not too long ago as they sloppily and painfully articulated that they wanted to be able to have controlled aural hallucinations, that they wanted to *actually hear* nonexistent music. Your close choices for that are drugs, mental illness, or some kind of medical manipulation. Impractical, and no guarantee that you will be able to control any of it anyway. It was a stupid thread. I wish I could find it, in case you want to repeat this person's follies.

  2519. musictheory 2018-06-22 09:31:54 [deleted]
    It's great you're studying orchestral literature. I don't think this is a good good example of 'extreme register, ' though. (First note of Rite of Spring, yes!) You should be aware there are factors more important, than register, on why the opening string chord sounds dark. 1) It's a minor triad, and it's in 2) closed position (a-c-e). So I think it works because it is not extreme low string register. It's 'dark' for the other reasons. And you can't really compare how it sounds on piano, compared to how it sounds on bass, cello, and viola sections. There are other qualities of string instruments that would make that low a minor chord sound so good: the 'choir effect' of many instruments; players actively adjust intonation in subtle ways, unlike the presets strings of piano, etc. Is there another passage in this movement which strikes you?

  2520. musictheory 2018-06-23 00:03:00 65TwinReverbRI
    There are absolutely ways to do it, but harpsichord builders are interested in creating faithful reproductions of period-correct instruments, not "improving" it. It's all about the mechanism. Simply put, the mechanism makes the plectrum always travel the same velocity regardless of how it's triggered. Think of it this way - let's say you had a ramp, with a gate on it, the held a ball in place. When you open the gate, the ball rolls down the hill and strikes a bell. Now, let's say you have a mechanism to open the gate - you can gently push on it or whack the hell out of it. But either way the gate opens - and the ball rolls down the hill. But no matter how hard you hit the activator for the gate, the ball is going to roll the same speed and ultimately, ring the bell at the same volume. It's because the activator for the gate has no impact on the velocity of the ball, it merely allows the ball to be affected by gravity. It's also just like stuff like a light switch - it doesn't matter how hard or fast you flick the switch, the light comes on at the same brightness no matter what. So your harpsichord key mechanism is "detached" from the plectrum so to speak. All you're doing is engaging some mechanics that make the plectrum move - but no matter how hard or soft you activate it, the plectrum always moves at the same velocity and will thus always be the same volume. Piano on the other and (or Fortepiano) has a mechanism that *more directly* impacts the velocity of the hammer's throw, increasing or decreasing the volume. Remember that Pianos "strike" the string, while Harpsichord's pluck it. Things like Hammered Dulcimers use hammers to strike the strings too and they even have hammers that are plain wood, and ones with a strip of leather to soften it a bit. This is kind of equivalent to how Fortepianos used leather and later Pianos used felt. So I'm not sure if a "hammered" sound (some people have put thumbtacks in the felt of a piano to make a "ragtime piano" sound) will sound as much like a plucked sound. The problem with plucking is that in order to get more volume, it has to transfer more energy into the string - so the big issue there is breakage - either of strings or the mechanism, or the plectra - so by the time you build something strong enough to withstand the forces necessary to get a wider dynamic control, you might not end up with anything that sounds like a real harpsichord at all, if that's your goal. The same is true of hammers - I mean, to get more volume, you needed more physical mass - body, soundboard, more tension (hence steel frame), thicker strings and more of them (more tension again) and you can't just strike a string with a sharp point - it'll wear it out and break it. Or, if you look at a clavichord, the thing that "hits" the string is a "Tangent" which not only "imparts energy into the string by striking it" but it actually divides the sounding length, making a specific note! Any guitarist knows that picking the string regularly produces a note, but if you strike the string with the edge of the pick at a 90 degree angle, you get "chirpy" notes when you do it up high. Same principle as a Clavichord. So if you could get a plectrum (pick) to travel like a guitarist does, you could get a lot more dynamic range. But due to limited space (bunch of notes built into a cabinet) you'd have to go for force rather than velocity/distance. So you have to "plant" the pick on the string, apply more force, and pick it. This causes a couple of issues - if you want more force on the string, the pick has to not "slip by" the string too soon, "bending" the string a bit before it releases. So if you play the key lightly, and the mechanism allows the plectra to bend, or shift, or otherwise move by the string barely brushing it, how then can you make that same mechanism "sense" that you're striking the key harder? By the time you get to that, you might as well use a MIDI Controller, which measures Key Velocity, to trigger a really good harpsichord sample that responds to Velocity Messages dynamically. Because any such acoustic mechanism is probably going to sound "not as harpsichord like" as we want. FWIW - Modern recording people should have been all over the harpsichord with their tendency to compress everything to the hilt. The harpsichord is automatically compressed with 0 dynamic range. Talk about set it and forget it!!!

  2521. musictheory 2018-06-23 02:16:48 beaumega1
    At this point, instruments have the keys they have due to tradition. There are instruments like C Trumpet, C Tuba, etc., which are sometimes purposed for playing with a string orchestra, as the overtones of a C instrument will more universally mix with the string instruments, and keep a cleaner sound in the orchestra. Plus, everything being in C all the time would make for a pretty homogenous orchestral sound. Part of what is interesting about mixing transposing instruments is that you end up with a richer blend of overtones.

  2522. musictheory 2018-06-23 03:49:21 thejazziestcat
    I don't mean to bash on the above commenter, but "having a richer blend of overtones" is not accurate. A trumpet doesn't have a single set of overtones--it has seven (actually more than that, taking into account minor variations in pitch between alternate fingerings), one for each of the combinations of valves that get pressed down. If you play the same line on a Bb trumpet and a C trumpet, the overtones that appear will be largely the same, because each note has its own overtone series. That's the way sound waves work. It can be a *little* different for woodwinds--a C on a tenor saxophone will sound higher and more strained than the same C on an alto sax, because it's higher in the instrument's range. To a very small extent, Bb vs C trumpets have that too, but it's a very small difference and it's only for two out of every seven notes. As for blending with a string orchestra, that's also misleading. Just like on wind instruments, every note on a string instrument will have its own set of overtones--and on a string instrument, there's infinite sets of those, rather than just seven. What might really be going on in those pieces is that music for a string orchestra tends to be written in keys with sharps--G, D, A, etc--because those keys are physically easier to play on string instruments, in terms of where you put your fingers. Because a part written for a Bb trumpet has to be written a whole step higher, a piece for string orchestra in A would have to be written in B for the trumpet, and nobody (except some pianists) likes struggling through five sharps if they don't have to, so a C trumpet might be better suited to the key. You get the same thing in some classical music between Bb and A clarinet.

  2523. musictheory 2018-06-23 08:23:07 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, it's a synthesizer. It's not a "real" instrument. It sounds like a string-like sound, so it could be any kind of strings patch - from a "strings" patch and just low notes, or from a Double Bass patch, etc.

  2524. musictheory 2018-06-23 09:40:30 DRL47
    Harpsichords also use other methods of changing the overall "volume". Some have octave courses which play two octaves with each key. This expands the sound. Some have "lute" stops which slightly mute the string by the bridge, like palm muting on a guitar. I have a small harpsichord which has two individual lute stops, one for treble, one for bass. They allow the melody to sound different than the accompaniment. A full-size harpsichord with octave courses and bass pedals can have several different levels of sound.

  2525. musictheory 2018-06-24 00:43:37 kilometres_davis_
    Triads, then 7ths. Triads: major, minor, diminished, augmented, sus4. Run these from the lowest available note on the instrument to the highest for all keys, and make sure to shed every inversion of each chord. 7ths: major 7, dominant 7, minor 7, min-maj7, half-diminished, full diminished, 7sus4, maj7#5, 7#5, 7b5, and so on and so on. Every key, every available note on the board, every inversion. When you're tired of the whole board stuff, start practicing single octave shapes based on individual strings. What's the E string shape for the arpeggio of a Ebminmaj7 chord in 2nd inversion? What about the G string shape?

  2526. musictheory 2018-06-24 04:21:21 mikefan
    Only for brass and WW. For string players, it's more broken now hair and flying rosin dust.

  2527. musictheory 2018-06-24 04:22:41 gruelove
    If you play an instrument it will simply become automatic. You're fingers will just automatically go to the correct string/key etc... without even having to know the name of the note. You'll just see the note and your fingers will move to the correct place without conscious effort. I don't know the situation with attempting to learn the notes without playing an instrument though. When I first started to learn the violin I thought it would be helpful to learn the mnemonic as you have but it turned out to be wasted time really in the end. If you really want to learn to sight read(which is what you seem to be attempting), I'd suggest practice with an instrument. If you don't play an instrument, get one, even if it's only a tin whistle or recorder or very basic electronic keyboard. Practical application is the key to learning to sight read in my experience. Good luck.

  2528. musictheory 2018-06-24 06:36:21 maestro2005
    Overtones. A string doesn't just produce the fretted note, but every overtone above it as well to some degree. For the low E string, that includes the B that's right under the C on the 2nd string. In general, low thirds in chords sound muddy because of all of this noise in the overtones.

  2529. musictheory 2018-06-24 08:37:14 demonicgrizzly
    For me it's the interval between low e string and c on the a string. It's much larger and thus more dissonant sounding as a minor sixth In relation the the low e string. Edit: I named my interval wrong

  2530. musictheory 2018-06-24 10:27:03 ttd_76
    I don’t like the low E string ringing out. Also, maybe a bit of the large interval between that E and the C. But mostly, I think the open string ringing out. I kind of don’t like any open chords for this reason. It also makes it kind of an inversion plus just too many notes unnecessarily repeated. The same with using G, too. The only time I use those cowboy chords is paying accompaniment to a singer when there are no other instruments other than acupoustic guitar. Campfire strumming stuff. And even then, I just don’t hit the sixth string at all for Open C. So maybe 50% theory-related (don’t like “big”chords”) and 50% specific to guitar tone stuff. That’s just me, though. If you don’t like a chord voicing, don’t use it. Use the ones you like. Everyone has different tastes. It can be helpful to explore why you don’t like a chord voicing, but use your ear and not theory. Once you figure out why you don’t like it, then you can apply theory to avoid NN’s that might come up in other chords. I know a guy who loves closed voicing and will mangle his fingers to hit them even when a drop 2 or drop 3 voicing is easier and most guitarists feel sounds better.

  2531. musictheory 2018-06-24 17:39:11 WolfySpice
    Hmm... How about trying to figure out 9ths, using same-string legato and barring? I came up with some patterns for my own soloing. Here's an Em9 and F#m7b9 that start on the 7 of each chord: E|----------------12----------------14- B|-------------12----------------14---- G|----------12----------------14------- D|-12-14-16----------14-16-17---------- A|------------------------------------- E|------------------------------------- Try to come up with your own phrasings for chords that you don't use often. Incorporate extensions rather than your bog-standard minor, major and diminished runs.

  2532. musictheory 2018-06-26 01:35:25 65TwinReverbRI
    At least you said "to me" in your title :-) OK, I would guess that you're maybe a "pop" musician, or listen to mainly contemporary popular music. While the progression might be considered "Jazzy", you've heard it before: The Beatles "Something" (George Harrison's song of the Abbey Road album). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UelDrZ1aFeY It's in C here: "moves" is the CMaj7 then it moves to C7 ("attracts me") and gets to the F on "lover". And even if you haven't been exposed to this song, you've heard this idea thousands of times without knowing realizing it. So it's part of your musical DNA - you've been conditioned to hear the G chord as the "resolution" because you've heard it so many times before. And there are also many similar progressions that do this with fewer or more chords; it's not uncommon just to go D - D7 - G (happens in Pink Floyd's "Brain Damage" from Dark Side of the Moon, among many places - super common in the 4th bar of a 12 bar blues as well!!!). This progression dates back to the Common Practice Period (1650-1850 ish) and even before. So there's no escaping it! It's the Tonic chord, followed by a Tonic Major 7 (which traditionally resolves to IV, or ii) then on to a Secondary Dominant Chord which is the Dominant to the IV chord (which again resolves to IV, or rarely ii) then on to IV as we now expect on hearing the progression: I - Imaj7 - V7/IV - IV Even JUST the V7/? progression may be part of the sound you're hearing which is also super common in all kinds of places. I mean, ridiculously common. It's just been tucked into this pattern where there's also a Chromatic Descent of one note - which makes it seem all that much more logical and inevitable! _________ But, as you mention, it could go somewhere else. Had you grown up in the 30s and 40s - the Jazz era - you might have heard something like "String of Pearls" by the Glenn Miller Orchestra (in the 40s), which, in C (IIRC) goes C - Cmaj7 - C7 - C6 - C+ C and then reverses direction and heads back up. Jazz players would have been very familiar with the C7 acting as V7/IV and going to IV - even they had played many blues that do exactly that, but they use it in all kinds of songs as well. But this idea of the chromatic note going up and down over a static chord (also dates back to CPP music BTW) is called the "Line Cliché" because it itself was so common - common enough to be called a cliché! We hear it in things like the opening to the James Bond Theme (up and down), Stairway to Heaven (down) and many pop songs. But it is primarily a "Jazz move" especially if it was D - DMaj7 - D7 - D6 etc. Again, the "logic" is the continuation or culmination of the chromatic motion - which happens whether the chord is G or D6 - the G may just sound more "intuitive" to you because that's what you're used to, so that's what you expect. I think if you listened to and played enough jazz where you hear the move to the D6 more frequently, it would become as "intuitive" a result as the G would. HTH

  2533. musictheory 2018-06-27 02:37:08 jazzadellic
    If you take a college level music major orientated music theory class, you're going to learn a lot of stuff you can't immediately use if your goal is to just play guitar better or compose pop music. It's possible to use 4 part voice writing to make better pop songs, but it will be difficult to see how since you will only learn how to write Bach chorale style stuff. But those some ideas can be used to write the vocal harmonies for your song, or the string section for your ballad or the woodwinds for your jazz band. Some good goals for a guitarist or any other musician, are: 1. To be able to properly identify / analyze the key(s) of any chord progression so you can a) understand the song better and learn it more efficiently and b) so you can improvise over the changes better and c) so you can write your own melodies better. And also be able to make your own chord progressions. 2. Be completely fluent in your basic scales like: diatonic major & minor, harmonic minor, melodic minor, pentatonic, and probably a few others like diminished, whole-tone. You'll want to be fluent in any key, and have the ability to harmonize a scale, and use it to write chord progressions, melodies or improvise. 3. If you want to write your own compositions then you'll want to learn a few other things like phrases & periods, motifs, song form, harmonic / melodic / rhythmic cadences, modulation, secondary dominants, chord extensions, chord substitutions, borrowed chords, tritone subs, chord inversions, voice leading, and more. A couple miscellaneous things I forgot to mention: intervals and circle of fifths. Most of what I wrote above is covered in your typical theory course - over a period of 4 semesters, but if you take a theory course a lot of focus will be on analyzing Bach's music, and other classical composers. I think that time would be better spent on analyzing modern music styles that you want to write in. It's best to start with analyzing simple music and work your way up to the harder stuff. So don't try to analyze psychedelic jazz-funk avante garde first. Start with simple 3-4 chord songs with simple tonal melodies.

  2534. musictheory 2018-06-27 19:28:59 pipco
    Beatles' I am the walrus' spooky-sounding string arrangement - the prominent voicing is a 10th. love it

  2535. musictheory 2018-06-28 04:51:57 65TwinReverbRI
    When an object, like a string, is free to vibrate, energy can be imparted to it to make it vibrate. Ordinarily, we'd pick, or bow, or strike a string to give it energy to vibrate, which if course imparts energy and makes a sound. Sound being made is also "energy" in that it really is physical vibrations in the air. They're not really that we can "feel" this energy like if someone struck us as hard as a hammer in a piano strikes a string, but it's enough to cause your eardrum to vibrate, or a microphone diaphragm to vibrate or, in the case of really loud sounds with large wavelengths - like bass at a club - you can actually feel that as it vibrates through the air - and walls, and floor, etc. IOW, any Medium - a wall, a guitar's body, water - and air - can "carry" sound energy - that's how it gets to our ears then causes them to vibrate so we can hear it. What "sympathetic" vibrations are is when you have a guitar string on one guitar just sitting there, and you play the same string on another guitar. Those sound waves - vibrations - hit our ear drum, and that string as well. Ordinarily, the string has too much tension and mass to be set in motion by this energy. It takes a LOT of energy to "rattle your windows" or knock plates off a shelf - usually the kind very loud thunder or a jet sonic boom produces. But when an object has a particular "resonant frequency" it can more easily be set in motion by less energy. So a string that's tuned to an A will more easily be set in motion by another guitar string playing an A note. Or, you singing an A note. That's how the whole "singer breaking a wine glass" works. They find the resonant frequency of the glass, sing that note really loud, the glass resonates (which can actually build up over time) and may do so strongly it'll break. A really simple example is pushing someone on a swing - you know that once you get someone swinging, you can push them with little effort - it doesn't take a lot of energy to keep them going - once you get the push part in the right timing - in essence, you are matching when you push to the resonant frequency of the person on a swing. Look up the Tacoma Narrows Bridge to see how this can have devastating effects. Many of the Balcony collapses at nightclubs are due to resonant frequencies (imparted by people dancing in rhythm not necessarily the sound itself). It's why soldiers "break step" across bridges. In music, many of the notes we play have a Timbre, or "tone color" that not only contains one vibration, but many vibrations, called "partials" or "overtones". An A note, on some instruments, has not only the A note vibration, but an E as well, and even some other notes. So An A string plucked on a guitar will cause another guitar's A string to sympathetically vibrate. But, it may also impart enough energy to the High E string, which is one of the partials. Higher partials have less energy, so they're not as strong as lower partials, so most resonance is due to the same exact pitch being played, but it can be in other octaves or even other notes. "Resonance" is really kind of a separate part where a waveform is able to bounce back on itself in a way that helps it kind of "self-oscillate" (in fact, in some Synthesizers, the Filter uses Resonance to produce notes without an Oscillator). But resonance also often works as an "amplifier" for sounds - it's the resonance of a guitar body, or the tubes under a Marimba - which are called resonators (there's a resonator guitar too) that help to amplify the weaker sounds of the strings - by imparting the string's energy into the body of the guitar, which itself becomes an oscillator (in this case also triggered by the physical vibrations of the string in contact with the top of the guitar) we now get a "fuller" sound which equates to "louder" sound. A Guitar with a larger, resonant body, is going to sound louder and fuller than a smaller, less resonant body all things being equal. It's why the best guitar makers search out pieces of wood that have a resonance they know will improve the guitar's sound, rather than inhibit it (dampen it, which is kind of the opposite of resonance). "Sympathetic Strings" on various instruments that have them work on this same principle - they are free to vibrate, and any time any note that matches their pitch (or possibly any note's overtone that matches that pitch) is played, it also sets the Sympathetic String in motion. It serves two purposes usually - one is to increase volume and "fullness", but because those strings are often not damped and are free to vibrate even after a note is played and stopped, you get "carry over" which is more like when you don't damp the strings on a Harp or Piano (with the pedal down). HTH

  2536. musictheory 2018-06-28 06:30:48 LickingSmegma
    BTW, an easy way to demonstrate resonance on a guitar is to play one string's note on another string, by pressing the corresponding fret. Then, when you dampen the string you strummed, you'll hear the other string vibrating. In this case, the vibration is imparted via the body of the guitar.

  2537. musictheory 2018-06-28 07:58:54 jaykzo
    Get on a swing Let me push you You have a natural period of oscillation when you're on that swing, that depends on the length of your swing. Lets say it takes you 2 seconds to complete a "swing". If I push you at the right time interval, every two seconds, I will add energy to the system and you'll develop a larger swinging arc. If I push you at the wrong time intervals (every 1.5 seconds) you won't swing, you'll just errantly go back and forth with no consistency and never get into that swinging rhythm. Now just imagine that swing is a guitar string, and it's being pushed by puffs of air instead. If the puffs of air hit at just the right frequency (the resonant frequency), they'll add energy to the string and it will resonate.

  2538. musictheory 2018-06-28 09:48:33 LydianAlchemist
    the air waves bouncing off of the guitar string (and vibrations through the wood) cause any strings with matching tunings to start vibrating as well. it also works with harmonics.

  2539. musictheory 2018-06-28 16:42:25 Jongtr
    The note I think you mean (around 0:07 and 0:15) is not an overtone of any audible note, and sounds to me like a mistake on an acoustic stringed instrument of some kind. It's a pitch between D and Eb, while the main tonality is G minor. It sounds to me like the kind of note you get on guitar sometimes if you push a string off the edge of the fretboard (but I'm pretty sure this is not a guitar). Obviously, if it was a mistake, they liked it because they kept it and repeated it. There is also an Ab note alternating with the G which sometimes veers sharp (it could be a tuned drum, because there's a constant G bass beneath it). The whole intro is a little weird, because - aside from the tuning issues - the delay effect is messing with the rhythm to some extent. Around 0:30, the harmony settles down somewhat to a Cm chord with a mid-register Db note, then Ab major (still with that slightly sharp Ab), back to Cm, and then Gm before the vocal "ah ah..." begins. The vocal note seems to be Eb - arguably echoing that rogue high D/Eb, because I'm not sure it's totally in tune (and is dissonant over the Gm anyway). At 0:42 the chord goes to Cm (or single C note), and the vocal is Eb-F-Eb. There's still plenty of out of tune stuff when the drums kick in, because of what seems like pitched percussion: bass G (tuned drum) under an Ab chord, with that other percussion note that's nearly A natural (but wobbles). (I detect some gamelan influence or sampling here... ?)

  2540. musictheory 2018-06-29 00:42:49 65TwinReverbRI
    You know what they are. If the piece is titled "Rondo", it probably is! If it's the first movement of a classical Sonata, Symphony, String Quartet, Piano Trio, etc. then it's probably in Sonata Form (Sonata Allegro Form). Also SAF is common for final movements, and stand-alone pieces (that aren't obviously something else) or things named "Allegro". A "Sonatina" typically uses a "little" Sonata Form style for its first movement as well. Is it called a Minuet? It's probably in Ternary form. Probably has a Trio. Listen for it. Themes and Variations are just that, but the Theme itself and each successive variation might be in Rounded Binary or Ternary form. Waltzes and Marches are typically cast in Ternary form - Marches often with a Trio section and often a move to the Subdominant Key toward the end. Da Capo is a common form for shorter songs (especially Arias from operas) which are not cast in Ternary or Rounded Binary in the more typical sense (Da Capo is itself Ternary but we usually specify this particular form). The other method is to sit down with the score and follow it, and analyze it. There are two primary ways of determining form: 1. Listening for Material that returns. 2. KEY CHANGES!!!!!!!! In fact, the absolute number one form indicator in CPP music is the KEY - this is something most people don't understand. But in many pieces, it's the key change alone that defines the form rather than any specific type of musical material or repetition. But I'm going to be honest with you - when I listen to a piece of music, I don't care about form. It's not what I'm thinking about. I'm paying attention to the music - the overall effect. I might notice some formal characteristics, and if I pick up a piece in the middle with no knowledge of what it is, I might go, "oh, this is a T&V" but I don't really worry about that stuff. I just listen to the piece and enjoy it. If I'm going to be concerned about what form it is - I'm going to listen with that in mind, or even more likely, look up the title, see what kind of piece it comes from, and so on - even use the score or other resources just to save time and trouble. IOW, there's no burning need for me to know what form a piece is to enjoy it, only to analyze it for a specific purpose - and if that's the case I don't have to do in real time so I can take my time working it out.

  2541. musictheory 2018-06-29 10:28:05 65TwinReverbRI
    Not really. The problem is, the same voicing can sound different in a different octave, or even as a different chord on the same instrument. Then, it sounds different on different instruments, or groups of instruments. So there's no way to predict that, say, C-F-A-D as Dm7/C is always going to have the same "color" or even "effect" on guitar as piano, and of course if you play it spread over a single 9th, or multiple octaves, or in a different octave all on the same instrument. And with instruments like guitar, chords will sound different depending on if an open string is used or not (if there's an option to) and in some cases, where that open string falls within structure. Also, context is pretty dependent here. I remember learning a song years ago that had an F7/A after a C to Bb progression. It had a very distinctive sound about it in that progression that wasn't the same as just playing F7, or taking the F7/A in isolation or in some other progression. I think we can make some generalities but any kind of "chart" would simply be wrong, or at the very best, good for only one specific set of circumstances.

  2542. musictheory 2018-06-29 16:33:24 HashPram
    I'd add a caveat to the above, but there's a bit of a story attached to it so if you're sitting comfortably ... After 15 years of study & practice I stopped playing classical guitar this year in order to concentrate on writing and although I've written songs for years I've known that I've been heavily relying on specific structures and tropes I picked up over 30 years ago when I taught myself "how to write a song". The upshot is that when I try to write something that isn't verse/chorus or doesn't involve bass/drums/guitar/vocals I come completely unstuck. And - of course - having been writing verse/chorus songs for so long I'm getting a bit tired of doing something that feels more and more like a straightjacket/painting by numbers and less and less a creative exploration of sound. What, therefore, to do? The first thing I realised is that although I know a reasonable amount about theory (I have a lot of facts in my head) I'd never studied it systematically. So I went & bought of more up-to-date textbooks and started reading them. So far, so good. But then: Disaster. I realised that all that was happening was I was adding more facts to the facts in my head and not really using any of it. So I posted something here & you replied telling me, inter alia, I needed to learn how to "play the piece". This jolted me into realising that what I needed to do was to read a bit, then use what I'd read about to write something - anything - just use what you've read about until it becomes comfortable enough that you feel you've assimilated it and only then move on. This was a most excellent realisation. But there is a problem. Although I can use this method to become more familiar with specific theoretical aspects of music not every piece will be written as a response to reading technical information. Actually most of what I write _isn't_ written this way. So what do I do if I hit a problem? Music theory textbooks only help you solve problems if they're reminding you of something you're already familiar with. This is not really a Bad Thing - it's just a consequence of the fact that they're structured around taking someone from a point of relative unfamiliarity with musical theory to a point of relative familiarity. But - clearly - that's not much help if I'm stuck. So while the advice "You need to apply theory by using it" is good general advice - "learn how more tools work and you'll be able to do more stuff" - it overlooks the fact that theory textbooks aren't structured in the right way to help people solve problems. Think of it like the difference between a dictionary and thesaurus. Same words - different purpose. One gives you definitions: the other gives you options. Which is why that 74 creative strategies book is such a goldmine: It's structured as a problem-solving manual. It's not going to tell you how to write Xenakis-like string glissandos but it _is_ going to help you if you're stuck on where to start, or you've go to a certain point but you're not sure how to continue. So ... what you read of music theory you need to apply by writing pieces based on those bits of theory is good general advice: It will make your life easier in the long run. As you learn more theory you give yourself more options and hopefully won't get stuck so often. But what's also needed is practical advice on problem-solving for musicians - if it references a theory textbook all well and good - but principally the organisation of such a book would need to be different - more like a troubleshooting manual and less like a "welcome to your new DVD player - here are all the functions in order".

  2543. musictheory 2018-06-29 20:28:17 Jongtr
    I really like those chords, and your vocal melody is nice too. That first chord (A-D-A-B) is ambiguous, but is closest to D6 or Bm7 (adding an F# in each case). But the two A's suggest it could also be a partial Am(add9). As trill_jarrett says, adding a G bass - changing the low A for a G - would make sense of it as a Gadd9 (because you'd then have a G major triad, G-B-D, with A as 9th). But I like its ambiguity as it is. You could still try adding other notes to see if a suitable chord identity becomes clearer. Eg, adding the top E string (to strengthen A as the root); re-organising those notes as x-0-2-4-3-0 (A-E-B-D-E). Maybe adding a C to confirm some kind of Am identity: x-0-7-5-0-0 (Am(add9), loses the D unfortunately). Or adding an E bass to give it more of an Em feel: 0-2-0-2-0-0 (EBDABE = E7sus4). I'm not saying any of these are "better". Just the sort of things I might mess around with to check. I agree with trill_jarrett, it does sound (from listening) like your overall key is G major, so any other chords from that key are worth trying: G, Am, Bm, D, Em. As well as adding 7ths to any of them (maj7 to the G), try adding 9ths or 4ths too, to maintain the general mood you have. One nice D variant is this shape: x-5-4-0-3-0 (a kind of inverted Em9). IMHO, getting too functional with those D7 variants pushes it in a different direction. There's no need to introduce any conventional tensions or voice-leading - unless you really like them of course! I like the kind of open-ended aimlessness of what you currently have - the mood is great (and your vocal melody is strong). The main advice is to keep following your ear - trust your ear - and don't apply chords because you think they should fit (theoretically). Try all the chords suggested, but in any order, and add or omit any notes you like. Keep leading the song with the vocal (you've got that right) testing which chords could go with the notes you're singing.

  2544. musictheory 2018-06-29 22:20:13 LiamGaughan
    How long is a piece of string? Sorry, but it's the same question

  2545. musictheory 2018-06-29 23:35:06 frumsapa
    It's a lot of pentatonics, but he's using the full minor scale for the more melodious parts. I broke down that last lick for you [here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQeAw_y-Tzk&feature=youtu.be) Sorry I didn't have time to work it up to full speed. It starts off just plain pentatonic in G# minor going up. On the way back down, he throws in that 2nd scale degree of the minor scale (11th fret b string or A#) for some extra tension. In the chromatic sounding part, he uses a raised 7th degree (12th fret g string or Fx) and then a b2 (14th fret g string or A natural). To me, this sounds like its implying a V7b5 (D# Fx A C#) but I can't really hear the backing track enough to hear the chords to make sure. He could possibly be thinking of them as just some chromatic passing tones instead of outlining a chord. Anyway, I would practice the different positions of pentatonic the most for now. Even though he uses some notes from outside scale, I wouldn't think of it as "changing scales," more like borrowing some extra notes. I wasn't sure of your current theory knowledge, so if you have any more questions about it I can try and point you in the right direction.

  2546. musictheory 2018-06-30 01:01:08 65TwinReverbRI
    Different *cultures* have different tuning systems. Different languages have different names for pitches, even the same one. In English, B is B, but in French, it's Si, and in German, it's H. Also, words like "flat" or "sharp" are what they are in the various languages. That "culture" can be considered the Western European Musical Tradition. That tradition developed an Octave of 7 different pitches, and 5 chromatic notes, which evolved gradually into a system of 12 Tone Equal Temperament, meaning each note is exactly 1/12 of the frequency span of an 8ve (which is a doubling of frequency). We haven't really cared to name notes beyond 7 letter names and chromatically altering them with flats and sharps. Western European Music has been adopted by other cultures such that Japanese musicians may play this same system. In many cases, various cultures just either used Western note names, or if they could, names from notes in their own systems that were rough approximations of the same pitches. In Japanese, "C" is "Ha", but since Japan interacts with English-speaking countries frequently, when you buy a Japanese manufactured synthesizer it's going to have English letter names a lot of times. Now, the ORIGINAL cultures developed their own musical systems that have little if nothing to do with Western European musical tradition (which itself is believed to have come from the Middle East thus there are some similarities there). A lot of Asian cultures did not develop a system of 7 notes, or they did not care to bound their system by the 8ve. So notes are named however they historically were. Just to give one example that is closer to WEMT - in Greek, the names of the notes were "string closest to the body" and "string furthest from the body" before they used Syllable/Letter names. Even in Latin, in the early Middle Ages, D wasn't "D" but "Tonus Primus". So, the notes are named differently, and tuned differently in non-Western corrupted cultures, and in Western corrupted cultures, the tuning is the same, while the note names may either be English, Native equivalents to their own alphabet, and things like that.

  2547. musictheory 2018-06-30 03:01:15 65TwinReverbRI
    You're not hearing "tuning up" but "warming up" which usually involves all of the players just sitting around playing whatever. Often, you'll hear orchestra members going over important parts of the pieces they'll be playing later. When they intentionally tune, an A is given, and everyone tunes to that, but they will also check other intervals. In the case of the strings, they'll check their other strings, which for the whole ensemble is C-G-D-A-E So it's very common for people who want to try to emulate orchestral tuning to play string sounds in 5ths or stacked 5ths like that. That would make JonGtr not far off - G-D-A is a "G add 9" - with the E it would be a "G6/9" and when the C creeps in, that makes it a "C6/9" - since the C is going to be low. But that sound is really created by the collective instruments moving around on their notes not necessarily playing only the A, and then only those notes to tune to. It's really "random" and you still may have people in that recording playing bits of scales or chords, or even adjusting their tuning and so on. That would be impossible to recreate exactly. But starting with those ideas would at least get you in the ballpark.

  2548. musictheory 2018-06-30 03:33:18 65TwinReverbRI
    Depends. A SOUNDING A on guitar is the same as a Violin's sounding A. However, guitar music is written an octave higher than it sounds. In other words, give the same music to both violin and guitar with the E in the top space of treble given, the guitar will make an E that sounds an octave lower than what the violin sounds. If you say "play middle C" a guitarist **might** know that you mean the 2nd string 1st fret, not what we usually play as written middle C, which is the 5th string 3rd fret. So guitar music sounds an octave lower than written, or, given the same written note, will sound an octave lower than violin - that is, if the guitarist even knows how to read music. But if asked to play "sounding" middle C, they'll play the same exact frequency assuming they both use the same tuning (orchestra people often tune a little higher than A 440 while guitarists usually use A 440).

  2549. musictheory 2018-06-30 04:33:36 pabupaybe
    Orchestras tune on A, and that's the primary note heard here. It is typically started by the oboes, then the strings join in, playing first their open A string, then the D and E strings. This is what makes the floaty, open sound as the notes are in fifths.

  2550. musictheory 2018-06-30 11:18:22 aotus_trivirgatus
    I took a minor in Music as an undergraduate. I studied quite a bit of harmony, but not orchestration. In fact I'm not even sure that an orchestration class was part of the curriculum. Some years ago, I encountered a problem in a composition I was writing, a piano quintet. If I wanted to remain faithful to certain melodic considerations in my piece, at one point I was going to have a sustained E♭ accompanied first by a D (minor second below), and then by an E (minor second above).  Yuck!  I played this sound on the keyboard several times, and I could not bring myself to accept it. I thought that maybe I would eventually get used to it, or figure out how to change the notes.  In any case, I wanted to move on, so I went ahead and played the troublesome passage into my sequencer.  When I played the section back, it was arranged by the synthesizer into string and piano parts -- and, surprise, the effect was softened considerably.  The E♭ was played by the piano, while the surrounding notes were played by the viola. Because the successive minor seconds were sounded by quite distinct timbres, the clash between the voices was decreased, and the ear was more forgiving with the harmony.  I think that this is an interesting compositional tool -- the use of distinct timbres to soften harmonic tension.  It lets me write things that I otherwise could not write! The issue of instrumental blending and independence does not seem to enter into most people's minds when they're analyzing music, or studying harmony -- or in my case, until that revealing moment, composing.  Chords are treated like Platonic forms, existing independently of the instruments that play them. That isn't true. I asked questions of people more knowledgeable than myself, and apparently some orchestration textbooks discuss the interactions between harmony and timbre. I was told that Adler's book mentions it. I was also told that Persichetti's *Twentieth Century Harmony* covers the issue, but I own that book and when I read through it, the passage that the person had in mind didn't jump out at me. Take-home lesson: one compositional strategy is "go about instrumentation" before you write any harmony at all.

  2551. musictheory 2018-06-30 11:26:36 beaumega1
    The closest thing I could find is "[tap harmonics](https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/lessons/guitar_techniques/the_basics_of_tap_harmonics.html)", in which you lightly tap a string to invoke a vibration. Used on this other-side-of-the-bridge section of string, I'm not sure any actual notes are intended to be heard, but it's likely the pitter-patter undertone effect is what is intended. If I were going to notate this, I would probably write constant sixteenth notes (or more/less rapid as desired), but with x's instead of note heads (indicating no specific pitch), and write out something like "*lightly tap string across the bridge*". In modern pieces with extended techniques like this, plain ol' English is pretty much accepted now.

  2552. musictheory 2018-06-30 13:46:04 crom-dubh
    >I think the reason is that many guitarists (speaking only for myself) just learn the relationship between the staff and the strings If anything, that's why I would have expected to have it favor transposition and not the original pitch. For instance, I am a guitarist in my band all our songs are in D standard, but I've noticed my bassist still has the tendency to refer to what the note *would* be if it were on a standard tuned bass, i.e. he would call the third fret of the 3rd string (second lowest bass string) a C and not a Bb.

  2553. musictheory 2018-07-01 00:00:38 davethecomposer
    Definitely treat it as a transposing instrument. With some tunings, like drop-D, we are used to making the change on the E string so doing it at "concert pitch" (well, transposed an octave, of course) is fine. But the more radical the tuning away from anything normal the more I'd want to retain standard fingerings even if they don't sound the same. Another way of looking at your piece is what if instead of tuning to A-440 it's tuned to whatever a full step down would be. In this case you'd indicate the reference pitch but now your E is still an E but because you are using a different reference pitch it sounds lower.

  2554. musictheory 2018-07-01 01:41:21 65TwinReverbRI
    You could ask David Bruce. u/davidbrucecomposer If that's the same guy, he posts here regularly and is generally a pretty helpful person. "Tap Harmonics" is a technique popularized and as far as most are concerned, originating from rock guitar (Van Halen primarily) where the string is "tapped" (which usually implies using the picking hand) with a finger at a node to produce a Harmonic. Usually this is done by tapping the string forcefully enough above a fret to both cause it to ring and to produce the overtone. I'm not really sure this is possible, or, at least effective on strings becuase there's no fret to help activate the string, and it's probably only going to work on the lower, longer strings of the Cello or Bass. People smack the crap out of basses though, so probably more likely on that than anything! Might work on cello strings as well - but on the normal side of the bridge - string length is too short on the other side. More likely, it's just about making the string on the wrong side of the bridge sound (at its full length, not necessarily any harmonic mode). There are some traditional symbols for "bow behind bridge". But I don't know if there's anything remotely standardized for pizz behind bridge, and more importantly "tapping" behind the bridge (so the technique might indeed be called or be referred to as "tapping" which many fiddleists unfamiliar with guitar might not know thus no danger of them trying to pull out an Eddie, but who knows today, so a verbal instruction is appropriate). http://www.lunanova.org/CelloET/index.html

  2555. musictheory 2018-07-01 03:57:19 japaneseknotweed
    <grin> Thought so. -- the barbershop, bluegrass, oldtime, balkan, impressionist, modernist, Georgian, African, gospel, arabic, carnatic, country western, soul, new age, post 1900 string quartet, jazz players....

  2556. musictheory 2018-07-02 00:23:14 Pyrophexx
    I'm gonna use guitar (an instrument I play) as an exemple. You have 2 guitars in standard tuning but one is shorter so it's tuned a major third higher( for exemple, G# C# F# B D# G#). Now imagine you know how to play guitar and you want to learn how to play the short guitar. You know that on a standard guitar, when you read a C on the sheet, you play the 3rd fret of the 5th string. Now what you could do on the short guitar, is relearn the entire fretboard, spend hundreds of hours building up muscle memory and joining it with your sight-reading skills, so that when you read a C on the sheet, you know to play the 4th fret of the 6th string on the short guitar. Or you can use transposed pitch. So let's get to the terms you want explained. The short guitar is tuned a major third up from the standard guitar, so it's sheet is transposed a major third down from standard. A composer writes a piece for Guitar and Short guitar. You are tasked to play the short guitar, but you only know how to play guitar! Fear not, for the beauty of transposed pitch will save you. The composer want both instruments to give out the pitch C together, so that they sound in unison. So he writes the note C on the sheet for the standard guitar. The person playing the guitar fingers the note of the 3rd fret of the 5th string. On your sheet for short guitar however, he writes the note Ab. Because you know how to play the standard guitar, when you read Ab, you know to play the note on the 4th fret on the 6th string. But your instrument is different, so when you fingered what you read and thought of as an Ab, the sound that came out was actually that of a C. You actually emitted the same sound as the standard guitar. You played the note the composer intended on an instrument you never played before thanks to transposed pitch. The composer started by writing what sound the wanted to hear. They wanted to hear the sound of C. In their notation software, they wrote 2 parts, in concert pitch. He gave the standard guitar a part in concert pitch because it is not a transposing instrument. To you however, to help YOU play, he gave a transposed part. He wanted to hear the pitch C, which means that you should finger it on your instrument like you finger an Ab on a standard guitar. So the concert pitch is C, it's the sound that came out. The pitch YOU, the performer, read is Ab. It's the pitch you fingered on your instrument. I hope this helped explain why transposing pitch exists and why it's useful and how the words relating to it work. Hopefully the story I gave will help you remember those terms and where they come from.

  2557. musictheory 2018-07-02 03:16:27 gtfo_mailman
    On the heavier side, yes. Almost all my musical friends play very heavy metal and often when I talk about guitar voicings, for example, they'll show me minor seconds or tritones. One of my friends detune their lowest string (god knows what that tuning is nowadays) to make it buzz and make the distortion growl. So, I'd answer yes, from my experience as a metalhead bystander.

  2558. musictheory 2018-07-02 03:16:50 Jongtr
    Well, you tune the A on your guitar to the same A as everyone else. A=440 is one specific octave of A, which is the 5th fret on guitar 1st string. Guitar 5th string is A=110, and 3rd string fret 2 is A=220. Of course, your guitar tuner will read them all as "A" (because it's set to the same "concert" reference, and recognises any octave of A as A).

  2559. musictheory 2018-07-02 06:11:24 Xenoceratops
    >It's like rock discovered (or re-discovered) the power of timbre as a positive musical factor, which a lot of classical music and vintage popular music attempted to remove or simplify, promoting the use of "clean" tone quality. Classical harmony was highly complex of course, but the harmony only really works properly when individual note timbres are fairly pure. IOW, timbral content was reduced in parallel with the increase in tonal harmonic content. This narrative ignores the fact that the western orchestral tradition developed in tandem with the classical style, and that peaks in harmonic complexity were met with peaks in orchestral dimension (see the music of Wagner, Richard Strauss, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Webern, Grainger, Antheil, Messiaen, Stockhausen, Boulez, Murail, etc.). You note a correlation and state causation. Meanwhile, you omit the *technological* developments that allowed for greater chromaticism (and thus more flexible instrumental writing) in the orchestra and new harmonic possibilities, as well as the standardization of equal temperament. Because you try to associate timbre with style and harmony, you fail to embrace the social and historical context of the musics in discussion. I get the sense that you are, intentionally or not, comparing 18th century court music to 20th century rock. However, the classical tradition incorporated electronic sounds when they became available. We cannot tell what rock music sounded like in 1748 because there was no rock back then, but I doubt it would have been played on amplified instruments processed through a DSP. >Naturally, harsh timbres are still employed in classical music, but more for occasional dramatic effect, not as a major factor. So you write off all the 20th century classical works that are explicitly inspired by timbre. No Cowell, no Spectralism, no Sciarrino, no Ligeti, no Stockhausen, no Gubaidulina, no Radulescu. Good job. >Its more the randomness of timbral noise that classical music attempted to minimise - in the aim of controlling every element of a composition - where random noise is an important part of music of other cultures. > >In African music, it's produced by various kinds of rattles, added to drums or thumb pianos. Plus of course all the various rattling percussion instruments, evolved into latin shakers, maracas, cabasas, etc. The obvious example of that in rock music is the snare drum (whose rattle originally had military purpose). This is a good point. But once again, there are all sorts of instruments in the European tradition that produce extra buzzing and noise. Take the [crumhorn](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uKBsfker6E), a capped reed instrument popular in the Renaissance, or string instruments with sympathetic strings such as the [viola d'amore](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r5TMIZtGDE) or [baryton](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjb0N73AKO0&t=2m3s) (Haydn even writes for the player to pluck the sympathetic strings. See 2:18 in that video.). A lot of these instruments fall out of favor during the period associated with the high classical style, particularly after the 1780s, but then we have a (at times, unevenly) punctuated development of the brass and percussion sections during the next 110 years or so. It's not as if the classical style flattened out timbre and kept itself in stylistic stasis. There are weird one-off side-alleys too. Take Albrechtsberger's [Concerto for Jew's Harp, Mandora and Orchestra](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L48oOAA8FoY), Leopold Mozart's alphorn music, including [Sinfonia Pastorella](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4hQaBdVITI) and a [Concerto for Alphorn](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljSTN1wFSm4), and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's glass harmonica music written for Marianne Kirchgessner, including [Adagio for Glass Harmonica, K.356/617a](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkTUL7DjTow) and [Adagio and Rondo for Glass Harmonica Quintet, K.617](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsPTgSDuh4) (which is a really beautiful piece, by the way). Like I said, these are fairly isolated examples and hardly amount to a common practice, though it is indicative of a rich world of amateur music that was very much at the heart of music consumption during the Enlightenment. Beethoven didn't write [mandolin music](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJXXS9ZawgA) unless he was trying to get some (unattainable) poontang, but remember that he wrote that music with a specific performer in mind, somebody who actually existed to play that music. The (mostly) standardized instrumentation of the orchestra did not have much room for these little weird instruments ([most of the time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4n9hp2ThUs)), but they were still played in salons. Even so, Luigi Boccherini wrote [col legno, harmonics, sul ponticello, tremolando, glissandi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpYEfXzpYSk&t=15m), and all sorts of effects into his music, so it's not like the "standard" instruments couldn't have fun.

  2560. musictheory 2018-07-02 10:44:27 i_make_love_to_cows
    Can play an octave below the Low G string on the violin: over rosin your bow, place it close to the bridge on the B string, and press very heavily onto the string and pull the bow very slowly. You can here the overtone below that string with a very steady and heavy bow stroke. Works best at the frog where you can really dig in.

  2561. musictheory 2018-07-02 19:01:37 arveeay
    B string?

  2562. musictheory 2018-07-03 01:04:59 jenslarsenjazz
    ###Table of Contents### [0:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=0s) Intro and Internet Drama [1:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=65s) Who needs scales anyway? [1:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=85s) My Home Made Blues Scale Position [2:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=130s) Learning Improvisation and 5 Scale Positions [2:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=158s) Needing a System and Finding one [3:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=220s) #1 - 7 Position System [5:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=330s) Conservatory Technique and not learning 3NPS [5:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=352s) Learning to play fast with John Petrucci [6:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=408s) #2 - 3NPS (3 Notes Per String) [8:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=492s) How I know the CAGED SYSTEM [8:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=520s) #3 The CAGED System [9:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=588s) Comparing the systems [10:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=622s) The 7 Position systems and a few issues [10:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=642s) Stretches and Position Shifts [12:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=730s) Hidden Stretches in The CAGED system [13:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=791s) The CAGED Scales and The Basic Chords & Arpeggios [14:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=842s) What System do you use? Did I get something wrong? [14:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawCLMgCZns&t=861s) Like the video? Check out my Patreon Page!

  2563. musictheory 2018-07-03 04:15:05 lukemtbr1
    First of all I want to thank you very much for taking your time to respond like this. I'm a bit tired now so I think I will have to re-read this a few times tomorrow to completely understand :D I would like to ask though, you said that the first time you hear the line going "up" is in the Eb to F progression - now, if you mean the 1:42 to 1:44 part, which is Eb to F, don't the horns go down? When I tried to transcribe this part (1:42 to 1:46), I came up with (on the high E string): 6--5-3---3---3-5-6 (the 6-5-3 is where the Eb to F happens so that's why I'm asking. Also, does that sound correct to you?) Once again thank you very much, I will definitely read your answer many times tomorrow to wrap my head around this, as I really want to cover this song in full :)

  2564. musictheory 2018-07-03 04:33:27 65TwinReverbRI
    > ow, if you mean the 1:42 to 1:44 part, which is Eb to F, don't the horns go down? Yes, but the note it goes down to is still part of the F chord. What you tabbed out happens the previous time. What I hear as sort of the "basis" is: 6--5---3 then 2nd string 3---6--first string---3 Then it goes higher. The first one a "stacking" - first string ---10--8--6-- then it moves to these higher notes (I think that's where the first Eb chord comes). Then it climbs higher and goes down, higher and goes up, then way high IIRC. Try some notes around the 11th and 13th frets, and 17 and 18 ish. later on.

  2565. musictheory 2018-07-03 04:47:18 i_make_love_to_cows
    Yes G string! Thanks :/

  2566. musictheory 2018-07-03 11:31:41 Xenoceratops
    >LOL. You make it sound like the history of music is being sucked into a fiery abyss. Only if you conflate the canon with history. The idea of the "western musical canon" was invented in the 19th century by critics catering to the newly minted European middle class coming out of the Industrial Revolution. All those people with disposable income needed (or were at least provided with) guidance for how to direct their money and efforts as concertgoers and amateur musicians themselves. A lot of the music we think of as being part of the canon was not even inducted until the twentieth century. You know that guy, Joseph "Papa" Haydn (1732-1809)? Mozart's teacher? "Inventor" of the classical symphony, string quartet, and so on? Yeah. [He had to wait until 1909 to come back as a zombie.](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01411890902913131) Joseph Kerman remarks upon the historical and ideological context for the canon in [A Few Canonic Variations](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1343408). Here's a little bit for ya: "What seems to me more significant about the nineteenth century is the fundamental change that took place during this period in the nature of the Western art-music tradition or, more precisely, in the way this tradition changed. In previous centuries the repertory consisted of music of the present generation and one or two preceding generations; it was continuously turning over. Thus in the fifteenth century the insufferable Johannes Tinctoris could announce that there was no music worth listening to that hadn't been written in the last forty years (about his own age at the time); in seventeenth-century Venice, though the opera houses may remind us of a modern city's movie theaters, there were no rerun houses for Monteverdi as there are for Fellini; and Bach's music dropped out of the Leipzig repertory at his death no less promptly than that of his far less eminent predecessors. Under such conditions of evanescence the idea of a canon is scarcely thinkable." "After around 1800 or 1820, however, when new music entered the repertory, old music did not always drop out. Beethoven and Rossini were added to, not replaced. Increasingly the repertory assumed a historical dimension; music assumed a history. There were even conscious efforts to extend the repertory back into the evanesced past." (111-112) Decanonization is just undoing a 19th century program that has overstayed its welcome. Hardly an all-consuming fiery abyss at all. >Oh well. Do you see any point in my keeping this book or should I ditch it? I won't tell you to ditch it, because it's at least an historically important text, but be realistic about what it is and what you hope to learn from it. In my opinion, you would be better suited by a modern text that actually addresses what you hope to do. (Speaking of a historical canon...)

  2567. musictheory 2018-07-03 19:25:10 Jongtr
    IMO the latter is better. Traditionally, jazz musicians would have learned technique and theory mostly from classically-based lessons; then learned jazz improvisation, rhythms, etc, - i.e., how to actually "play jazz" - from practical experience: learning from older musicians on the bandstand, and (in later eras) from obsessive listening to recordings. As jazz prof Hal Galper says, it's a music you "learn by doing it". The point is, theory always follows practice. Theory can certainly help make sense of what you're hearing, but you have to at least study it *alongside* listening and copying. It's not going to make a lot of sense beforehand. Or - even if you can make sense of it - you'll find a whole lot of stuff in the music itself which you didn't read about. Even the Real Book is only information, some raw material you can use. It's not a bible. As for Levine, I was highly impressed with it when I first read it. The notion of the equivalence between chords and scales felt eye-opening, liberating. But - like you - I had trouble applying it in practice: at least when playing the usual standards one studies on jazz courses (and mostly plays in gigs). I had already been improvising for many years before that, and had found my own way of doing it. Naturally, studying jazz seriously, I thought I'd discover new higher levels of improvising. In fact, I didn't. I certainly discovered new kinds of music - modal jazz, in particular, where Levine's viewpoint makes sense. But the methods of improvising I'd worked out for myself up to then (learning melodies, listening to recordings and copying other improvisers) turned out to work in more advanced jazz too. It's simply about using the material you're given and constructing new melodic and rhythmic phrasing from it. The point being that the "material" is not just a string of disconnected chords. It's a composition, with a melody, and the chords flow in a logical *progression*, cadences, dissonance-consonance movements. Taking the chords one by one (which CST might persuade you to do) is way too complicated: it's not seeing the wood for the trees. One example in particular: the altered scale. What I'd read about it made sense intellectually, how it fitted the altered dom7 chord, its resemblance to a mode of melodic minor. But I couldn't use it in practice, until I realised that the alterations were all about semitone resolutions on to the *next* chord. That's the whole reason the chord is altered in the first place. The melodic minor stuff is irrelevant, just as the sound of the scale on the chord itself is irrelevant; it's all about the *voice-leading.* The theory never told me that. Mark Levine never told me that. I'm not saying Levine is misguided, or that there isn't a lot of great stuff in his book. There is plenty in it that I've barely touched on, and which (no doubt) applies to jazz I hardly ever listen to. But for a beginner, it gives a misleading emphasis.

  2568. musictheory 2018-07-04 04:46:19 SelectCase
    The rules are theory are not rules but rather are explanations and tools for achieving a certain sounds and feelings in music. If you find yourself "leaning" on theory and losing your voice, it's because you don't have enough tools in your musical toolbox yet. Functional diatonic harmony is only the base kit with a hammer and screwdriver. You can do a lot with those tools, but if you want to build a house, it helps to have wrenches, pliers, paintbrushes, drills, and sand paper. There are all kinds of places to pick up new musical tools. Theory books are great, but they aren't your only source of good theory information. You can get new tools from all kinds of places to use. My writing is heavily influenced by what I listen to. I love game music so I end up using mode mixture like bVII and bVIII a lot. Look at songs you love to listen to or play and pull harmonic tricks from those and add them to your arsenal. You can also develop entirely new tools. Make up rules to write with, and try to see what you can come up with. (see adam neely's fantastic video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0c4UBWFW-w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0c4UBWFW-w) ) Imposing rules on yourself can make you toy with things you never thought you could do. (e.g. write a song using only minor 7 chords, or a song using only major chords and never use V or V7, write a melody that can be played on a single guitar string, etc). Adam also has another fantastic theory video too. Which answers this question much more elegantly than anybody here (including me). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49alQj7c5ps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49alQj7c5ps)

  2569. musictheory 2018-07-04 07:46:43 crom-dubh
    Yes, 12 tone technique allows for polyphony and counterpoint, so there is nothing that would preclude you from doing this on guitar or any other instrument. How you choose to do it is entirely up to you. You wouldn't have to confine each tone row to a string. Generally speaking you would mostly use a tone row per *voice* but that isn't the same thing.

  2570. musictheory 2018-07-04 11:48:21 17bmw
    The only real rule for twelve-tone music is that you use a row of the twelve chromatic pitches as well as various transformations of that row (inversions, retrogrades, retrograde inversions, and transpositions thereof) as the determiner for a piece of music. Twelve tone music need not be atonal (although it lends itself to dissolving pitch centers). There are theorists who get picky and add a slew of other rules (like no repetition until all other notes have sounded or no use of triads) but Schoenberg himself hardly followed those rules. All of the ways you mention of using rows are ways Schoenberg and his students (Webern and Berg in particular) used rows. Counterpoint is easy enough because it simply requires stacking rows together (Schoenberg was a fan of this technique and it happens all over *Moses Und Aron*). You can create chords by using 2, 3, 4, 5 note segments of the row along with another row serving as the melody (Webern loved this so much, he designed his rows to have specific segmentation properties. Check out his *String quartet Op. 28*). You could create different rows (related or unrelated, up to you) and have different strings (or different people!) play them. (Berg did this in *Lulu* where different rows became leitmotifs.) The guitar itself is uncannily suited for twelve-tone technique. If you choose a hexa-chord whose complement (the other six pitches) is the same as the original after you transpose it, you could tune the six strings of the guitar to one hexa-chord and then a bar would give you the other. This is just one possibility of many but the sky is the limit. I hope this helps.

  2571. musictheory 2018-07-05 03:08:44 Dontforgetthemusic
    A string quartet has two violins, so is it the viola part that makes it work or is it that the violinists in the best string quartets are so in sync with each to avoid the two violins effect?

  2572. musictheory 2018-07-05 06:58:35 BlockComposition
    You rarely if ever see the two violins playing in unison in string quartet literature.

  2573. musictheory 2018-07-05 09:24:24 Redhavok
    Problem is to get outside of the box you have to start inside the box. That fine, a lot of people don't know. It's actually quite a problem when you have talented students(or students that been playing for a long time) because they refuse to learn it like it is beneath them, it is hard for them to be humble and say 'I don't know this simple thing' when they can demonstrate some impressive chops. Basically CAGED is just a system for fret board visualization. It makes it so what ever note you are playing you know not only the notes surrounding it, but how they relate to each other. A lot of teachers stop there, but I usually go beyond that and use it a bit more..broadly. For instance if you are playing ind DADGAD then CAGED doesn't not work at all BUT the concept still applies, as long as you are accustom to your tuning. It's also basically how you play the piano, since you are just using intervals, only difference for guitar is that you don't have every note in a single line. Every player does this to some degree, some even claim they don't, but when you watch them play you can see they do, but just don't get the concept. Like say you are doing a typical A minor sweep arpeggio and doing variants of that, you may not be exclusively playing that arpeggio, but the is the foundation of what you are playing, that's your safety net. But your impairment may be that you only know it at the 12th fret, but by understanding CAGED you can be literally anywhere on the fret board. You will inevitably encounter some conflict between CAGED and 3NPS(3 notes per string). This are not mutually exclusive techniques, use both. 3NPS is useless without harmonic structure, especially for improvisation, and if there is more or less than 3 notes per string, and CAGED is a lot more useful if you are familiar with 3NPS.

  2574. musictheory 2018-07-05 10:41:06 archofmusic_dot_com
    I made this [free circle of fifths poster](http://www.archofmusic.com/assets/poster_images/The_Circle_of_Fifths_PDF.pdf) which shows how the frequency of the notes are calculated mathematically using fractional exponents and the approximate frequency ratios of the intervals. I also have a short tutorial on [the harmonics](http://www.archofmusic.com/chord_scale_mode_lessons/02_circle_of_fifths/circle_of_fifths_01_the_harmonics.htm) which are a phenomenon of nature and physics. The harmonics play a very special role in music. [Our scales are derived from them](http://www.archofmusic.com/chord_scale_mode_lessons/03_scales/scales_05_six_perfect_symmetrical_scales.htm). And Pythagoras used the harmonics to derive the first twelve tone musical instruments 2,500 years ago. Pythagorean tuning based off the harmonics is different and calculated differently from 12TET which is used today. Personally I'd like to hear an explanation of the harmonics and why they exist from a physicist. I'm also curious what music has to do with physics and the possibility of tying string theory to mathematics using music and the harmonics. Gluons in atoms are thought of as springs or coils, very similar to the way steel strings are wound on a guitar. Photons are both particles and waves.

  2575. musictheory 2018-07-05 18:55:22 Redhavok
    The other response are not incorrect but I want to try and be more clear. It is about SHAPES, not notes. Shapes of major chords specifically in this case. The 'E' of CAGED refers to an 'E major shape', which is just the standard major bar chord with the root on the 6th string. So an 'E shape chord' at the 5th fret is just an A major. And 'A Shape chord' at the 5th position is a D major. Take the open chords of CAGED, think of the open notes as a bar and move that shape along the fret board. They also overlap each other. It's an extremely powerful tool.

  2576. musictheory 2018-07-05 20:47:15 nuggles1
    I looked it up and I can definitely see how that's a helpful system. I'm self-taught and, like you said, used it to some degree without knowing it (just regarding learning intervals and note locations through shapes). But I've never even considered how many notes per string while improvising or anything, I try to keep improv as free as possible. Even my picking is a weird cross-picking/hybrid-picking combo, so I can hit any note any where at any time. I have a weird fear of getting "stuck", I used to get musical claustrophobia when I'd solo and not know my way out of whatever box I hopped into haha. The downside that now when I want to play fast lines that aren't legato, it's all fucked haha for accurate picking at high speeds you definitely need to have a foundation built on whatever formula best fits your technical strengths/weaknesses.

  2577. musictheory 2018-07-06 04:22:10 Xenoceratops
    8va = ottava (Italian for octave.) 15ma = quindecima (Italian for fifteenth; this is a double octave.) 22ma = ventisima seconda (Italian for twenty-second; this is a triple octave, and it is rare.) "8vb", "15mb", and similar constructions are not to be used. Elaine Gould doesn't explicitly forbid it, but you'll notice that she never uses it. Clint Roemer says this: >The '8VA BASSA' indication, meaning to play the passage an octave lower, should not be used for any instruments other than harp and keyboards. It should not be abbreviated '8VB'. In general, you should not use 8va/15ma. Write notes where they sound. Woodwind and brass players especially will hate you for writing octave indications because they need a particular fingering and harmonic to produce the proper pitch. It's not like keyboard and string instruments where the pattern of notes is the same in every octave. Use ledger lines and clef changes (if available for the instrument). Gould says this: >Music for woodwind and strings can use up to five ledger lines before moving into an octave transposition. Octave transpositions are unhelpful, as a player identifies a written pitch with a given fingering. The fingering does not duplicate the other octave, as it does on a keyboard. >Brass instruments and voices should never need octave signs. >Keyboard and harp music may make more extensive use of octave signs than other instruments. >In performance material, always use ledger lines in preference to octave signs for isolated notes or chords. Even in piano music it is more helpful to show the contour of the music in order to alert the player to the necessary leap of the hand. Players can easily read at least four ledger lines at a glance. >A full score that is not used to play from may replace ledger lines with the octave or even the two-octave sign as necessary, to save space between staves.

  2578. musictheory 2018-07-06 05:42:56 Redhavok
    >But I've never even considered how many notes per string while improvising or anything, I try to keep improv as free as possible. This is not necessarily bad. It is good to consider it and figure out startegies, but at the same time the whole point of doing that is to be able without thinking about it. You always get students that want to take something and try to make it so it's 3NPS and it's like no get used to playing different amount of notes on different strings, you're just crippling your playing. I find your legato statement a bit odd. If you want to play fast you probably just need to practice more or be more conscious of your technique, because you are on the right path, especially if you know the term cross-picking, you've clearly done some research into technique. I've kind of given up teaching cross picking because everyone just gives up and starts worshiping 3NPS, or 'feel'(playing sloppy and wondering why they wont get faster). If anything (clean)legato should be the hard part for you, interesting situation. Tension is the thing holding people back 99% of the time so it would be worth actively paying attention to how it feels when you play. Grab a metronome and make note of the tempo at which you start finding it hard to play cleanly. Even if it's like 90bpm, you're still going to sound better than someone who can play fast but sloppy. As a relatively strict cross/hybrid picker you likely have a problem of distance from the string. This is why the right technique is just learning all techniques, because you kind of need to change between them or combine them in an instant. Try playing something super slow and take not of how large each picking motion is, then make that movement as small as possible, if you have the opportunity to halve that you have the opportunity to play double your current top speed, it wont happen immediately, but the potential is there.

  2579. musictheory 2018-07-06 07:13:05 nuggles1
    Tension and excessive movement are definitely my issues. I've been playing for 10ish years but only in the last year or two realized how awful my self taught "technique" was. Grew up watching SRV then punk rock so I thought big hard strumming = how to play guitar, lmao. Even once I got into more intricate music I just didn't notice that my new favorite players' hands barely moved, I just totally missed it somehow. Actually, for the past several months I've been spending 10-60min/day purely on picking technique. My body is generally tense due to my anxiety issues, and I've been "meditating" for 5-10min before technical practice and that, along with playing verrrry slowly, is showing great results so far. I'm able to stay relaxed and make minimal movements, and my sound is full and accurate. The more excited or in the zone I get about what I'm playing, the more I resort to my shitty habits. And yeah cross-picking, I learned by ear from songs and rarely from videos. But I got obsessed with Umphrey's McGee for a bit early on and saw a vid of Jake Cinninger explaining how to practice picking.... little did I know that was his particular cross picking technique, haha. So I just assumed that's how everybody played if they wanted to be accurate, cause I mean hey my favorite player said so!!! Lol but yeah combine that with how I never developed sideways wrist motion (picked from my arm/upwards crosspicky motion) plus my downward pickslant (almost Friedman level).... anyway, as you see, I have a lotttt of old bad habits that I'm trying to break haha I'm making good progress though, considering I've only actively been working on it for under a year. But the legato thing, my fretting hand isn't perfect but that aspect always came a little more natural to me, I've got pretty good control/speed over there. Never had too many tension or strength issues either idk.... but yeah my legato is just cleaner because less picking = more time to set the pick up for the string change, which is what I have always had to do to work around my super tense super downward pickslant b.s. (only b.s. because I want the a clean and free type of technique). As you can tell I've thought about it thoroughly, maybe if I spent as much time correcting as I did analyzing what I'm doing wrong I'd probably have already fixed it 😂 jk

  2580. musictheory 2018-07-06 07:18:04 WhatsTheHoldup
    >You assume the harmonic series has something to do with "the best sounding notes over a major chord". It does not. I guess I just don't see why not yet. If I play a C on a string, then the overtone series is naturally played behind it, correct? That's why the 5th and 3rd tend to blend in to the C. Why then would playing other overtones be dissonant? I do understand why the major scale works and I'm not using the overtones as an alternative, perhaps I'm just wondering why it is they don't line up more? Is it that in a 12TET they're too flat to sound nice or would it still sound bad if you played the proper overtone?

  2581. musictheory 2018-07-06 07:30:53 JaxonOSU
    The overtone series teaches us how to smooth out dissonances while tuning chords. It also has a lot of applications in brass and string instruments; knowing the tendencies of different overtone harmonics can inform the player how to precisely place a note in tune within a chord. This has nothing to do with the function of scales or scale degrees. Those are entirely informed by classical tonal theory which is mostly just learning how to use leading tones to create motion in a phrase or chord structure.

  2582. musictheory 2018-07-06 07:47:11 Xenoceratops
    > I guess I just don't see why not yet. If I play a C on a string, then the overtone series is naturally played behind it, correct? That's why the 5th and 3rd tend to blend in to the C. Why then would playing other overtones be dissonant? Because we don't hear those overtones on an individual basis. They are more or less pronounced based on the medium and means of tone production and come across as affecting timbre (tone color). A cylindrical-bore lip-reed instrument like a trumpet emphasizes the odd-numbered partials in the overtone series, and a conical-bore instrument like a flugelhorn has a balance of even and odd partials. This does not affect the notes an instrument can play, but it does influence the quality of [the timbre](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu1ZC421cxw). >I'm just wondering why it is they don't line up more? Because they have little to do with each other. They just don't match up. >Is it that in a 12TET they're too flat to sound nice or would it still sound bad if you played the proper overtone? It's not that anything inherently sounds good or bad. You might not even notice the difference, because people play out of tune all the time and our brains do funny stuff with pitch. Besides, the instruments we play on (or sing through) cannot be harmonically ideal. There will always be deviations from the harmonic series ("inharmonicity") on any instrument. Pianos are [stretch-tuned](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV966iNRqXk) specifically to counteract inharmonicity.

  2583. musictheory 2018-07-06 07:49:41 65TwinReverbRI
    >If I play a C on a string, then the overtone series is naturally played behind it, correct? That's why the 5th and 3rd tend to blend in to the C. Why then would playing other overtones be dissonant? Let's make a distinction here between overtones and notes. Dissonance is based on MUSICAL CONTEXT. The b7, which is in the HS, is considered dissonant (and not just because the tuning is not exact). A minor triad, which is NOT in the HS (at least until very high up in the overtones) is considered consonant. A 6/4 chord, which is partials 2, 3, and 4 of the HS is considered dissonant, while the 1st inversion, which is partials 4,5 and 7 (hey, why did we skip one) is consonant. Again, the HS has little to do with consonance and dissonance. In actual music, Consonance and Dissonance is context-based, HS be damned! >perhaps I'm just wondering why it is they don't line up more? Is it that in a 12TET they're too flat to sound nice or would it still sound bad if you played the proper overtone? Yes, you're getting into the crux of overtones here - TUNING! We could say, that the overtone series has nothing to do with the choices of notes in scales, but it does have to do with the TUNING of notes within scales. You can absolutely tune the intervals of a scale to the overtone series. Doing so yields what is called "Just Intonation". But because you're using a single note as your source for those overtones, the scale you tune will be tuned to that reference point. So, for example, if you play a C Major chord when you've Just tuned to C Major, you get a really pretty sounding C chord. It's very "in tune". But, if you play an F# chord it's horribly out of tune! What 12tet does is tune - IN SPITE OF THE OVERTONE SERIES! - instead it just divides the octave up into 12 equal parts so that we can play equally (equally out of tune if you like) in all 12 keys. So again, this shows that we put a "practical need" above a "scientific root" and tuned the notes to what we needed, whether the math was right or not. Same thing happened with scales - people developed scales in spite of the math. They did it based on the sounds they want.

  2584. musictheory 2018-07-06 09:26:52 nuggles1
    > The 5th and 3rd blend nicely because that's what you're conditioned to hear as "nice." Ehh not really. Our brains perceive simple easy-to-divide interval ratios as consonant and complex long decimal ratios as dissonant. That's why a perfectly tuned octave is the most consonant interval, the vibrations are happening at an exact 2/1 ratio. The ratio of a major 3rd in equal temperament comes out to ~1.25992 and the ratio of a major 3rd in just intonation (which uses the simple ratios found in nature/harmonic series) is 5/4, so 1.25. This puts our major 3rd 14 cents sharp, which is a clearly audible difference. And it isn't just mathematical. If you tune the G string on a guitar down slightly and play a standard major 6-string barre chord, the 3rd becomes so consonant that you can hardly hear it, it fills up the chord texturally in the same way we are used to 5ths doing. Or if you tune your G even less slightly sharp and play standard minor barres, your minor 3rd becomes more consonant because ours is always a little flat. Not as obvious as major though. This all happens because of the overtones produced by the strings. This is also why Eastern gamelan music uses such strange scales/intervals, the instruments they use for that produce a different set of overtones than the standard harmonic series, so for example playing a C and E would sound dissonant. This is what timbre is. Look up "Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale" by Sethares, he did lots of research into this stuff. One of the crazier things is that he figured out how to alter the timbre of a sound to force consonance and dissonance on certain intervals, like a dissonant octave and a consonant minor 9th. The rest of your comment I agree with, and consonance/dissonance in relation to interval tuning is really the only useful info to be gained from the overtone series, imo. But to say we only hear a perfect 5th as consonant due to conditioning is false.

  2585. musictheory 2018-07-06 18:45:25 Kalcipher
    >Personally I'd like to hear an explanation of the harmonics and why they exist from a physicist. I'm not a physicist but I do know why the harmonics exist. Essentially, with an elastic medium fixed on both ends, an oscillation can only occur if its length matches the strings length. Otherwise, the inability for the end of the string to move would mute the oscillation. With the fundamental, exactly half the period will fit into the strings length, whereas with the second partial the entire period will - the third partial one and a half period will fit, etc. See [this picture](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Standing_waves_on_a_string.gif/250px-Standing_waves_on_a_string.gif) for illustration. Now, since all these oscillations are occurring simultaneously, their movements are essentially summed and you get a complex waveform that repeats at the fundamental frequency, but also partially oscillates at higher frequencies that are integer multiples of the fundamental (since that means an integer divisor to their length, meaning they will match the length of the string) >Photons are both particles and waves. Phrasing it this way makes "particles" and "waves" sound phenomenological dissimilar, but the better way to think of this is that particles are literally waves and any observation of anything necessarily involves being causally influenced by the thing being observed, so when you observe the state of a quantum system, you become entangled with it. The appearance of a collapse is perfectly predicted by entanglement, no need to actually postulate a collapse aside from that, as long as you're okay with being in a superposition.

  2586. musictheory 2018-07-07 09:32:21 gravescd
    On piano, in the simplest forms, yes. And inversion is defined only by the bass note, so the rest can be in any order. But on guitar, no. Guitar can't stack thirds like that. Here's an example for guitar: E maj 7 Root position: xx2444 1st inv: xx6857 2nd inv: xx999.11 3rd inv: xx13.13.12.12 As you can see, each time you move up to the next chord tone on the same string. The E goes to G# then to B then to D#. The B goes to D# then to E then to G#... and so on. And those are pretty standard maj7 voicings, so I'd recommend using them (though that particular 3rd inversion voicing is pretty rare because the root is in the next octave and it sounds really tense). Of course this is all just starter information, and if I say much more it'll probably be too much information. As you attain greater fluency on the fretboard you'll be able to work with voicings more creatively and get outside "standard" chord forms.

  2587. musictheory 2018-07-07 12:56:39 HebrewJohnson
    You can thank Rick Wakeman (from Yes) for the piano arrangement and Spiders guitarist Mick Ronson for the string arrangement. It’s one of the best Bowie songs that really ought to have collaborator credits it never received.

  2588. musictheory 2018-07-07 15:18:07 steve94l
    How are you currently listening to the song? Pay attention to what you're hearing in the first beat of each bar in the verse (for example), you'll notice there's something there with definite pitch content - I'm using a phone ATM so don't quote me but it resembles plucked string instruments to my ear. Headphones would illuminate this better or at least better quality speakers.

  2589. musictheory 2018-07-08 00:49:43 jtizzle12
    I didn't take 7 notes, I took 5, then subdivided those into septuplets, circled every 5 septuplet 16th. At the end I added a little issue that happens when you want to continue these tuplets, but you don't have enough space in the measure. You'd need 5 more regular quarter notes to fit 7 septuplet quarters to complete a 7:5, but in the measure you only have 3 quarter notes. It gets complicated because the barline falls just after the 5th septuplet quarter note. If you see the image above in step 3 where I broke down the subdivisions and grouped in fives, I beamed by beat, so you see 7 septuplets per beat. If you look at the circles, circle #5 is the last one that will fit under three beats, and circle #6 lands on the 5th septuplet of beat 4. If you shift that over to start on beat 6 of the regular measure, then your septuplet would continue over the barline, making things extremely irregular. So, to check out some of this, here are some pieces: Finnissy's string quartets are incredible. Listen to the three of them. Also English Country Tunes and History of Photography in Sound. Also check out Bryn Harrison. His stuff is very dense rhythmically but easy to follow as it's extremely minimalist. Listen to MCE or Repetitions in Extended Time. Also, for non-classical stuff, check out Kim Cass, he's a jazz bassist, which means nothing when you listen to his EP on bandcamp. It's electronics + solo bass and he utilizes a lot of crazy polyrhythms. Also check out pianist Matt Mitchell and saxophonist Steve Lehman.

  2590. musictheory 2018-07-08 12:46:09 nuggles1
    If you want to have some simultaneously nerdy and punk fun, tune your G string slightly flat and play some standard 6-string major barre chords (so that the 3rd is on the G string). Not harsh anymore, just intonation, woooop! Only really usable in a studio setting though haha

  2591. musictheory 2018-07-08 15:45:23 stitchgrimly
    Probably referring to the accidental sus4 chords resulting from lazy power chords on the low E string - a la Kurt Cobain. Eg. the first chord of Teen Spirit is Fsus4 which might be considered a quartal C to some ears I guess because it has the C F Bb from the above example.

  2592. musictheory 2018-07-08 23:56:11 PlazaOne
    No worries. Here's a link to [musipedia](http://www.musipedia.org/result.html?sourceid=melody-url&tx_mpsearch_pi1%5bsubmit_button%5d=Search&tx_mpsearch_pi1%5bpc%5d=lily+a%278+a%278+r8+a%278+r8+e%278+d%278+r8+c%274+r4+c%27%274+r4+&coll=w&categories=&filtertext=&L=) which OP also could have tried for some fun suggestions. Apparently, it fits popular songs like *Under the Boardwalk* and *Wake Me Up Before You Go Go*. And melodically, but not rhythmically, it's the second theme from the first movement of Verdi's String Quartet in E minor.

  2593. musictheory 2018-07-09 04:35:54 crom-dubh
    I'm guessing you're talking about guitar? E major or minor are the lowest chords you can play in root position (meaning the root of the chord is in the bass, i.e. the lowest note you play) without re-tuning the guitar. Keep in mind you don't have to play specifically "lower" to get a "musically" lower chord. By that I mean that you can think of the whole scale of notes as a circle that just keeps going around. If you're on E and you want to go down a step to D but your instrument only goes down to E, then play the D *above* it. The effect is a little different on the ears, but it is a way of getting around limitations in range if there is no other choice. Experiment with this and focus on what you're actually hearing. Start on A (6th string, 5th fret) and go down to G (3rd fret). Now play the A again but play G up on octave from the last one (4th string, 5th fret). Note both the similarities and differences in how this sounds. So if you are playing Em and want to go "down", you can still just play a normal D chord, for example. The chord will be higher in terms of frequency, but it still might feel like you're going down the scale. I hope this helps.

  2594. musictheory 2018-07-09 08:13:05 mrclay
    The sound of a low 4th interval in the guitar voicing I find can sometimes sound “lower” for lack of a better word. So, play an Am like 0 0 2 2 1 0 or play C as 3 3 2 0 1 0 and really lay into that low string. But ultimately you want a bass guitar or an octave pedal!

  2595. musictheory 2018-07-09 08:26:37 Badicus
    You can tune the lowest string down to a D, the very common "drop D" tuning. But this is probably not the right place for this, no. One for guitarists would be better!

  2596. musictheory 2018-07-09 09:14:25 jazzadellic
    Some basic things arrangers might do: Tweak the harmony, either completely change chords (reharmonize) or just make slight adjustments like adding or removing extensions, or changing inversions. You could also transpose it to a different key. You could also change how the chords are played - as block chords or broken in some way. You could change the rhythm of the chords. Change the instrumentation. Maybe the original had a piano playing the chords and the new arrangement might have a guitar playing the chords, or a string quartet, or a choir, or woodwinds, or whatever. Any and or all of the parts could be changed to different instruments. Change the style. Original might be a bluegrass tune, and you turn it into a jazz piece or something else. Add additional parts. The original might not have an intro, but you create one, most likely based on the material already present in the composition. Same with an outro. You could even play around with the form of the tune and how the repeats are handled. You may even interject some new parts into the middle of the piece or between sections to help improve a transition or just make it more interesting or stretch it out longer, or shorten it. Try doing some listening homework - listen to original recordings and then arrangements. Some very famous pieces have been rearranged hundreds, if not thousands of times. Try listening to the [original](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwDYcyqn7DY) "Manha de Carnaval" and then to a few of the hundreds of rearranged versions.

  2597. musictheory 2018-07-09 14:20:08 DevgodPetertron
    Tune your guitar to drop G. Or on a more serious note, buy an extended range guitar. Start with a 7 string and learn to incorporate the extra low string into your playing. You'll have a lot of fun with the different chord voicings that the extra string allows. The low B also adds an extra depth and "heaviness" to your sound if you're a metal guy.

  2598. musictheory 2018-07-09 22:11:55 beaumega1
    Gonna depend on context, my man. C6 and Cmaj7 are definitively different chords, and I can certainly think of times I would not want to make this substitution. If you're comping in the background, you'll probably get away with it. If you're subbing the C6 for the first chord of Zelda's Lullaby, me and many others would want your head. In this example, the sub doesn't work because the B in the chord of Cmaj7 is in the melody, and subbing that note with an A (or just adding the A) will produce a not-really-asked-for sonority. Also, Cmaj7 should be ridiculously easy to do on guitar, at least a voicing of A-string-3rd-fret and D-string-2nd-fret.

  2599. musictheory 2018-07-10 00:49:30 65TwinReverbRI
    Not really. Really, for the b3, we might think of it as "anywhere in the neighborhood" to sound "bluesy". And that's because Blues music came first, and the theory we're using to describe is something that happened after the fact - no one cared about exactly how microtonal it was, they just sang or played what they felt made the sound they wanted - or really, what people before them had done. I suppose, if you want to look at the history, blues "comes from" African music that we brought over with slavery, and that (or those) system(s) weren't using the same kind of scale or tuning we were. I don't have any evidence to support this but that's part of the reason I think Bottleneck guitar (slide) and then instruments that could "bend" (Sax, Harmonica) filled a nice niche in Blues music because they could more closely approximate those "out of tune" blue notes (of course slide guitar was an early one and really perfect for it). It would have originated in voice though, where you can also "slide" between any pitch. And "the blues" is about depression, sadness, and so on, so one can expect "moaning" and "wailing" and really, that's what was being done. And when people tried to equate those sounds to 12 tet instruments like piano, they had to pick the closest thing they could. And I think that's a big factor in your question - piano obviously can't "bend" notes so you picked b3, b7 and b5. But some instruments, like Harmonica, really weren't originally designed to bend notes - it's something people just figured out they could do by drawing really hard on the reeds, and then ultimately companies like Hohner started making harps that had easier-to-bend reeds. And really to exactly what pitch someone could bend the read varied from player to player - and even note to note for any one player - so the "b3" was really a "range" somewhere around "b3 to 3 ish ness"! If you think about something like guitar without slide, it can only bend notes SHARP (until the invention of vibrato systems) so your choices were to come from 2 and bend up to b3 or beyond, or start on b3 and bend up towards 3. Guitars in the old days had really thick strings and bending wasn't like it is today (or since the 60s). So you got 1/4 tone bends at best - but it all depends on which string you're on, where you are on the string, and how sore your fingers are that day. I think most people were just trying to target what vocalists were doing, and the limitations of any instrument meant that we ended up with this "range" around the notes (in guitar, we also use 6 bent up to somewhere around b7 and 4 bent up to somewhere around b5, so we're on both sides of the blue note). You could go through a million songs and find a bell curve of the pitches played, but I don't think that would tell you anything more than it is a broad range rather than some specific pitch describable in theoretical terms as a specific microtone or something like that. HTH

  2600. musictheory 2018-07-10 02:36:22 misrepresentedentity
    A lower sounding chord than Em would be Em7 on a guitar in standard tuning. 000020 Or you can try an A/E XXX200. The only way to get any lower would be to de-tune to another voicing. Standard Flat where each string is tuned down 1/2 step is commonly used as well as a Drop D tuning where the low E sting is tuned down 1 whole step or 2 semi tones.

  2601. musictheory 2018-07-10 11:59:24 -JXter-
    In the case of guitar, I believe an E minor chord is the lowest you can play with EADGBE tuning. However, it isn't outside of the realm of possibility to lower the tuning, but you have to kind of "relearn" the frets. I play 4-string bass guitar and occasionally I'll tune down to better fit the key signature.

  2602. musictheory 2018-07-10 14:48:46 mikefan
    The fun way is to sight read music in an ensemble, a string quartet, trio, or even a duo. When you're practicing by yourself, it's easy to just stop when you mess up. Playing in a group gives you a reason to keep going. Finding your place if you are lost, or faking something that you can't play, but knowing where you're supposed to be are real life skills. On classical music gigs, as opposed to concerts, we often perform music that we are seeing for the first time. You need to find players that are about your level or slightly more advanced. There is a wealth of free music at various levels of difficulty at [imslp.org](https://imslp.org) .

  2603. musictheory 2018-07-10 16:19:34 Jongtr
    Nothing wrong with 65TwinReverbRI's answer, but a slightly different angle if it helps: "Perfect" intervals are highly consonant, blending well together because of the (near) simple ratios their vibration frequencies make: Unison (two of the same note, same frequency) = 1:1 Octave (two of the same note, where one is half or double the frequency of the other) = 2:1 Perfect 5th = 3:2 Perfect 4th = 4:3 (In equal temperament, these intervals are "tempered" very slightly out of tune in order for semitones to be all the same size. But the difference is generally inaudible.) Perfect intervals divide the 12 semitones of the octave in a symmetrical 5-2-5 pattern. (Or, if you take a stretched string, they divide the string into 1/2, 2/3 and 3/4; hence those frequency ratios.) They are known as 4th, 5th and octave (8th), after the traditional habit of 7-note scales (so the octave is a repeat of the 1st). Perfect intervals occur mostly in only one size. When altered (made one semitone larger or smaller) they become much more dissonant, and are known as augmented (larger) or diminished (smaller). All other intervals (2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th) occur in two sizes, roughly as often as each other. These two sizes (one semitone different in each case) are called "major" (larger) and "minor" (smaller). They are less consonant than the perfect intervals: some are "imperfect consonances", one or two are dissonant. In the 5-semitone space between 1st and 4th there is room for both 2nds and both 3rds. Likewise, both 6ths and both 7ths fit between 5th and octave. Which one of each kind is chosen defines a series of common modes or scales. | | | | | | | | | | | | | PERFECT: 1 4 5 8 m M m M m M m M min/Maj \ / \ / \ / \ / 2 3 6 7 Occasionally, a major interval can be enlarged (augmented) or a minor one reduced (diminished). The most important interval in a mode, scale or chord (after the 5th) is the 3rd, which gives it its character. A "major scale", "major chord" or "major mode" is defined largely by its major 3rd (and perfect 5th). The scale we know as "the major scale" has major intervals elsewhere too, but the various "minor" scales only share their minor 3rd. (In the "melodic minor" scale, for example, all the intervals are major and perfect except the 3rd.) As 65TwinReverbRI says, to **determine** an interval, you first count the *letters* (or lines and spaces in notation), counting the lower note as "1st". Then, to determine whether it's major or minor (in the case of 2nds, 3rd, 6ths or 7ths) or perfect, augmented or dimnished (in the case of unisons, 4ths, 5ths or octaves), you count the *semitones* (half-steps). This is where any sharps and flats need to be considered. The formula worth memorizing to begin with is the diatonic scale: **A . B C . D . E F . G . A** IOW, you don't need to start from any specific major scale to calculate intervals (if only because scales are defined by their intervals, not vice versa). Start from the above scale, from whatever letter, and adjust for any sharps or flats present. It's important to remember that the letter count is "ordinal" (you start from "1st") while the semitone count is "cardinal" (you start from zero). So B-C is a "minor 2nd": 2 notes, measuring 1 semitone. B-C# would be a "major 2nd" - 2 notes, 2 semitones. C-E is a "major 3rd": 3 notes, measuring 4 semitones.

  2604. musictheory 2018-07-11 03:43:34 jtizzle12
    Along with what everyone has said, it also depends on your school. Lower tier schools, ie, random libarts college in bumbleheck town will give a lot more leeway to get away with not being very proficient at an instrument. Top tier school, basically, any conservatory or school in New York City or LA for example, have reputations to uphold. They will be very adamant about learning not just your major instrument, but if you're not a pianist, then be somewhat proficient on a keyboard. I went to CUNY Graduate Center for my masters. Comp, theory, and musicology students are expected to be able to sight read Bach chorales and certain string quartet parts, for example. However, another school I went to briefly for a year of my undergrad had basically no piano requirements for non-pianists other than taking two semesters of private lessons and passing the juries. No requirements of retaining the knowledge until graduation, no requirement on skill.

  2605. musictheory 2018-07-11 04:07:59 65TwinReverbRI
    1. It's a MAJOR triad with a raised 5th (no such thing as a "natural" triad). 2. How is it more complicated? Can you play the F chord that goes 1 1 2 3 x x ? That's a tough one for many people. But if you can, C+ (C augmented) is the same shape on strings 5, 4, 3, and 2. D+ is basically the same shape as an Am chord up a string and up a fret: 2 3 3 0 x x

  2606. musictheory 2018-07-11 06:02:28 WolfySpice
    I'm a self-taught guitarist, never done music academically. The main thing I see peddled is "shapes" and "patterns", particularly chord shapes, scale shapes, etc. I think this is related to the "CAGED" system of learning patterns, etc. This is well and good, but people get thrown right into it without knowing the reasons why. They're effectively playing-by-numbers without much critical thought behind it. I managed to avoid that trap by studying music theory myself and learning how to apply it to the guitar. Learning the fretboard, learning how chords are constructed, learning the shapes that intervals form on the neck, etc. So that background is necessary. However, there's a danger in going too far either way. Patterns are necessary on guitar - tablature is a necessary learning tool. You can play something in so many different ways, that if you ignore patterns, the actual ways to physically play any given note, then you're teaching them just music - you're not teaching them how to apply it to their instrument. You need to specifically teach the instrument itself, not just the music. For example, take piano. You can teach someone to read music with standard notation and they're fine, they're also learning to play their instrument at the same time. Not so with guitar. If you've been given an E4, where do you play it? Open string? Ninth fret on the G string? What were the previous notes beforehand, and what's happening afterwards? How do you phrase it? What if you're playing a major sixth? Do you play it on two adjacent strings, or do you skip a string? Ultimately I think it's a matter of combining the two. People take the first way because it's easier, but it gets them what they want to do almost immediately: playing music. The second way is ignored because there's a steeper learning curve in actually playing the instrument. Both learning methods are poorer without the other because technical skills on the guitar aren't necessarily tied to being able to know any music theory.

  2607. musictheory 2018-07-12 00:11:32 HWP2001
    Funny you say that, I would consider myself an advocate for language reform. Not necessarily for pictographs, but for a language where words are spoken as they are written (e.g. Spanish, or Esperanto). This would make it much easier for foreigners to integrate into Western countries, avoiding the issue of language ghettos. For example, in the United Kingdom (where I come from), 138,000 people / 0.5% of the population aged over 3 cannot speak English. I just want to stress that I'm not advocating that people switch to a proportional system. I'm just trying to find out whether or not I'm justified in thinking that such a system would be inherently better for an unbiased person learning to play music. So, whilst I do appreciate that I likely have much less knowledge and experience than you do, I made this post to find the specific disadvantages of a spatial rhythmic system (i.e. in isolation, not as some kind of alternative that I would consider learning). I would disagree with the notion that metal is "simple", see for example technical death metal - "Some of the distinct features of this genre include dynamic song structures, complex and atypical rhythmic structures, abundant use of diminished chords and arpeggios, frequent employment of odd time chord progressions and constant use of string skipping on the guitars. Bass lines are usually complex and the drums are extremely fast-paced with abundant use of blast-beats and other extreme drumming techniques." This genre may not have *as much* harmonic complexity, but it definitely isn't "simple". Besides, tab isn't solely used for rock and metal. I'm sure many jazz guitarists also use tab. Excluding guitarists, I can think of very few talented musicians who can't read standard notation, maybe apart from Danny Elfman or Tony Williams. But even then, those 2 overcame very large odds, and I don't think it's exactly reasonable to expect every non-guitarist to be able reach their level when they're constantly being told to learn sheet music. And then they try to learn, and give up once they find that sheet music is too complicated to take up as a hobby or pastime. I know I might be generalising, but I see no reason to believe that this isn't a common occurrence.

  2608. musictheory 2018-07-12 11:10:42 65TwinReverbRI
    If you walk in a room, and someone plays a note on a piano, that you can't see, only hear, and you can name it exactly, that's Perfect Pitch (or Absolute Pitch as many prefer to call it now). If you're asked to sing a note, without any other reference - no sound at all, and you can sing any note any one asks correctly, that's Absolute Pitch. It's a rare ability. More commonly, people have good Relative Pitch, which means given a note, they can identify another note from it - that's a reference point. Or, if they know the key of a song, they can tell you want any given note at any given time in - knowing the key is a reference point. So when they say without reference, they mean without having heard any other note, or having any other knowledge of what key, or other notes are etc. You just "blindly" can name a pitch on hearing it without any other thing to judge it off of. I've never heard what the other posters are saying. A lot of people don't know what "perfect pitch" or Absolute Pitch is, so they think they have it, but instead they have good relative pitch. But if you have Absolute Pitch, you have Absolute Pitch. It's not a question of having good relative pitch. In fact, if you have Absolute pitch you don't need relative pitch because you know what the notes are! It's not pitch memory either - they've confused what you said about the Nirvana song. Pitch Memory is when you can "internally hear" the INTERVAL between Note 1 and Note 2 of a piece (that's also relative pitch) and you can sing "My bon-nie" and know "My bon-" is a Major 6th up. Relative pitch allows you to find the "bon" note above the "My" note. But that doesn't seem to be what you're saying. It seems you're saying you hear a note and go, "that's the same as the first note of SLTS and you know that's an F so you name it as F. That's not relative pitch because you're not relating it to a note you just heard. It's not "pitch memory" because you're not judging one pitch from a different pitch. But to determine if it's Absolute Pitch, you would have to hear a note played on the Piano (or some instrument) that you didn't already know what the note is, and hear it and say "that's an F" and be correct pretty much 100% of the time. If you have Absolute Pitch, you should be able to name every note in a string of notes with perfect accuracy - all over the keyboard. In some ways, we could argue that once you've got the first pitch, the rest are just relative but the difference is, with AP you'd be calculating the note based on just that note's sound itself, not any previous notes. RP would mean you were doing it note to note, or based on a central pitch like the tonic. Also, if you walk in a room and someone plays a note, and again with no prior knowledge, and you say "it's an Ab" and they say, sorry wrong, it's a D, and you're like "no I'm sure it's an Ab" and it is and they tried to trick you, then that's AP. So when someone asks you to sing a C, if you do it accurately 100% of the time, and they ask you a different note each day, and you haven't had any reference, and you're always getting them right, then that's probably AP.

  2609. musictheory 2018-07-12 14:27:34 Adrk0036
    Other comment is pretty much right, just missing the second Cm which is also a iv chord. Just thought I'd add: your first 5 chords are a sort of diatonic circle of fifths progression, while the Eb-Cm is a transition between chords that share 2 common tones (making them very similar), and then ending with a standard iv-V-i. So just for future reference, maybe you like having that string of fifths style chord progression.

  2610. musictheory 2018-07-12 14:55:55 banjalien
    There are a couple of steps, this doesn't cover all of it but maybe will give you ideas. The skills have to be instant, and not something you have to calculate as you are playing. These skills could be but not limited to: 1)Knowing where those sounds you hear are on your instruments. A simple task is to take something very basic like a nursery rhyme, take your finger, put it on the guitar in random places and try to play it entirely by ear. Try to play it on one string. Try it in a number of keys. If your hand to ear coordination is there, this won't be a problem. If you can do this with something simple you build to something more complex. I suggest this before transcribing. 2)Transcribing, once again builds your ear. When you notice it taking less time to find or notate a melody then your ear is getting better. Pick something diatonic with words that's not fast. EASY melodies. 3)As has already been mentioned, the rhythm aspect of it. If you play something but at the wrong time then it's not right. For me, this is what building rhythm does....it allows you to RELAX, which allows you to be more in the zone. Whenever my rhythm was shaky when I first started, I sure wasn't going to be playing what I heard in my head. For example, you can't be counting how many beats of each chord their are if you want to play what you hear. 4)In order to play what you imagine, you have to be putting stuff into your mind, good stuff. So LOTS of listening and learning. 5)Strum a chord, then sing something over it. Try to find what you sung on your instrument using your ear only.

  2611. musictheory 2018-07-13 04:18:59 MildlyMoist
    I mean it's old. Very old. Does not easily interface with the modern world because none of it was a consideration when the thing was designed. Like the Ford quote about faster horses. Maybe if it was designed today it would be some kind of 6 string controller instead? It's just old, maybe legacy isn't the right word?

  2612. musictheory 2018-07-13 09:01:29 maestro2005
    Much of classical guitar literature, many musical theater books, and the few orchestra/band pieces that include a guitar are written in standard notation. Interestingly though, I think most guitarists end up converting chords that they read back into chord symbols in their heads. Like, if you write C-E-G-C-E, they see that and think, "oh yeah, that's open C" and then play that, rather than thinking, "C on the A string, E on the D string, open G, C on the B string, open E". For parts that are largely chords, standard notation is an awfully noisy way to notate it. Unless you're going to be a classical-only player, you need to be able to think in terms of chords.

  2613. musictheory 2018-07-13 21:23:23 maestro2005
    There's no rule about what note goes on what string. That's one of the tricky things about guitar (and the whole lute family, including orchestral strings)--there's multiple ways to play any given note. You have to learn to look ahead and consider everything you're about to play in order to make a good choice. I don't think there's any specific resource, you just have to do it a lot. And you never get perfect at it, even seasoned veterans will run themselves into a jam sometimes on the first reading of a piece.

  2614. musictheory 2018-07-14 03:59:04 Xenoceratops
    >I'm a big fan of dissonance and avant garde, etc, but have misgivings about Schoenberg. I feel he threw out the baby (the triad) with the bath water (extended V7 type harmony). A huge part of Schoenberg's musical language is referencing tonal structures including triads and structural dominants. See [O alter Duft](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND9FCWyFULw) from Pierrot Lunaire, the [Op. 26 quintet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUEj5q43nec) in my other comment, [Am Scheideweg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dsDxNwz7tM) from Drei Satiren, Op. 28, or the [Op. 30 string quartet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_0W5MIQrT0). Later, you state: >But on the negative side it represents, in my opinion, an unnatural prolongation of the classical style in some aspects, applying 12-tone to traditional forms, as if he was the 4th B, after Brahms. So, is Schoenberg a tonalist or a beacon of "dissonance and [the] avant garde"? You seem unable to side with one or the other or to reconcile the two.

  2615. musictheory 2018-07-14 06:17:44 Mentioned_Videos
    Videos in this thread: [Watch Playlist &#9654;](http://subtletv.com/_r8yke55?feature=playlist&nline=1) VIDEO|COMMENT -|- [Schoenberg conducts his Suite op.29 (Paris,1927)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_MX2dAL7OQ)|[+8](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8yke55/_/e2bokj6?context=10#e2bokj6) - So hard to pick! I’ll choose his Op. 29 suite: (1) [Schoenberg Pierrot Lunaire Op. 21. 21 O Alter Duft. Partitura. Interpretación.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND9FCWyFULw) (2) [Arnold Schoenberg - Wind Quintet, Op. 26](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUEj5q43nec) (3) [Schoenberg - Am Scheideweg (score)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dsDxNwz7tM) (4) [Arnold Schönberg - String Quartet No. 3](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_0W5MIQrT0)|[+3](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8yke55/_/e2c6vrm?context=10#e2c6vrm) - I'm a big fan of dissonance and avant garde, etc, but have misgivings about Schoenberg. I feel he threw out the baby (the triad) with the bath water (extended V7 type harmony). A huge part of Schoenberg's musical language is referencing tonal struc... [Anton Webern - Concerto for nine instruments, Op. 24](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVQambrIKNo)|[+3](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8yke55/_/e2c60ir?context=10#e2c60ir) - I love the Wind Quintet, Op. 26. This, together with Webern's Concerto for Nine Instruments, is a really strong early example of the union of twelve-tone technique with tonal references and classical form. This style of writing wasn't radical enough ... [Schönberg - Pelleas and Melisande, Op. 5 (Claudio Abbado & Gustav Mahler Youth Orchestra)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ChHR8tT8cQ)|[+2](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8yke55/_/e2cg5yr?context=10#e2cg5yr) - This is a stunning production of Moses and Aron that shouldn’t be missed! I have played part of the first act in public lecture in showing the creativeness of both the composer and the director in using the theatre space. Also this video of Pelleas... [Twelve Tones](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4niz8TfY794)|[+2](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8yke55/_/e2cnd4f?context=10#e2cnd4f) - The best and most accessible explanation of 12 tone music I’ve ever read or seen is ViHart’s video about it [Arnold Schoenberg - 6 Orchester-Lieder, Op. 8 (1905)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7io8UqcQjg)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8yke55/_/e2d683o?context=10#e2d683o) - six lieder with orchestra op. 8 was, in my opinion, the most pure mahlerian influential in schönberg's works. verklarte nacht, pelleas und melisande, gurrelieder, string quarter number one...are a perfect mix about wagner, strauss and mahler. no... (1) [Schoenberg Violin Concerto Op. 36 Hahn](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ukPsvh51hI) (2) [Arnold Schoenberg - Piano Concerto, Op. 42](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEY9lmCZbIc)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8yke55/_/e2d6uaz?context=10#e2d6uaz) - I'm a bit fan off the violin concerto and especially Hillary Hahn's performance the same goes for Mitsuko Uchida's performance of his piano concerto I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can. *** [Play All](http://subtletv.com/_r8yke55?feature=playlist&ftrlnk=1) | [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | Get me on [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf) / [Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mentioned-videos-for-reddit)

  2616. musictheory 2018-07-14 15:08:35 ILovePidgey
    six lieder with orchestra op. 8 was, in my opinion, the most pure mahlerian influential in schönberg's works. https://youtu.be/z7io8UqcQjg verklarte nacht, pelleas und melisande, gurrelieder, string quarter number one...are a perfect mix about wagner, strauss and mahler. no doubt, i prefer this young hyperromantic schönberg.

  2617. musictheory 2018-07-14 15:25:44 ttd_76
    But you do know you need to learn chords. “Everybody” has already told you that you need to learn chords. So, you’ve done some research by either asking people or picking up a book, or looking on the internet. Everyone you ask, including all who have posted here tell you yes, you need to learn chords. So you already have your answer. The thing is you don’t believe people when they tell you, and you want a convincing answer as to why? Fair enough. But what am I, an anonymous poster on a message board, going to tell you to convince you? Chords are used in all sorts of complex ways to do complex things that you would not be able to understand just yet. That’s how it is when you learn something brand new to you. You have to take an initial leap of faith that things that are of seemingly no importance will become useful later. It’s not clear to me you understand what a chord is. It’s two or more notes played simultaneously. So if you want to play more than one note at a time, you should memorize some chords. It’s hard for me o imagine you never want to play more than one note at a time. But even if you somehow don’t want to play more than one note at a time, you will still end up playing arpeggios. Which are common chords played one string at a time instead of simultaneously. So you still have to know chords. I’m telling you to just play guitar because you will quickly see the value of them better than I can explain it to you or convince you of their importance. If you don’t want to learn and see for yourself, but you don’t want to listen to others... then you are stuck in a trap of your own making. Have you tried playing a song with tab? Do you notice a lot of repeat patterns like 022 or 355 across strings? Those are chords. Specifically, power chords. They’re everywhere. When you see a rock band play in concert, does the guitar player sit there with a big stack of sheet music? No, right? So he has memorized what he is going to play, and what he is playing are chords. Therefore, he has memorized chords. Let’s say you want to play a song. Isn’t it easier to just memorize “E-A-D” instead of long rows of seemingly random numbers? It’s like asking if you need to memorize words to read. Well on some level I suppose you could just sound out every letter and/or look it up in a dictionary each time. But you won’t get very far. It’s not very practical to do it that way. It’s much easier just to automatically know the word. In music, notes are like letters and chords are like words. If you read enough, your brain will automatically start to recognize familiar patterns of letters and memorize them as words. If you play enough guitar, your brain will automatically process sequences of notes as chords. So... you end up learning them whether you want to or not. But just memorizing them from the start is often quicker and easier. And just like with words, there’s the issue of vocabulary. Some people use a lot of big words when they talk. Some people use simpler language. Which is right for you? You may want to learn lots of chord voicings and complicated chords. Or you can go punk rock and learn one power chord shape. And here’s another reason: muscle memory. You will find you will often have to move two, three, or four fingers at once to cover anywhere from 2-6 strings. Sometimes you don’t know which finger to put on which string, or initially it’s hard to get your fingers to make the right shape. But if certain shapes are used over and over, and you memorize and practice making those shapes then you can grab those shapes pretty much instantly. Guitarists don’t just have raw finger speed and dexterity, they can play fast because they’ve memorized certain movements and common finger positions. They cannot put three random fingers on three random strings nearly as quickly as they can play open C. Because their mind and muscles have memorized the specific placement for an open C chord. That’s the best I got for why you need to memorize chords. But what I want you to avoid is picking up a big chord book and trying to memorize 100 chords. Because memorizing a chord without knowing how and when to use it doesn’t help you much. And if you don’t play them or have any sort of context to attach them to, you’ll just forget them again. So, if you just keep playing, keep reading music books or websites, keep learning songs you like then you will see not just why chords are useful but specifically which ones you should learn first. Then go ahead and memorize those. That’s why I am saying you should feel free to just keep exploring on your own if you want. The answers you want will come to you on their own and fairly quickly.

  2618. musictheory 2018-07-14 20:32:17 ma-chan
    I think Berg's Violin Concerto (dedicated to Manon Gropius, ((check it out if you don't know who she was)) is one of the most exquisitely beautiful works of the 20th century. And Anton Webern's Chamber Symphony Opus 21, and his string chamber music is very moving to me. I am not moved so much by his piano music. I read (and highly recommend) the book, "The Man Who Killed Webern". An American soldier did it kind of by accident.

  2619. musictheory 2018-07-14 23:33:26 shmoe727
    It goes like: **A** A A A D Eb A **C** _ **C C C** **C** _ **B** _ The “_“ is rest. Bold is power chord. Regular unbold is just the note. Played it at the 5th fret low E string. The D and Eb is changeable. I tried moving that around a bit and it was fine. It didn’t sound as dark though. There aren’t any other parts to this song (yet)

  2620. musictheory 2018-07-14 23:57:51 ehbamberg
    If you use no key signature and just accidentals, musicians also have a set of expectations for that...and it's different for different instruments. String instrument players just want sharps except for B# and E#. Wind instrument players just want flats, except for Cb and Fb. Everyone seems to hate a mixture of flats and sharps. Often it's more expedient to pick a sharp or flat key signature just to shut them up.

  2621. musictheory 2018-07-15 00:39:12 SomeEntrance
    \>>A huge part of Schoenberg's musical language is referencing tonal structures including triads and structural dominants. See [O alter Duft](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND9FCWyFULw) from Pierrot Lunaire, the [Op. 26 quintet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUEj5q43nec) in my other comment, [Am Scheideweg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dsDxNwz7tM) from Drei Satiren, Op. 28, or the [Op. 30 string quartet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_0W5MIQrT0). >> That's interesting. I didn't know that. I was always much more a Stravinsky fan, though I frequently perform Schoenberg Op 19. (Glen Gould plays them very nicely.) And I know Verklarte Nacht well. \>>So, is Schoenberg a tonalist or a beacon of "dissonance and \[the\] avant garde"? You seem unable to side with one or the other or to reconcile the two.>> I would say he very much was a beacon for the avant garde, especially via Webern, but that he also had atavistic tendencies where he tried to apply 12 tone to traditional forms...music as a 'train of thought' in the classical tradition. (More experimental composers like Feldman and Cage, and electronic music, took care of that!) So I would say he was unreconciled about it. As a musician who has to choose his path and what he likes and dislikes, reconciling it isn't an issue for me. How I react to it is part of my own creative process. I'm not a professional commentator or essayist, but definitely appreciate your questions and comments and becoming more informed about it. Regarding Schoenberg re-introducing tonal elements into 12 tone work, I don't see that as 'atavistic'...but part of the experimentation with tonality which has been going on the past 100 years. As a composer too, I've always been puzzled by the combination of atonality with traditional forms. It seems that the new tonality should be accompanied by something new about the thought process behind the ideas. (I guess that's where total serialism and experimental music which followed Schoenberg, led). Maybe it's some sort of paradigm shift involving technology, which were still in the middle of.

  2622. musictheory 2018-07-15 06:49:49 BeerIsTheMindKiller
    Do you have any composers that would be good points of reference for string writing? I really dig a lot of the classic sounding harmonies I've been hearing in conjunction with soul music, specifically [cranes in the sky](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qrinhNnOM) and [the first song from pj morton's tiny desk concert](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZxnLj2cSzY), as well as the[ backing for some of duncan sheik's stuff](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_79pKCOasZ8) (specifically, towards the end of the arrangement). I've been doing some transcription for some of them, but I don't have language to describe the style/decisions outside of some simple adjectives: lush, romantic-era-sounding, etc.

  2623. musictheory 2018-07-15 12:09:23 65TwinReverbRI
    hmm. the problem is, that very often, string writing is done by someone who has trained in classical music - 4-part writing in general and writing for strings (quartet, orchestra, etc.) more specifically. Have you ever studied 4-part writing?

  2624. musictheory 2018-07-16 01:25:27 Xenoceratops
    As I was saying in [another comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8yke55/schoenberg_appreciation_day/e2cs0sp/), Schoenberg is hard to pin down because he was always playing the politics of new music and he had a quirky personality to begin with. Is it atavism to write a suite of "Baroque" dances with an entirely novel tonal language? If so, Stravinsky is certainly guilty of the same. Aside from those few compositions (which, arguably, were designed to give audiences a point of entry, but were also commentaries on art and politics), Schoenberg's approach to form and harmonic materials is often pretty radical. Take a late work, the [String Trio, Op. 45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_yCNlXjJGo) which uses two different rows: an eighteen-tone row in the main parts and a twelve tone row in the episodes, and really doesn't fit any common form very well. More importantly though, Schoenberg has a wide stylistic palette.

  2625. musictheory 2018-07-16 01:52:40 Talking_Meat
    A famous example is the third movement of Beethoven's String Quartet no. 15 (op. 132), which he indicated as being in the Lydian mode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI4xhQVwzSg

  2626. musictheory 2018-07-16 05:37:31 the-postminimalist
    You should always write down the instrument on the score. For guitar, you should make the two voices more active. I see you let the lower string play one long note, and then you play the high notes. You can make the guitarist play multiple notes at once. That's where the guitar shines the most. That's a good idea for the piece. You can take a look at some of Messiaen's music. He doesn't write about flying birds, but he writes using bird calls that he went out and notated. You should also have a solid structure behind how this idea evolves musically. The overall form, and how the motifs change over time. When do new motifs come into play? If you want, you can decide that the new motif is another part of the flight. You can write chords outside the key, yes, but you can go beyond that. Messiaen, which I mentioned above, created his own modes (scales) that were far from major or minor scales. (He only created some of the modes. Other ones, namely mode 1 and mode 2, were already popular modes)

  2627. musictheory 2018-07-16 16:19:21 aotus_trivirgatus
    >Debussy can be given a lot of credit for re-vitalizing interest in modes as well as sparking interest in non-western scales. Came here to post [Debussy's String Quartet (Op. 10)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ZcXt5BJYg) which, among other things, has a notable opening passage in Phrygian mode

  2628. musictheory 2018-07-16 16:58:51 Mentioned_Videos
    Videos in this thread: [Watch Playlist &#9654;](http://subtletv.com/_r8z367n?feature=playlist) VIDEO|COMMENT -|- [Brahms - Symphony No.4 - Second movement](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duiJ6hwzrG0)|[+4](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8z367n/_/e2fqmw3?context=10#e2fqmw3) - I hear it! Thank you! [Beethoven, String Quartet No.15, Op.132 [3/4]](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI4xhQVwzSg)|[+4](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8z367n/_/e2frs5b?context=10#e2frs5b) - A famous example is the third movement of Beethoven's String Quartet no. 15 (op. 132), which he indicated as being in the Lydian mode: [Debussy String Quartet in G minor, Op. 10](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ZcXt5BJYg)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8z367n/_/e2gzfhz?context=10#e2gzfhz) - Debussy can be given a lot of credit for re-vitalizing interest in modes as well as sparking interest in non-western scales. Came here to post Debussy's String Quartet (Op. 10) which, among other things, has a notable opening passage in Phrygian mo... (1) [Harry Potter Soundtrack - Hedwig's Theme (Main Theme)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0HvQN9Sl0) (2) [Nelly Furtado - Say It Right](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JnGBs88sL0)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8z367n/_/e2fq835?context=10#e2fq835) - is this frigian? also - I am probably mistaken, but isn't this also something more minor than standard aeolian? [Dust to Dust](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3rj1xV30Zs)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8z367n/_/e2h0hsv?context=10#e2h0hsv) - b2, b4 and b5 indicate locrian for me, do not they? b2 and b5. Locrian has a P4. The trouble with locrian is its b5, which means its root never quite sounds like a root (keynote). That's only a problem if you expect a root to sound like a keyn... [J.S. Bach - Erbarm dich mein, o herre Gott (BWV 721)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL-2yYbRXAY&t=19s)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8z367n/_/e2ggwxk?context=10#e2ggwxk) - This article has a few examples: This early Bach Organ chorale is modal. I've never heard anything like it in Bach's other works. Anyone know of "Bach's most modal sounding work?! [Bruckner Os justi [á 4-8; Voces8]](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXv-QUU2mgk)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/8z367n/_/e2glapc?context=10#e2glapc) - I know Bruckner's Os Justi is in the lydian mode, if I'm not mistaken... I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can. *** [Play All](http://subtletv.com/_r8z367n?feature=playlist&ftrlnk=1) | [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | Get me on [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf) / [Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mentioned-videos-for-reddit)

  2629. musictheory 2018-07-17 22:30:23 WalkingEars
    Thank you for the Webern recommendations! I've heard and enjoyed some of his string chamber music but haven't listened to the chamber symphony, I will check it out. That book sounds cool too! I've been reading The Rest is Noise and enjoying the parts that talk about how major historical events of that century impacted music and the lives of the composers. Would be nice to do more reading on that topic in a more focused way, since the rest is noise is an extremely broad book in terms of number of composers discussed.

  2630. musictheory 2018-07-18 04:37:23 [deleted]
    Absolutely (except that the pattern WWhWWWh is for Ionian, not Lydian), and that's where it starts to get enlightening. Moving from C Ionian to D Dorian for example doesn't really teach you anything because you're still playing in the same key (no sharps or flats). Where it gets interesting is when you compare different modes with the same tonic note, for example D Ionian and D Lydian: D Ionian: WWhWWWh - D,E,F#,G,A,B,C#,D D Lydian: WWWhWWh - D,E,F#,G#,A,B,C#,D The only difference is that in Lydian the 4th note (G) is sharp while in Ionian it is natural. If you are a guitar player, I highly recommend studying this in relationship to the fingering positions on the guitar. In the key of G for example if you start on the C at the 7th fret of the low E string you'll get a pattern that resembles C Lydian (if C is the tonal center, it is C Lydian, but you'll also frequently play in this position with a different tonal center). That helps me remember the similarities between the modes, because I've already learned them while learning the scale positions.

  2631. musictheory 2018-07-18 05:50:31 RichardPascoe
    Here is a Public Domain book on Orchestration by Prout at the Internet Archive: [https://archive.org/details/cu31924022390938](https://archive.org/details/cu31924022390938) I had a quick scan and it has the standard introduction to strings. Go to Page 40 and the image of the violin is the first chapter. The earlier pages seemed to be a lengthy introduction and can be skipped. Just scanning it I learnt that the string section from the double bass to the violin covers six octaves - something I had never thought about despite knowing the ranges of the string instruments. I would always try the Internet Archive for free music text books. The information is always valid unlike Astronomy. No canals on Mars but a violin is a violin. Hope that helps regards Richard

  2632. musictheory 2018-07-18 12:41:30 65TwinReverbRI
    I would recommend the following: Buy some published materials, like Alfred books of Piano Music (Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) that are new engravings (i.e. not old over-printed engravings from Schirmer that they're still using the plates from 1912 to make!) and print out some music from Finale, and make the staff sizes match, note head sizes, and all that stuff. Try to get every element to look as much like theirs as possible. If you can find a copy of Kurt Stone's "Music Notation in the 20th Century" get it - they're rare and pricey, but you can find used one or get one from a Library (this is sad to say, but many have just been stolen from Libraries because it costs less to pay the replacement cost they paid then to buy a new one online - so I'm not encouraging that, just making a statement). He goes into great detail about Points and the way engravers measure things. A really long time ago when Finale was developed, it used his guidelines heavily as it was one of the most exhaustive books on the subject. Finale has also continually improved so it's even better. But if you can customize it, and make a template, so you have a "house style" so you can make everything look consistent that would be great. Also, all your keyboard short cuts - learn them, and meta tools you can create... do you know how to use Libraries? You need to create like a Piano Fingering Library and be able to load it into a document when you need it. It's got the "basics" but you often need things you can pull in with more complete markings and use. In the old days it made your document so much larger but nowadays with processing power as it is, it's not a big deal. But you don't want to have to re-create pedal markings from scratch - and things like that, you need to learn how to enter them so that they're "stretchable". If you don't know Guitar Fretboard diagrams, it would pay to learn them, and even create custom ones. Tablature is also a good thing to know how to do - actually probably much more marketable. I think - thank god - the Ukulele craze is over, but whatever the next craze is (Banjo maybe?) you need to be able to jump on learning materials and tablature for that. You should also learn Chord Symbols and how to enter those with or without Fretboard diagrams. Also, learn how to enter text quickly and efficiently - now it's way easier just to "type in" than it used to be, but IIRC you can still enter large blocks of text if you hyphenate correctly (it also pays to know how to do Elisions and non-breaking spaces for Italian). Then make up a few sample pages - a page from a string quartet, an orchestral score, a choral work, a "P/V/G" work (Piano/Vocal/Guitar - typical traditional sheet music), Guitar with tab, a Jazz Lead Sheet, Big Band Chart, Big Note Easy Piano, Piano with Voice (classical style, and pop style) and maybe now, a pop chart with Guitar, Bass, Drums, Keys, and Vocals (Drums are something else you need to follow some standards for and build into your template so you can do them repeatedly). You might also consider making some "Music Minus One" style things (don't call it that though as it's trademarked!). Create sheet music with Piano Accompaniment with a Violin Part, or Flute Part, or whatever, so people can play along to a wav file. It has to be out of copyright (as does everything!) or you have to have permission.

  2633. musictheory 2018-07-18 23:14:21 UncertaintyLich
    I’m in the U.S. and every conservatory is different, but in general you don’t necessarily need to have a traditional score, but you should have a very clear, concise, and detailed score. So for instance, text scores and graphic scores may be fine, but it should be as detailed and easy to read as say a string quartet. Also, in many cases they won’t actually listen to the recordings you send, so the score better be damn convincing on its own. And does AP stand for “absolute pitch”? Because the answer is a hard no. Honestly a good relative pitch is more useful than perfect pitch because you’re hearing the relationships and not just the notes, which is what’s actually important.

  2634. musictheory 2018-07-19 04:03:29 geedix
    I played bass guitar and string bass as a teenager. Since then, I have studied other instruments; piano, trombone, concertina. I always try to visualize chord voicings and intervals on the instrument I'm learning. Despite my efforts, my mind always brings up images of the bass fretboard I learned on, many years ago. You can work on music when you're away from an instrument if you can visualize it.

  2635. musictheory 2018-07-19 06:17:38 RichardPascoe
    I have not used Imgur to post anything at Reddit so I thought I would try my first image link here. It is relevant to the post but I didn't explore all the ways of linking the chords. I did try using the C - C# - D in the bass but chose first inversions. etc, instead. So the chromatic run is not in the bass but happens on the B string of the guitar which is an inner voice. [Passing diminished 7th chord in C major (Guitar tab)](https://imgur.com/a/8V2jcIb) Hopefully the image will appear. regards Richard

  2636. musictheory 2018-07-19 17:39:57 IdiotII
    The bass line is just the lowest functional part of a passage of music. Usually, this will be played by a "bass instrument" (string bass, electric bass, left hand on a piano-only piece, Tuba in a wind band, etc). Bass instruments can be EXTREMELY melodic. Look at any big band standard, and you'll find the bass is constantly moving (we call it walking). Or, for modern music, look at the bass line from "Fine China": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORz6cOa-Lfs It moves a lot, but it constantly "checks in" with the harmony, and makes clear the harmonic movement. The bass usually "checks in" on downbeats, solidifying the chord changes. In the intro to that song, and the first verse, there are only 3 basic chords: Ebm, Abm and Cb. Notice how it always "touches" those notes in important rhythmic spots (like the first downbeat of each measure). But there will absolutely be instances where the "bass instrument" is not the "bass note." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8q6sR6yZCE In this video, we see and hear Joe Zawinul (the keyboardist) playing the famous "Birdland" bass riff on the keys. Then it cuts to Jaco Pastorius, with an electric BASS in his hands, playing the melody entirely in harmonics. In this case, the bass guitar is NOT the bass, the left hand of Zawinul is. But immediately after that intro, Jaco's (bass guitar part) does indeed become the "bass part," at around :39. It's the lowest functional note. USUALLY the lowest note, but not always. Being the "bass note" is not tied to any specific instrument necessarily, but there are tendencies to use lower sounding instruments as the bass. There are reasons for this, related to the sonic character of each instrument. A string bass can fill out the sound of a string passage in a way that no other instrument can. At the same time, a string bass technically *can* play the prelude to Bach's cello suite no.1 but it sounds ridiculous because it wasn't written for bass.

  2637. musictheory 2018-07-19 20:06:42 Vysokokontekstnyye
    I can hear them on my bass really easily, but I can't hear them on higher instruments. If you play the low E string on a bass, most of what you're hearing is the overtone series, because the frequency of the low E is 41.203 Hz, 21hz above completely inaudible to humans. I don't think that it can be trained, but you can do things to make overtones louder, on a bass guitar or regular guitar, pluck at the 12th fret for instance.

  2638. musictheory 2018-07-19 21:14:27 Vysokokontekstnyye
    I'm a bassist, and the double bass like most unfretted string instruments isn't a perfectly equal tempered instrument (C# is different than my Db, not so on my bass guitar) but I haven't really thought about other tunings until recently, as I've gotten really into baroque music.

  2639. musictheory 2018-07-19 21:24:23 gravfix
    Well the instrument you're trying to hear it on is important. Stringed instruments are a little easier to hear it on. And if your a string player you'll subconsciously use the overtone series to help you fine tune your instrument. That's probably what got me to be able to hear them so easily. But they're still faint. Like JaxonOSU said, a great way of dialing it in is by shifting tones. I'm sure there are youtube videos of people doing this that you can listen to.

  2640. musictheory 2018-07-19 21:57:24 crom-dubh
    The fundamental may or may not be the frequency of highest amplitude. Very commonly it will be, but not necessarily. It is the lowest frequency produced by a particular vibration. And to clarify two points you raise: 1. It has nothing to do with what the instrument as a whole is capable of producing. It is the lowest frequency of whatever element is producing the sound, meaning the fundamental of an open E string on a guitar is different from the fundamental of the open A string. In other words, you mainly talk about the fundamental of individual notes, not of the instrument. 2. It has nothing to do with the range of hearing. It is the lowest frequency in question, regardless of whether you can hear it or not. I hope that helps!

  2641. musictheory 2018-07-19 22:14:51 Vysokokontekstnyye
    Yeah, I have no issue with tuning to different pitches, as I said I like it when musicians (like Tafelmusik) tune down to A=415Hz to play baroque repertoire, but there's nothing mystical about any tuning standard, it's all arbitrary, the reason that they tune down is to match the sound of back then'w arbitrary standard, which is different from today's arbitrary standard. I see it as really no different than any other stylistic choice, like how modern orchestras have the string players use vibrato on almost every note, and baroque orchestras (again like Tafelmusik, or Gardiner's English Baroque Soloists) almost never use vibrato, its trading the arbitrary preferences of now for then and I think that it doesn't need to be justified beyond that. If I understand meantone correctly, every key had a different tuning, so that a harpsichord tuned to D would be tailored to the sonic palette of that key, but would sound off in other keys, and the farther away from D one got, the more dissonant it would sound. Is that right? I really like that idea, but I understand that 12tet is a lot more convenient, because you don't need to retune to change keys (some instruments, like the banjo still require this, the unfretted drone sting is tuned to G as a standard, so every song has to be played in G to stay in key, or you have to retune for every key) or have 12 different instruments. I see a lot of interesting possibilities for digital instruments, a digital sampler keyboard that has 12 different settings for instance, but digital instruments are a whole other can of worms and have particularities all their own. I've decided to read the book, skeptically.

  2642. musictheory 2018-07-19 22:33:17 Vysokokontekstnyye
    Not really, it's disingenuous to view digital things like mechanical things, there are less moving parts on a physical level but when you get into the processes that actually make digital technology work there are a lot more moving parts that are a lot easier to break, more catastrophic when they do break and more difficult to repair. Compare a digital sampler keyboard to a real piano, the real piano has more moving parts but it is simple and intuitive and can be easily repaired, a digital keyboard has two parts, the key and the computer, but it's still more complex because the computer doesn't work by magic it works by an extremely complex multi step process that can fail at any moment to much more catastrophic affect, you can replace a hammer or a string easily, on an analog sampler piano you can replace a reel of tape and a wire easily, on a digital sampler keyboard it's not so simple to fix a computer. A digital keyboard is interesting if you want to quickly experiment with things, but for actually making music it's purely fetishistic and lazy, it has no real use that an analog sampler keyboard or a real piano can't accomplish. Stop with the patronizing winking. For people like you "antiquated" means, "it works absolutely fine, but my compulsive fetish for digital circuitry means that I must change it" but instead of admitting that you have an irrational fetish (there is nothing wrong with that necessarily, not everything has to be rational, though the problem with people like you is that you believe that everything does need to be rational, so you try to present your fetishes as such when they're not) you pretend like it's something rational and needed. Frankly it's deluded and perverse.

  2643. musictheory 2018-07-19 23:23:35 harpsichorddude
    I'm not actually that much of a harpsichord expert, I just liked them a lot when I was in middle school. That said, the sustain's approximately like a second or two? It's longer than one would usually think from most Baroque recordings, but it does fade away a lot. You also make a bit of noise when you release the note, due to the plectrum hitting the string again on the way back down. My favorite jazz harpsichord example is Sun Ra's harpsichord licks on Walt Dickerson's *Impressions of a Patch of Blue*, though I don't remember exactly which tracks use harpsichord.

  2644. musictheory 2018-07-19 23:36:16 TrickDunn
    Professional musicians account for this actively in their playing. Vocalists, string players, and wind instrumentalist should adjust the "bend" of each pitch to compliment the tonic more appropriately. They're not forced to play in any strict or given intonation. So they don't-- they play what sounds better. I'm not a professional, but I recall learning that you should bend your Major 3rds slightly down and minor 3rds slightly up (when based off the tonic). There are a few other tendencies that I'm fairly sure they acvount for, but I can't recall. So: Playing in Bb major? Bend that D down a bit. Bb minor? Bend that Db up a hair. Playing piano, mallet percussion, accordion, or rhythm guitar? Suck it up. (Or actually-- if you're playing guitar, maybe consider tuning your B string down just a hair if your going to play a lot of open tuning stuff in G-- it'll sound a bit better) Why is this? Well let's look: A440 is our reference pitch. This means that 220Hz and 110Hz are both A's (an octave is a doubling or halving of a frequency). So we've got A110, A220, Xxxx, and A440. What's the missing number? X330, but what is 330Hz? It's an E-- a perfect fifth above an A. Now we have A110, A220, E330, A440, Yyyy, E660. The missing figure quickly reveals itself as 550Hz, but once again-- what is 550Hz? It's a C#. This is the part where your head is supposed to explode. Mine did at least. So any time you hear a note from any instrument-- it's like 95% that fundamental note, and then the last 5% is different representations of the overtones/harmonic series above it. If someone were to play and hold an A110 on piano-- you'd hear progressively fainter remnants of A220, E330, A440, C#550, etc. So in any single note, much like an organ player with drawbars, there's a major triad hiding. That's why we like the major triad-- it's not happenstance or subjective. Everyone, everywhere likes the major triad because of physics. So bringing it back to temperament: Yes, a is 440, but on any piano you find, E will not be exactly 660 (though it's very very close), and C# will not be 550-- it's more like 554Hz-- that's why we need to bend our major 3rd down for it to sound better. I don't think modern tuning "sounds" best, but it's the best place for 12-tone music to start. The musicians in between the writing and the performance should do what they can to avoid the downfalls of modern tuning.

  2645. musictheory 2018-07-20 04:49:23 65TwinReverbRI
    >Hi r/musictheory! I'm a graduate student pursuing my doctoral degree in psychology, and I'm currently writing a paper about music and psychology. Oh great, that's all we need, another one. Just kidding :-D u/blondenblue Yes, the Fundamental is the frequency we hear as the pitch. It is also the lowest Partial of a pitch that contains multiple partials, like those of the overtone series. >but is the FF always the loudest overtone in the series? It depends. We typically use mathematical models to describe the relationship between any Overtones present in relation to the Fundamental (and each other). There are some that come out to "pure" mathematical models which are easy to deal with, so we like them :-) These are: 1. Sine Wave (Fundamental only) 2. Sawtooth (Ramp) Wave - all overtones, in a F, 2F, 3F, 4f....nF relationship in frequency, and 1/F, 1/2F, 1/3F, ....1/nF amplitude relationship - simply, the frequency doubles, triples, quadruples, up to infinity, and the amplitude halves, thirds, quarters, up to infinity. 3. Triangle Wave - similar, but has only the odd numbered partials. 4. Square Wave - has only the odd number partials, and the amplitude falloff is in 1/X^2 (inverse square) relationship - so the 5th partial is 1/25th as loud. These are called Harmonic Periodic Waveforms. Period refers to regularly repeating cycles, and Harmonic means the Overtones (at least those present) are in Whole Number ratios to the Fundamental. In these, the overtones result in Timbre (tone color). The Fundamental is the loudest partial in each case. As you can see, the others (of those present) fall off in volume in so no other overtone is as loud as the fundamental. These waves produce what we call notes of "determinate pitch", which means we can identify what the note is - match it to another instrument, replicate it with our voice, and so on. The overtones aren't really "heard" in these things, but subsume into a whole (Gestalt) as Tone Quality or Timbre. _________ THe problem is, in real life, things aren't mathematically perfect! There are also INharmonic sounds, and there are also Aperiodic sounds. As Inharmonicity and/or Aperiodicity increases, we may have overtones that are louder than the fundamental (I'm not sure if it should even be called the fundamental at that point, but there's a spectrum here, not just black and white). Most sounds actually have some sort of aperiodicity and/or inharmonicity to them - even in practice, synthesized sounds which should be "pure" are affect by things like voltage, electronic components, and even speaker construction. String players are familiar with something called a "Wolf Tone" which is basically a note that resonates louder than it should and it could be so bad as to obscure the fundamental. Bells and other metallic objects - "clangy" objects often have multiple frequencies that compete for dominance so telling which one is the fundamental can be difficult and IIRC some things are tuned based on some other harmonic that is more prominent due to resonance than the actual fundamental - because we don't really hear it in that case. Then we have the whole human perception issue - we have a limited hearing range both for frequency (20 Hz - 20 kHz is the typical figure) and amplitude (0 to 120 or so db - inaudibility to threshold of pain). At some point, the overtones that go to infinity are going to cross the threshold of either frequency perception or amplitude perception - they're so high only dogs can hear them, or they're so quiet only animals with better hearing than ours can. Either way, we can't hear them. This means that two notes with different starting frequencies/amplitudes will have a differing number of overtones! So things aren't really like the mathematical models you're probably going to encounter in your research. __________ Instruments like Trombone have what they call "pedal tones" which they can play and are the fundamental, but they're not really "real" notes. Trombonists use them, but really they're starting on the 1st overtone IIRC. Trumpets do the same thing, and due to their shorter length the pedal tones are really hard to play well and in tune. Some people can't even make them. So they're not considered part of the range, and they also begin on the 2nd partial IIRC. Even, IIRC, a guitar string is actually "half" of a vibration which has to do with standing waves. These all get into the "mechanics" of physical vibrating things (column of air in Trumpet, string on Guitar, Head on a drum). And I recall debates about whether when you "Play harmonics" on these if that's the actual "harmonic series" or just a similar physical thing - IOW, they're similar, but not exactly the same thing. So I think as a generality you can say yes, the Fundamental is typically the loudest (and of course lowest) Partial on instruments of determinate pitch, however, it is not necessarily so. And some sounds, like a Sine Wave, don't even have overtones (which by default makes it the loudest because it's the only one!). Good luck on your paper.

  2646. musictheory 2018-07-20 05:16:49 asdfmatt
    I read this book when it first came out. I was much earlier along on my journey through physics and music. This is what I remember of it (as in, from when I read it a dozen years ago). It's good if you don't already have an airtight foundation of tuning systems. I thought it got very granular into the details of harmony and tuning systems. It's less of an A=432 vs 440 Hz diatribe, more about the history of ET and how it came to be employed, and some of the nuance of WHY string players (and other ensembles/situations where JT is used). It hinges on explaining [Wolf Tones (EDIT: Intervals)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_interval) and the situations where ET and JT are appropriate. I don't think it made so much as a judgement call, rather than trying to explaining some of the inner workings of WHY things sound good or bad. IF you don't already have a solid foundation, read it, it's informative but not groundbreaking. If you're interested in the subject, read it. If not, skip it. It's a short book. I think the first 75% of it is good, informative writing and then it kind of gets a little dry.

  2647. musictheory 2018-07-20 05:32:14 LiamGaughan
    I think their music is just very hooky. I heard Howard Goodall explain this, and it really made me realise. Every moment of an Abba song is a catchy hook. I've been trying to find the video but I can't find it right now. Anyway, for instance if you sing 'dancing queen' to yourself in your head... you're gonna hear the backing vocals 'ahhh ahhh aahhh, ah ah ah ahhh ahh ahh', then you're gonna hear that piano part 'da daa da daa da daaa' then first verse, one line of vocals then that string line 'danana danana danana dananana' then the second line, with that scoop of the vocals. It goes on and on

  2648. musictheory 2018-07-20 06:30:36 LuigiOuiOui
    I think sometimes people can exploit the effect of the slightly different tunings in relation to each other. Tuning bright will give you slight but real consequences; partly due to pitch memory and expectation, partly due to instruments being tuned higher than normal. So even though we could all stick to one tuning, we don’t want to. Personally I tend to tune up when I’m playing classical string music, and down when I’m playing contemporary music that probably involves different types of keyboard/electronics/e guitars. The slight change definitely feels different, to me at least as performer.

  2649. musictheory 2018-07-20 07:30:26 dayoco
    Schenkerian approaches: Cavett-Dunsby, Esther. “Mozart’s Variations Reconsidered: Four Case Studies (K. 613, K. 501, and the Finales of K. 421 (417b), and K. 491).” PhD diss., University of London, 1985. Marston, Nicholas. “Analysing Variations: The Finale of Beethoven’s String Quartet Op. 74”. Music Analysis 8, no. 3 (October 1989): 303–324. EDIT: sorry, didn’t see the post-2004 request! Non-Schenkerian: Swinkin, Jeffrey. “Variation as Thematic Actualisation: the Case of Brahms's Op. 9.” Music Analysis 31, no. 1 (March 2012): 37–89.

  2650. musictheory 2018-07-20 09:27:39 crom-dubh
    Yeah I think accordion had the same effect on folk music that the piano had on classical music. Essentially there are relatively few instruments not capable of dynamically adapting their tunings (meaning, if you're a string, brass, or woodwind player, you can sort of approximate the purer intonations on the fly as you respond to the other players to get a better harmonic sound), but accordion and piano are inflexible. I'm with you - I've never really felt 12TET lacking. I have used Absynth (which lets you choose other temperaments) and played around with some others and usually the different is so negligible that I can't tell the difference unless I sustain certain intervals and do a back-to-back comparison. Some do sound more "pure" than others - I can hear which ones favor 3rds over 5ths, etc. But the "impurity" of the 12TET intervals is not bothersome to me. Again, maybe that's because I grew up listening to it, but the more evidence I encounter, the more I am convinced that what we find pleasing is an overwhelmingly learned thing, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

  2651. musictheory 2018-07-20 15:53:01 hiimbond
    On a guitar, starting from the 1st string going down it would be 12 10 12 10 Top position Fmaj7 looks like this: 12 10 10 The 10th fret on the third string is the root, and above it are the major third and seventh. By playing the 12th fret on the third string instead, you are now playing the 2nd, or the 9th. Now you have a chord with no root though, so you play the 10th fret on the 4th string, which is the 5th. The Perfect 5th is pretty good as a substitute for the root, and lets you play a meaty chord without accompaniment. You can play C7: x 11 9 10 x x Then Ab7#9: x 12 11 10 11 x And then Fmaj9/C, or Over C, which is just the 5th of the chord. 12 10 12 10 x x Hope this helps! When looking at all of these, the X represents muted or unplayed strings, and the 1st string is on the left.

  2652. musictheory 2018-07-20 16:16:34 TheCoolSquare
    Interesting, still not sure what it means to call a voicing top position though. Is there any way to distinguish that Fmaj9 chord from a C6 without another instrument playing an F in the bass or something like that? Though I think i'd prefer to just play the F with my pinky on the 13th fret of the 6th string.

  2653. musictheory 2018-07-20 17:01:44 nmitchell076
    >Anyway, for instance if you sing 'dancing queen' to yourself in your head... you're gonna hear the backing vocals 'ahhh ahhh aahhh, ah ah ah ahhh ahh ahh', then you're gonna hear that piano part 'da daa da daa da daaa' then first verse, one line of vocals then that string line 'danana danana danana dananana' then the second line, with that scoop of the vocals. It goes on and on This is a good point, that ABBA finds ways of maintaining interest at all times. But maybe a bit of nuance here is that there's a big difference between the actual "hooky" parts of songs, which are in your face with how they just demand that you get hooked on them in every respect, and other portions of the song that are maybe less attention-grabbing intrinsically, but find nice orchestral or timbral things to do to hold on. Dancing Queen is a good example, I notice you said "one line of vocals then that string line 'danana danana danana dananana.'' This actually describes my experience of the first verse well, which is actually sort of forgettable while the vocals themselves are happening. It just seems so pedestrianly 70s disco to me. But that little fill is there to catch my ear and sustaining me, not letting my attention waver through a section that, without it, I'd frankly probably tune out during and wait for the pre-chorus. (The second verse is a bit better at holding my attention though, I think the vocal gestures like at "high" are better attention-sustainers). A song that is equally as hooky but maybe less successful in this respect is "Take a Chance on Me." There's a verse that just doesn't really do much for me at all. From the moment I hear the spoken "that's all I ask, honey" I'm pretty much done until the next "If you change your mind..." comes. Though I do hear them trying to do something similar with the timbral inflection of "it's magic." But idk. I'm positive that these verses were successful within the disco-infused stylistic milieu they were working with, but I also think the verses have aged far worse than the choruses. The choruses still sound pretty fresh today, but I think the verses often have a distinctly dated feel to them.

  2654. musictheory 2018-07-21 00:34:33 65TwinReverbRI
    What if you wanted a piece to sound just a bit lower or higher pitched? Sure, you just tune it up or down. Happens all the time. >The intervals would remain the same so the key-chord system would still work right? Yep. >What would you call the notes then? You call them the same thing, until they get far enough away that they're the next note. For example, a lot of albums by bands like Jimi Hendrix or Van Halen have songs on them that are slightly mis-tuned. They just woke up that morning, tuned up their instrument to whatever it was near, without using any reference, and recorded the song. So it might be just a little flat of standard. But in their minds, they're still calling it "A" for the note "A" not "A-5cents" or something like that. Once it gets halfway to Ab, we "round down" if you like and call it Ab. Both of those artists actually tuned to Eb a lot, which means in guitar speak that they took the standard guitar tuning of E (which is the lowest string) and dropped all the notes 1/2 step. Now, a guitarist still thinks "I'm playing an E chord" but it comes out sounding like an Eb. But from our perspective, we'd call it Eb because that's the closest note it rounds to. And they had anything in between as well. Also, recordings don't always run the exact speed and sometimes in the editing process records got sped up or slowed down, or it was intentionally done to make the song longer or shorter, or just becuase they though it sounded better at a slightly faster tempo, but a song like "867-5309 (Jenny)" by Tommy Tutone is actually a few cents sharp of standard on the final release. It makes it a pain to try to learn by ear if your instrument is in standard tuning. So generally speaking, unless it's specifically microtonal music, we generally will "round" notes to the nearest letter name in a typical system (that is, where all notes are standard distances from each other). HTH

  2655. musictheory 2018-07-22 05:48:04 Akoustyk
    You can't forget scales entirely when you play quickly. That's when you need them most. You need to think of it like a string, and know exactly where your fingers need to go to play it, and your muscle memory needs to know exactly. There is no time to guess or ponder or figure out where the notes you want are. I know I am asking a question here, but I am actually very good at guitar. I just came across this specific instance, which was unusual to me. I never really observed it so closely, because you're right, most of the time, I don't need the pattern. So I never really sat there and tried so hard because even if you play fast there are only so many notes you can play. On guitar I don't quite play as quickly as piano for some things and I can't easily mash any chord extension combinations I want. On piano I can, so I took the time to find the pattern. That's what caused this whole thing. But I will use it for guitar also. It's useful for guitar also. But you can't learn everything in one day. Today is the day I learn this.

  2656. musictheory 2018-07-22 07:07:06 Akoustyk
    It doesn't limit your notes. You just string through pentatonic into major, into harmonic minor, aroeggios, whatever you want. You're never stuck or limited. But knowing the patterns and their options lets you build strings. If you want a 5 note pentatonic string, then repeat that, if you want more, then strong something different. It's possible to just stay in the chord shapes. To me it's not about what is possible. What I can get away with, or what works. To me, my mind imagines music, and I need to be able to play that, whatever it is. I need to know the patterns for that. I can play arpeggiated chords quickly too. I can tell by your post that you are vastly underestimating my ability on guitar. I'm for more advanced than all of that. I can play all the chords with the tune just strumming just arpeggiated, every chord shape all up and down the neck, adding every chord extension to every shape, even if I need to reset the grip. I'm way past just strumming chords of a song. My voice leading and creativity is actually very strong. I do that arpeggiated thing. I may even reset higher up the neck for a different shape and then come back. You have to move very quickly but the effect can be really cool, imo. Every note you play matters. It matters a little less if you play quickly, but the only thing that matters more than every note you play, is *when* you play it. "Chord tones" isn't specific enough. The exact not you play and the exact timing is what matters. It's the phrasing that makes it good. If you use a method of playing notes and striking chord tones like that, your music won't ever sound "off" it will always "work", but it will sound more generic and less interesting, because the specific phrasing isn't great. Like building sentences with words can make sense, but to make a hilarious sentence, you need to really choose the "right" words, even though there are no rules for how to build funny sentences. And every word matters. Thanks for the video suggestion, and I appreciate you taking the time to help me, it's a nice gesture, but I'm pretty confident it's well below my level.

  2657. musictheory 2018-07-22 21:32:41 dagbrown
    Add2 is the Steely Dan chord. Generally, though (at least, when it's Donald Fagen playing), it's voiced as 1, 2, 5 in the treble range and 3 in the bass. "Voicing", in case OP is unfamiliar with the term, just refers to how the chord is arranged. If you're playing the guitar, there are two ways to play a G major chord--one with the second-highest (in frequency) string playing a B, and one with it playing a D. Both are equally-valid, but the one with the second-highest string playing a D is generally taught by guitar teachers as the "correct" way to play that chord. The different ways to arrange the same chord is what voicing is.

  2658. musictheory 2018-07-23 22:39:59 gravfix
    Lol. No reason to rag on the V, it's a great chord! But yeah, a lot of pop tunes use the I - IV for a few reasons. First off, on guitar (which a lot of pop writers play) this is just moving up a string. Secondly, going to the V and resolving makes the phrase seem like its' over. A lot of times they want to keep repeating, so they'll use that plagal cadence for a little less sharp of a resolution. Same sort of deal with the i - VII - VI, except with an extra step on the tonic VII.

  2659. musictheory 2018-07-24 13:29:54 Shu_gaze
    Beethoven never really went completely deaf, though towards the end of his life, it was profound. It's just easier to hear sound through solid objects. As a hard of hearing person, I would sometimes rest my chin on my guitar when I'm practicing on an unplugged electric to help me hear better. I did notice when I'm tuning by ear, I could somewhat feel whether or not the string was in tune. I doubt my sense of touch is as accurate as my ears, but it might be possible to "feel" chords based off of the vibrations.

  2660. musictheory 2018-07-24 14:18:17 Neonukes
    I don't play guitar , but you can start by figuring out the individual notes in the guitar chord from lowest to highest so you might be playing a d on the lowest string an a on the second lowest string another d on the third string etc. This is the chord voicing. Now take it to the piano with the same order. So in my example your lowest note would be d second lowest would be a etc

  2661. musictheory 2018-07-25 03:21:35 the-social-contract
    Imagine the same scenario, except you didn't remember it was your own composition that you were stealing from. What if you don't remember having written it? How is it meaningfully different than stealing from another composer? In both cases, you're 'stealing' that component because you understand that it fits for what you need. > . . . realizing an old idea will go with it. This is the crux of "stealing." Use an old idea because you recognize it'll work, whether it's yours or someone else's. Functional harmony and Python's string library are related in that they're both tools to achieve some end. They're completely different in what they do, but they both have a set of functions to accomplish what they're doing. Python has the upper() function if you need to capitalize a string. Functional harmony has a IV-V progression when you need to resolve tension. The better you understand those tools, the more effectively you'll use them. The more tools you have, the more you're able to do.

  2662. musictheory 2018-07-25 06:20:31 Jongtr
    First chord is Cm, 2nd is Gm. The D minor scale is not quite going to fit: Cm contains Eb (fret 4 on B string); D minor (full natural minor scale) contains an E. D minor pentatonic will fit though. For other chords, obviously try a Dm! Maybe Am, F, Bb, Eb. Maybe C, G or A major chords. (A lot depends on whether you are using the full D minor scale.)

  2663. musictheory 2018-07-25 06:37:44 PlazaOne
    Your first chord in standard tuning is actually C minor. The second chord is G minor. What you've done is identify two minor triads in different inversions, so their roots are on different strings. So the way to utilise this is two-fold. Firstly, you can figure out what other triads would nicely complement those you already have. For example, Cm and Gm could be the ii and vi chords in the key of Bb Major; or the i and v chords in the key of C minor; or something else. If you want to select Bb Major as your key, then xxx565 will work as an F Major triad which is the V chord - and also places the root onto the other string which hasn't had a root from either of your two previous triads. Then you just need to choose for your Bb itself which string you want to put the root on: either xxx766 or xxx331 probably, as the third choice is a lot higher up the neck. Or if you wish to select C minor as your key, then xxx111 will give you an F minor triad - which is iv and not only should sound nice, but is also a convenient movement from where your hand already was. The second thing to do is to figure out how to play those same triads on other sets of three strings. That will give you the chance to switch between a bright airy sound, and one with a bit more oomph but still not the whole six strings. Hint: if you're familiar with the "CAGED" system, then just switch one finger at a time. That way xxx543 moves to xx554x and then to x655xx and finally 865xxx.

  2664. musictheory 2018-07-25 06:54:43 smk4813
    (xxx543) is Cm and (xxx333) is Gm/Bb. The D minor scale (DEFGABbC) for lead would be kind of okay. The Eb in the Cm chord would be the only odd duck. You could use D Phrygian instead (DEbFGABbC), **or** you could use the C minor or G minor scales. You're probably either in the key of C minor: Cm D^o Eb Fm Gm A Bb : i ii^o bIII iv v bVI bVII *or* the key of G minor: Gm A^o Bb Cm Dm Eb F : i ii^o bIII iv v bVI bVII If you're looking for more 3 string chord voicings, here are some more that fit the keys of C minor or G minor: (xxx111) - Fm/Ab (xxx564) - Fm/C (xxx211) - F/A (xxx231) - Dm/A (xxx765) - Dm (xxx101010)^thoseare10's - Dm/F (xxx787) - Gm/D (xxx036) - Gm (xxx331) - Bb (xxx766) - Bb/D (xxx553) - C (xxx888) - Cm/Eb (xxx220) - A (xxx200) - Asus2 (xxx210) - Am (xxx555) - Am/C (xxx545) - A^o (xxx343) - Eb/Bb (xxx886) - Eb Try | (xxx766) Bb/D -> (xxx555) Am - > (xxx545) A^o -> (xxx343) Eb/Bb | into -> |: (xxx543) Cm -> (xxx333) Gm/Bb :|

  2665. musictheory 2018-07-26 02:40:06 crom-dubh
    Yeah those games have some awesome music. With a lot of the epic music, there is an element of melancholy or sadness that adds an interesting twist on the experience. You could contextualize this scale a variety of ways, but I personally would be tempted to analyze it as a symmetric scale that's been slightly truncated (meaning one or more notes is not used). It is very much like Messiaen's mode of limited transposition #3, except that I didn't hear a D in there. The main notes involved here are C (the string part that goes throughout most of the composition), Db, E, F, F# G# A Bb. As you can see it's mostly three-note clusters separated by whole tones, i.e. C, Db, (D) - E, F, F# - G# A Bb - (C) etc. If you don't know, Messiaen was big into these symmetric scales that had limited transpositional forms, meaning the scale is made of repeating units that evenly divide the octave and, because of this, they only have so many transpositions before the scale repeats itself. The whole tone scale is the simplest example, which can only be transposed twice before you get a transposition that is enharmonic to the original one. This scale, therefore, would have four transpositions, because if you were to transpose it from C to E, you'd get the same scale. It's also very similar to what they sometimes call the "Asian" scale, which is a mode of the double harmonic scale. C, Db, E, F, Gb, A, Bb (it doesn't contain the note G#/Ab, which is in the piece, but you could easily explain that as a chromatic tone inserted freely by the composer). Keep in mind that things like intensity and mood are not just determined by the scale but many other factors, including orchestration.

  2666. musictheory 2018-07-26 04:09:07 LukeSniper
    >We'd probably use more consonant versions of the intervals we use in 12tet Here's the nifty part: we don't usually play in 12TET (when possible, at least) Singers don't sing in 12TET. String players don't play in 12TET. If you've got any degree of pitch freedom, more experienced musicians will push and pull the notes towards just tuned intervals intuitively.

  2667. musictheory 2018-07-26 11:48:10 mikefan
    Each key has 12 numbered sections. Sections 1,2,3 and 4 are one string scales and arpeggios. The diminished is in beats 3 and 4 of measure 4. The dominant is beats 1 and 2 of measure 5. In each arpeggio, you should add the keynote at the end. Section 5 is the three octave scales and arpeggios. The diminished is measure 10. The dominant is measure 11. As above, you should add the keynote at the end.

  2668. musictheory 2018-07-26 19:46:22 Jongtr
    It's the whole set of *partial* vibrations produced by anything that vibrates. The single note we hear is just the "fundamental" - the loudest (and deepest) of a whole series of higher notes contained within the sound. The trumpet demo could have started (perhaps it did?) with just blowing harder - that takes you up the harmonic series, because it excites different partial waves in the tube. (The reason a bugle - with no keys - can play different notes is that it works from the harmonic series of its fundamental note.) On a guitar string it's more visual. Normally it looks like the string just goes back and forth in a bow shape. But if you were to shine a strobe on it, you'd see all the partial waves running up and down. Physically you can stop the string at the half-way point (without pressing it down), pluck it and see it vibrating in two halves - producing the "2nd harmonic" or octave. Stopping it at the 1/3 or 2/3 point (over frets 7 or 19) makes the string vibrate in 3 parts, producing the 3rd harmonic, a perfect 12th (octave + 5th) above the "fundamental" (open string pitch). Or you could just show him [this video] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC9Qh709gas&t=38s). The idea is that the human voice - like any musical instrument - contains overtones (the harmonic series), and what she is able to do is demonstrate that by isolating different ones. I.e., she is singing *the same note*, but bringing out the other pitches contained in that note that we don't normally hear. (And there are plenty of other youtubes explaining the harmonic series of course, easy to find.) Another idea would be to play him a pitch that contains no overtones at all: a sine wave. IOW, although we don't normally hear the harmonic series as a set of separate notes, we can certainly hear the difference when we hear a note with no harmonics. There are also musical instruments with different combinations (spectra) of overtones, which define their *timbre*. A flute, for example, is relatively pure, while the harshness of a saxophone is largely due to its complex mix of overtones.

  2669. musictheory 2018-07-27 02:54:57 fishtaco567
    Imagine you have a string and you hold both ends fixed. The only ways it can vibrate are with a whole number of peaks and valleys in the wave. These are the harmonics. Any other vibration would require one of the ends to move. The Trumpet acts just like that string, except with air. The buzzing you do produces the same kind of wave with both ends held. With the Trumpet, you're able to make this sort of 'air string' longer by pressing valves and adding more pipe. The 'registers' you have by buzzing higher are just the harmonics of that air string.

  2670. musictheory 2018-07-27 04:03:22 LukeSniper
    Yes, they are playing just intervals. That's what I said earlier. It's not just non-fretted instruments. It's any instrument where the player has some degree of pitch freedom. For example, the flute. You can bend notes on a flute, and players do so intuitively to get a better sound than 12TET offers. Why is it so ridiculous that a skilled musician who knows how to control their instrument would manipulate it in such a way as to sound better? Here's an example: Pat Metheny. He has this one guitar, it's been his main guitar for decades. That guitar is a damned mess. The frets are in terrible shape, the neck is warped, it's basically impossible to play that guitar in tune... Unless you're Pat Metheny. He's so intimately familiar with that guitar he can compensate for all it's "problems" with no effort at all. He just knows how that instrument feels. He knows that a certain fret might have a low spot, so he has to bend the string a bit so it doesn't fret out, but he'll also have to push on the string a bit to make sure it doesn't go sharp with that little bend. He doesn't have to think about these things. He just knows that instrument. That's an extreme example of the tiny little things people do to compensate for the problems 12TET introduces. People aren't thinking "Okay, this is the 3rd, it's 15 cents sharp, so I gotta make it a bit flat." No! They just do it. Because they're musicians.

  2671. musictheory 2018-07-27 07:34:07 LukeSniper
    You know piano isn't tuned to 12TET, right? If you tune a piano to 12TET, with a timer, it's going to sound like garbage. It's done by ear for a reason. And literally ANY orchestra performance is this happening. You seem to be of the impression that these tiny changes in pitch are just going to sound super awful if they sound together with 12TET, and that's not the case. Your ears aren't *that* strict when it comes to things being "in tune". There's wiggle room. The fact that vibrato is even a thing is proof enough of that. Generally, when folks are talking about musicians who have great intonation, be they singers, string players, wind players, guitarists, or whatever (you'll note that pianists are never complimented for their intonation) it's because of they*don't* play in 12TET.

  2672. musictheory 2018-07-27 09:31:36 jarranahaz
    Oh I see you. You seem to be referring to voicings. Think of it like this; if you play something, and then play the same thing somewhere else and it sounds exactly alike (maybe even octaves apart), then you are playing different voices. If you play something and then play different notes with the same intervals, you would be playing in a different key. But to answer your question, if you don’t think about theory while you’re playing and you only think “I can play it here, and no I can play it here”, then no. You are just using your guitar skills. But if you play it and then go “since the frets are semitones apart and the instrument is tuned in 4ths that means that a 5th will always be one fret down and one fret over unless you play it on the B string-“ etc, then you’re using music theory. Understand?

  2673. musictheory 2018-07-27 20:15:24 Stereotypy
    i just memorized the shapes of all the scales/modes from bottom E to top e. for example the major scale shape is only a couple of fingering variations different from the minor scale shape, etc. my biggest mistakes learning guitar- not learning the ENTIRETY of the fretboard and where the, say, E dorian mode is from an open E all the way up to the 12th fret and beyond. i was stuck in part 1 of "the box shape" for everything, so i could improvise over basically whatever (bottom E root note of whatever scale i play- match with whatever key the song i'm improvising over in, ie "song in Am? box shape at the 5th fret starting at the bottom E string" was the logic) and that worked and impressed the other teenagers in jazz band and the layperson for years until i wanted to expand my horizons. improvising over chord changes sounded clunky and forced. so don't do what i did. it was one of my biggest regrets of not taking lessons when my parents offered them in the pre-youtube era (where lessons are everywhere online for free) because i wanted to be like my guitar heroes that "taught themselves." my other biggest mistake running up and down the scales for warmups or practice was not properly teaching myself alternate picking for arpeggios. it was all downpicking all the time "because james hetfield was the fastest downpicker eveeeeeeerrrrrrr!!!!111" so when you're doing your exercises make sure you do combinations of picking techniques until you're *accurate*.

  2674. musictheory 2018-07-27 22:22:34 MonsieurLeland
    Thank you so much for your help! I will check some chord voicing tutorials asap! I'm actually trying to compose epic music at a fast pace. With my current technique, it always works, but I don't have any pleasure to compose. Finding a great melody is very interesting, but finding the chords by countless tests is just tedious and long. When listening to this kind of music, I notice that compositions, though impressive with their huge sound, are actually quite simple. It's always a bold and epic 4/8 bars chords in a loop, a few simple rhythmic variations with the french horns to make it moving, and then a big string ensemble on top of that, plus a spicatto in a loop. I feel that this is typically the kind of music one can produce in 48 hours with the right technical background. Then it's all about production quality (adding texture, effects, etc.). So that's why I thought about giving up my melody-first technique. However, if I had to compose "real" classical music, I would get back to it.

  2675. musictheory 2018-07-28 03:22:56 MonsieurLeland
    Thanks a lot for your detailed answer! It's very helpful. A) Indeed, +12 is an octave, I’ve made a lame mistake. B) I’ve watched videos about chord voicing and it makes sense now. It is basically two triads playing at the same time, but the lower triad is comprised of notes removed from the original one. Also, one should add a seventh by adding +3 or +4 to the highest note of the original chord in order not to lose too much thickness. Then I can even expand the « vagabond » notes to all their concordant keys (E4 can be moved to E2 and E5). C) Aren’t scales purely arbitrary? For exemple, I can chose to stick to C# scale, but I have heard about Lydian, Phrygian, etc. modes, which bring back possibilities and remove some. To be frank, I've never bothered with that in the past. I just focus on the the "melodic" progression of the chords. Usually, I start by the bass note, and make it evolve until I'm satisfied with the movement. Then, I add the real chord to it. Maybe it sounds like heresy to a connoisseur? D) I agree, apart from certain top composers, epic music is actually quite simplistic: a few massive, layered chords, a movement between them thanks to French horns, and a huge string + choir section to play a melody on top. Once you master chords progression, you can probably compose songs at a fast pace.

  2676. musictheory 2018-07-28 05:03:30 Bootlegs
    Is this was the little bass note run @00:12 in Stairway to Heaven is? Goes A-D#-F-E or 0-6-8-7 on the A string before the (in)famous intro begins anew.

  2677. musictheory 2018-07-29 08:47:27 WolfySpice
    I know it in relation to guitar, and just adding strings. A six-string guitar from top to bottom is EBGDAE. If you adjust the first two strings up a semitone to F and C, it's all in perfect fourths. If you add more strings below, you get B, F# and C# - it just adds sharps. So you repeat the notes but sharpen them. So you get F C G D A E, then B F# C# G# D# A#. And of course, fourths are just inverse fifths. That's how I remember it.

  2678. musictheory 2018-07-29 09:51:55 thelochok
    I found it really easy for an odd reason (which may not be helpful for many people doing theory): What's on the next string down on my guitar? (unless we're going up to or down from B) So - C is Fret 3 on 2nd string (A). G is Fret 3 on 1st string (E). G is also Fret 0 on 4th string (G). D is Fret 0 on 3rd string (D). A is Fret 0 on 2nd string (A). E is Fret 0 on 1st string (E). E is also fret 2 on 3rd string (D). B is fret 2 on 2nd string (A) - and so on, and so forth. It may not make sense to anybody else, but it was helpful as heck for me.

  2679. musictheory 2018-07-29 11:05:01 awkward1026
    I'm a bass player so I remember sharps by G being the 1st highest string means there's one sharp, D being the 2nd has two sharps, A having 3 and so on. For flats the strings are now a half step down and the same idea but reversed. F# half step down is F and is the first lowest note which means 1 flat, Bb is the 2nd down so 2 flats. Now remembering which order is up to you

  2680. musictheory 2018-07-30 16:58:46 g_lee
    Frequencies measure the distance between consecutive peaks of your wave. Harmonics are whole number multiples of this frequency and each tone you hear is a composition of the base frequency (the fundamental) and all of its harmonics. For instruments where the ends of the waves are fixed (like string instruments) you only get even harmonics whereas for instruments where the ends are open (like pipe organs) you can get odd harmonics which is one of the reasons why instruments like trumpets have such a different timbre than violins. The first even harmonic is the octave (so double frequency), the second harmonic is the octave + fifth, third harmonic is 2 octaves and the fourth harmonic is the major third. Traditionally this is how instruments were tuned (Pythagorean tuning) but it turns out as you use higher and higher harmonics the pitches would get increasingly “biased” in one direction leading there to be a out of tune gap in a high pitched scale (the Pythagorean comma) which is why we don’t tune to perfect harmonics anymore. I don’t really know about the odd harmonics (those where the wave is not fixed in both ends) because I don’t play one of those instruments.

  2681. musictheory 2018-07-31 03:23:53 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, so here's the thing - This is why it's so important to learn you keys and what notes are contained in them. Of course, E Major or E Minor is going to have the open E string in right? And the High E will be contained in those as well. But every single note is contained in at least 14 keys. The note F for example is in Gb, Db, Ab, Eb, Bb, F, and C and their relative minors, Ebm, Bbm, Fm, Cm, Gm, Dm, and Am (as well as the other 5 modes so that's another 35). So if you took the note E - the high string - it would be in the same number of keys! Now, when you throw 2 open strings, it limits that number depending on what they are. Since the guitar is mostly tuned in 4ths, that only reduces the number by one possibility. So E and B are in E and Em, B and Bm, and their relatives, C#m, G, G#m and D, as well as C and Am, A and F#m. Em has the most open strings of any key - all 6 strings are in the key of Em (and G Major). They actually are also in Am and C. But you know, just for example, in the key of C you might often play an F chord, and the more common forms of it don't use any open strings. So in some ways, this can be as much about chords as it is keys. BTW, if you know 25 or 6 to 4, you also know Brain Stew by Green Day (though it's tuned down a half step). It's also a similar structure to "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" by Led Zeppelin (which uses more "cowboy" chords instead of "power" chords).

  2682. musictheory 2018-07-31 06:54:42 nuggles1
    "Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale" by William Sethares You should check that book out. Any interval can be any level of consonant or dissonant depending on the timbre (aka overtones) of the instrument. Comes with audio examples to back it up, things like dissonant octaves and consonant minor 9ths. Though obviously with acoustic instruments you only get the natural overtone series, so it's more just to prove the point. I don't doubt that our musical perception is influenced by culture or lifestyle or whatever else, but there is solid science behind the fact that overtones do determine consonance dissonance. Even with my guitar, if I play a major triad but slowly tune the 3rd flat towards the justly intonated major 3rd, you can hear the exact moment it hits in line with the overtone and it becomes incredibly consonant. It's even more obvious on a good steel string acoustic with strong overtones. Consonance and dissonance aren't contextual. A justly intonated major chord will never sound dissonant to any human being. Dissonance is just when the frequencies don't match/divide up. It's based on our eardrums and overtones, neither of which are just "hand wavey" pseudo-science stuff. All of this being said, I haven't even looked at the study you linked yet haha but my point is that no amount of outside/cultural influence can override the fact that our eardrums function the way they do. Consonance and dissonance are 100% related to overtones/timbre. Experiment for yourself (and read that book) and you'll hear it.

  2683. musictheory 2018-07-31 16:47:38 Jongtr
    > I could just move my hand in in the pattern I'm used to, starting from a different position, in order to follow that Roman numeral chord progression to shift *all* the chords by a certain interval. I get the sense that that doesn't work But that's exactly how it works. As long as everything (on every string) goes up or down by the same number of frets, you've kept the formula consistent, so you've changed key. 1 fret = 1 semitone, so shifting everything in key of G down 2 frets puts you in the key of F. Naturally with some shifts you run out of fretboard! So you need to go in the other direction, which is where the factor of 12 comes in. E.g. if you want to change from G to D (down 5 frets) and that would put your shapes/patterns below fret 0, then you need to move up 7 frets. Of course, it's better if you know one key over the whole fretboard, because then you'll move some shapes down and some up. IOW, the pattern (scale and chords) for any one key covers 12 frets (and repeats above and below); you can start that overlapping 12-fret pattern at any point. (In terms of the "CAGED" system, it can be laid out as AGEDC, GEDCA, EDCAG or DCAGE, however it lies under your fingers.) Needless to say, it's better still to know all the notes you're using too... ;-) (See patterns, use patterns, but know notes and think sounds.) You're right, btw, that you don't need to know the key. If your job is to play the chords, that's all you need to know. Likewise, an orchestral musician playing from notation only needs to be able to read the notation and play those notes (and follow the conductor). The *key signature* is an important part of the notation, but that just says which notes are sharp or flat; it doesn't say what *key* the piece is in (which note is tonic), and a player doesn't need to know that.

  2684. musictheory 2018-07-31 20:27:20 FwLineberry
    You can't just write out a string of chords and say, "Is this major or minor?" You have to listen to what's being played. Not everything fits nicely into keys either.

  2685. musictheory 2018-08-01 01:39:20 65TwinReverbRI
    > They are not even remotely close to one another. Modes were traditionally monophonic - just a single melodic line with no harmony. You are incorrect. Please watch this and edify yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyq48eybjZw Here is a piece from the 1300s that is in the Dorian Mode. I'm linking to the 2nd Movement, Kyrie, where the harmony begins. The first 5 minutes is a monophonic chant on which the mass is based (which appears in the lowest voice in the Kyrie). https://youtu.be/1gEV42RKf6E?t=5m14s Modes are not simply "monophonic" or even "traditionally" so. Here is Debussy's String Quartet, which labelled "in G Minor" begins in G Phrygian with the constant use of Ab (among other chromatic notes). This is a perfect example of a composer "treating a mode like a key" and it is not at all uncommon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8I7uHb7GY0 IOW, there is modal music outside of Gregorian Chant and Modal Jazz.

  2686. musictheory 2018-08-02 00:14:22 SomeEntrance
    Great post. I wish there were more in this vein on this reddit. I like Stravinsky's 1959 Movements for Piano and Orchstretra a lot. I'm not as much into the 'viennese' school. It sounds a little like this Webern piece. Or have you heard Stravinsky's Double Canon for string quartet? It's great. I"m sure he was influenced by Webern. (Theres a good article somewhere on Stravinsky's use of 'verticles' in his 12 tone work).

  2687. musictheory 2018-08-02 01:54:30 CornFlakesR1337
    I would love to see this for a 5 string bass

  2688. musictheory 2018-08-02 03:12:55 dangeroustuber
    It sounds really cool with open string voicing. Do you have an idea for a major chord that fits into the sequence?

  2689. musictheory 2018-08-02 05:41:47 nuggles1
    >it seems like the relation between mathematical roughness and perceived consonance, strongly represented in dyads, particularly breaks down once you reach collections of 4 notes. I'd be interested to know if that book deals with chords! It does. The audio examples he provides as proof range from comparisons one single interval, to scalar differences, to full pieces of music composed under new timbres/sets of overtones. It's a great example of the point I'm trying to make to you lol which is that consonance is *not* the same as "sounding good". People commonly use consonance and dissonance to describe harmony/harmonic function, which is fine, but they more literally describe the space between intervals. Consonance and dissonance are sonic textures. You can have a piece of music with no dissonance at all that sounds like total nonsense, or a piece full of dissonance that is jawdroppingly beautiful. A simple major triad can sound any level of consonant or dissonant depending on how the intervals are tuned, and this is a direct result of the overtones. I don't hear a major triad with a justly intonated major 3rd as more consonant because of any outside cultural influence, it's more consonant because the frequencies are matching up. If you had several drummers play the same rhythm, but they were sloppy and not precise, you'd get dissonance. But if they were all exactly on time with each other, you'd get consonance. Frequencies are the "drummers". And our eardrum is just that, an ear*drum*. Notes are just specific large amounts of beats per second. And when things don't match up at those high speeds, including the overtones of the given instrument, that is dissonance. >For me, there's little value to be had in composing 'theoretically good' music if it doesn't sound good. Lol. It isn't a matter of composing "theoretically good" music, or trying to be the smartest or spiritual/hand-wavey or anything like that. It's about the *proven reality* of *how* human beings perceive sound and, therefore, music. And using the knowledge to create music that *does* sound good. Being aware of tuning/timbre alterations and how to force consonance/dissonance on any chord or interval is a whole additional level of expression in music that is very real, as proven by Sethares's book. Are the pieces in his book in pleasant to hear? Not exactly, but it teaches your ear what consonance and dissonance really is. And the implications are endless. Like if you have a ii-V-I, you can make the V completely consonant but the I tuned to 12-TET, or vice versa, and that adds a new dimension to whats going on. A lot of people cannot hear or pinpoint such small details, but the overall musical effect is still received by anyone who hears it. An accurate ear is just when someone has learned what aspect of sound to focus on, we all receive the same vibrations from the source material. But, a lot of people just have shitty ears too. I lived in Nashville for a minute and every other girl-with-an-acoustic had a string flat or sharp through their whole set, and most people don't notice. Idk man, I hate to be such a stubborn asshole about all this but damn. Lmao I'm linking you the book. Check it out. The audio resources are hosted online for free, easy to find with Google. If you check it out and still disagree, come reply to this and roast me to a crisp and I'll change my name to HandWaveyMcGeehee. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cG0-2uTUqAGj9tqxq7LlBvV0f3J66sDV/view?usp=drivesdk

  2690. musictheory 2018-08-02 11:39:00 Scartxx
    I like this a great deal but why is the first fret duplicated? see the 2 roots side by side on the b string. I keep coming back to the site and expecting it to be fixed. am I missing something??

  2691. musictheory 2018-08-02 13:25:41 SomeEntrance
    There is actually a great variety, over the many decades and countries it's been in use, so there might be one you like. Some, like late Stravinsky, have a stronger tonal sense and tension release like you mention: https://youtu.be/y0lQUQzmD-8 https://youtu.be/kPS2LxqBOt4 (Movements for Piano and Orchestra. Double Canon for String Quartet)

  2692. musictheory 2018-08-02 16:18:17 Jongtr
    > Wes Montgomery picked up the guitar at age 19, I think. 6-string at age 20, according to [wiki] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Montgomery). But he had played 4-string tenor guitar since 12, and came from a musical family. The latter is probably even more important than the former.

  2693. musictheory 2018-08-03 04:08:08 reckless150681
    I think it has to do with how wide your chord is, and where certain overtone frequencies fall. For example, I can't just play CDEFGAB altogether and call it a C13, because all the notes are next to each other and their fundamentals (never mind their overtones) interfere. Similarly, I know that trumpet waveforms have a huge spike that isn't their at their fundamental (it's at the third harmonic or something). I'd venture a guess that if you had two trumpet players where player B played a fundamental close to the aforementioned overtone frequency of player A, you'd get some pretty strong beats you weren't expecting. As to piano and guitar, keep in mind that both instruments allow you to play massive ranges; the open strings of a guitar encompass two octaves by themselves. If you were to play chords close together on either instrument, you'd still see that same muddiness. Finally, having a stronger attack will clear up some muddiness. Warm brass (or WW or string) sounds that just kind of fade into existence will be much muddier than the percussive hits of a guitar.

  2694. musictheory 2018-08-03 06:09:07 65TwinReverbRI
    Lead Guitar? That means rock? Then NEVER use a Major 7 !!!!! :-D As others have mentioned, I and IV are the two diatonic chords in a major key that naturally have a Major 7 structure if you add a 7th to the chord. I agree that you need to use them when they sound good. Generally speaking, in Rock, they're kind of rare. You often only hear them in either "softer" contexts or "jazzy" contexts. One often quoted example is in the RHCP "Under the Bridge" where it stops and holds a Maj7 chord. You get them in progressions like the one in "Something" by The Beatles, where it's maybe a little more Jazzy and used in a line cliché - C - Cmaj7 - C7. IIRC there's a similar one in "Show Me the Way" by Peter Frampton. 311's "All Shook Up" has one intermixed in an interesting way with some other chords. Kind of a Zany use is in Hocus Pocus's "Focus". There are some in the more "dreamy" sections of Pink Floyd songs. Guitarists will also play a C Major7 a lot in songs in Em, where they're droning the open E and B strings, and that B produces the Major 7 sound. IIRC there's one in "Black Days" by Soundgarden and even one in "Melissa" by the Almann Brothers. F Major7 is a favorite of guitarists who can't really play the "real" F chord - there was a string of songs in the same time period that used them - "Jumper" by - is that 3rd Eye Blind? A lot of more Neo-Soul and Neo-Jazz, or light Jazz, or even more Gospel influenced styles are going to have a lot more of them. The best thing to do is listen to and learn to play lots and lots of music and try picking them out and seeing how they're used.

  2695. musictheory 2018-08-03 06:16:20 65TwinReverbRI
    Well certainly, Timbre is a major factor here. Instruments with more similar timbre "blend" better. So brass tends to be a little less homogeneous tan Piano or Guitar - or even a string ensemble playing the same chord. Picking out voices should be the opposite though - it's a little easier in a non-homogeneous group to pick out which instrument is doing what (but, at the same time, it can make finding interior notes more challenging because they do blend into the other notes). TBH, I tend to hear more of the overall quality rather than individual notes, so what I do is get the outer parts first, then use clues and process of elminiation to get inner parts - like if the top is G and the bottom is C, I'm going to assume the inner part is probably an Eb if the whole thing sounds "minor" to me. I was actually watching the old James Bond "From Russia with Love" this morning and there's a spot where it's percussion accompanying a Trumpet melody - and there are parts where it seems like it's a unison line then it breaks up into harmony for only a note here or there, then you start to wonder if you're hearing it all correctly or not! So I know what you mean - if it were piano, I'd be able to pick that out more easily. But I think that has more to do with them sounding so similar in that context. Even though the piano sounds similar for each note, there's something about the overall tone quality that makes it sound a little more obvious. However, I also play piano and guitar, and not Trumpet or brass instruments, so it could be just a matter of experience.

  2696. musictheory 2018-08-03 06:54:06 Muelldaddy
    Ok lots of good suggestions here but real talk: listen to the string quartet version of a band you like and know well. Call me crazy but I believe that my intuition for basic harmony came from singing along to the Vitamin String Quartet doing Fall Out Boy. With only 4 parts and minimal production, it is really easy to pick out. Don't knock it til you try it.

  2697. musictheory 2018-08-03 19:41:32 Xenoceratops
    Set Theory === I hope this is the most mathy comment I have to write. This is the preliminary stuff for talking about pitch relations, and once you get past this it's a lot less complicated in my opinion. The harmonic materials of twelve-tone music can be (but do not have to be) very different from those of tonal music. Rather than focusing on how pitches lead into one another (a primary concern of tonality), twelve-tone music prioritizes how groups of pitches fit together. Think of it like a game of musical Tetris: making the pieces fit snug and completing the row (completing the aggregate) is a good thing. Most of the shapes (continuing with the Tetris metaphor) used in twelve-tone music do not have common names though, so we have to come up with ways to describe them. Set theory, developed in the 1970s by Allen Forte (but with some precedent from Howard Hanson), gives us a neat way to describe groups of pitches that we find in twelve-tone music. --- §1.1 - Pitches and Intervals --- Pitch-Class (pc) Integers === The first thing we need to do is convert our traditional letter-note-names to numbers. We do this to avoid problems with enharmonic equivalency. In this system, we say that C is pitch-class 0. B#, which is enharmonically equivalent to C, is also 0, as is D♭♭. We then keep counting up the chromatic scale, adding 1 each time. For the sake of simplicity, I will only use one pitch per pitch-class and assume you know that F# and G♭ are the same: Pitch|Pitch-Class|Base 12 :--|:--|:-- C|0|0 C#|1|1 D|2|2 D#|3|3 E|4|4 F|5|5 F#|6|6 G|7|7 G#|8|8 A|9|9 A#|10|t B|11|e The third column in my table, labeled "Base 12", shows a different way of writing the numbers. This only affects 10 and 11, which we relabel t and e respectively. This makes writing a string of pitches more compact because we don't have to use spaces or commas to separate notes. Compare: <11 1 11 1 1 11> and <e1e11e>. --- Intervals === Having pc-integers allows us to perform mathematical operations on pitches. One example of this is calculating intervals. If we have the notes C# (1) and F (5) (**arranged in ascending order**), and we want to know the interval between them, it's a simple task of asking what we need to add to the first note to get to the second note. 1 + [x] = 5 (I use [] to indicate intervals to avoid confusion with pitch classes.) And, of course, [x] = [4]. This corresponds to the interval of a major third, though you might point out that C# to F is in fact a diminished fourth. The advantage of using integer notation is that we don't have to worry about the distinction of those enharmonic equivalents, because they're both 4 half-steps any way you look at it. Interval|m2|M2|m3|M3|P4|A4|P5|m6|M6|m7|M7|P8|m9|M9... :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- |1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14... **Descending** intervals are a bit tricky. What if we went from C# (1) **down** to F (5)? That interval is an augmented fifth, or [8]. Uh-oh. 1 + [8] clearly doesn't equal 5, and 5 - [8] clearly doesn't equal 1, but plugging [4] in there doesn't get us the descending interval we're looking for, so what do we do? The answer is **modulo arithmetic**. This sounds scary, but you're probably more familiar with this concept than you think. [Analog clocks](https://i.imgur.com/KTE65es.png) demonstrate this pretty well: once we go one hour past 12, we don't go to 13, we go back to 1. In other words, 13 = 1 in modulo 12. (If you're familiar with both 12-hour and 24-hour time, you will have an advantage here.) All we have to do is replace 12 with 0, and we can apply our mod 12 thinking to pitch. Here is that interval table again, but extending 2 octaves and with mod 12 equivalents: Interval|m2|M2|m3|M3|P4|A4|P5|m6|M6|m7|M7|P8... :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- |1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12 mod 12|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|0 continued...|m9|M9|m10|M10|P11|A11|P12|m13|M13|m14|M14|P15 :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- |13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|24 |1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|0 So 1 down to 5 can be rewritten as 13 + [x] = 5, which works out to 13 + [-8] = 5. You can read more about mod 12 on [this site](https://davidkulma.com/musictheory/integers) and [Open Music Theory](http://openmusictheory.com/mod12.html) --- Interval Class (ic) === We can combine an interval and its inversion into something called an "interval class," which frees up the way we talk about them. This means we can avoid the problem of whether an interval is ascending or descending. An interval and its inversion will sum to [12]. For instance, C (0) to B (11) ascending is [+11], and its inversion, B (11) to C (0) is [+1]. We don't care whether it's ascending or descending though, so we take the smaller of the two and call that its interval class. Here is a table showing interval classes against their traditional equivalents: Interval Class|0|1|2|3|4|5|6 :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- |P1|m2|M2|m3|M3|P4|A4 |P8|M7|m7|M6|m6|P5|d5

  2698. musictheory 2018-08-05 02:37:06 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, nowadays we don't tune the guitar to the key typically. We use "Standard Tuning" to play in ALL keys. Now, some keys are "easier" to play in in Standard Tuning because of the availability of open strings, so guitarists kind of favor keys like E, Em, A, Am, G, C, D, and Dm, and to some degree things like F#m and Bm. But once a guitarist learns to play up the neck and doesn't rely heavily on open strings, playing in keys like Ab are no more difficult - you just simply don't have as many open strings to work with. But there are a lot of songs written with "open position chords" or "Cowboy Chords" which are those that contain a lot of open strings and are usually the first ones most people learn to play. A lot of people never learn anything more than that, so when they play, they may use a Capo to change the "tuning" of the guitar. So, for example, if a person learns a song in G, using G, C, and D7 chords, but has a higher voice and singing in that key is too low for them, they'll put a Capo on so that the guitar is basically now tuned in something like "F# standard" rather than E standard, and by playing the same shapes (which are now 2 frets higher) they now get A, D, and E7 chords - without having to use different shapes! - and are playing in the key of A. This makes access to keys like Fm, or F#, or Ab, and so on a little easier for those who want that "open position chord" sound in a different key than they can usually easily get to without the Capo. (A capo can be used for other special effects too but that's beyond the scope of this discussion). Some people also tune the guitar lower - so sort of the opposite direction of putting a capo on - down to Eb, or even lower (Stevie Ray Vaughan, Eddie Van Halen (and a host of his followers) and Jimi Hendrix all often tuned their guitars down to Eb). There was a trend last decade (that's hopefully on the way out) of tuning down even lower, to the point where we started having 7 string guitars with a lower note on them - going down as low as B or even A. But most of these are basically like "transposed" versions of guitar, again similar to what the capo does (you could tune a guitar UP instead of using a capo, but it's more likely to break strings or cause stress on the instrument that doesn't happen if you tune down). There are "open tunings" used in blues a lot, and a lot of folk players use tunings like DADGAD or Double Dropped D (DADGBD) for various effects. We usually call these "Alternate Tunings" and Jimmy Page from Led Zeppelin used quite a number of them throughout his career. What should be obvious is, if you tune your guitar to open G, then it's going to work very well for the key of G. But it doesn't work very well for other keys. So "Standard Tuning" evolved as sort of a compromise for playing in all keys. It still does favor keys that use the open strings, but only if you need the open strings - in which case if you want another key you can use a capo or tune down to keep that same open string relationship. As a general rule, use Standard tuning no matter what. The only reasons to change are, if a song used a capo, use a capo. If it's tuned down, tune it down. If it's an alternate tuning, use that alternate tuning. But that's all based on emulating what a player did on a given recording. the best tuning for a "key" depends on what kind of sound you want. You can use open E, DADGAD, Standard, Dropped D, and still play "in the key of G". The tuning makes no difference other than the number of strings that produce notes in the key as open strings, and the shapes that produce the chords you want. But really, you should learn to play in standard tuning and then learn how to deal with the others.

  2699. musictheory 2018-08-05 05:31:36 poetically_incorrect
    AHA! That banjo clawhammer style meets Stanley Jordan is wonderful. This is sooo the new style .. the pattern on the guitar reminds me of something Steve Vai would employ. Plini is another dude that plays with that particular fanned fret/7 string .. Sweet Nothings is my favorite effort of his. Good stuff, man .. women playing at this level is amazing to behold.

  2700. musictheory 2018-08-05 08:04:40 DJ_Ddawg
    I messed around in P4 tuning. It’s great for Single Note Lead Playing in an improvisational setting. Every fretboard shape/pattern stays the same no matter what. This really helps you learn your Scale/Arpeggio Positions as you can see how the pattern repeats itself. This is still how I view 3NPS Scale Shapes. I draw out the repeating 7 string pattern in P4 tuning to learn the 3 repeating shapes that connect to form the 7 different positions. There are only 3 of these little octave boxes- One shape where the Root note is on the Index, Middle, or Pinky. I find it much easier to learn these and then connect the 3 pieces rather than learning 7 different shapes. This also helps you to visualize intervals against a root note (important for playing over the changes in an improvisation setting). You learn intervals on a single string, adjacent string, string skip, and then intervals 1 and 2 strings below as well. Of course then I realized that all these patterns are the exact same in standard tuning, you just have to account for position shifts because of the B string. Also chords are easier to finger- especially if they have wider intervals (like Spread Triads, Drop 3, Drop 2+4 chords). The only downside is that there are more “fingerings” for the same voicing just played on different string sets.

  2701. musictheory 2018-08-05 12:41:44 Masterkid1230
    Obviously Bach is *the* man. His fugues and inventions are particularly juicy and interesting. However, since everybody is going with Bach, I’m going to go with Haydn. When it comes to form and structure of music, few people have actually been as consistent and organized as Haydn. His compositions are literally the definition of Textbook. And although he’s usually not considered one of the ‘fun’ composers, I think the way he basically invented the Sonata form as we know it today is extremely important. I especially recommend his string quartets, since they’re among his best works and also extremely rigorous sonatas. I’ve analyzed his Russian quartets before (op. 33) and discovered a lot of neat and interesting things. They’re also pretty light listens and handle delightful textures. And this comes as someone who doesn’t really like Haydn that much. But he was just *that* organized.

  2702. musictheory 2018-08-06 02:41:40 QohLet
    I think the Debussy String Quartet is quite a sensible choice and you could definitely write far more than 4000 words on it. Hailed by some as the first modern string quartet, this piece of music both encompasses many impressionist-era musical devices that rupture with common practice period harmony, as it sets a precedent for works to follow in the genre. There is just so much you could write about, especially by looking in depth into all of the movements (although if you're going to focus on a single movement, I'd recommend the fourth rather than the second, for it is very odd in many aspects and that fact alone may account for the word count). Now, if your assignment allows for it, you could instead write a comparative analysis between this quartet and Ravel's String Quartet, since Ravel derived his work from Debussy's.

  2703. musictheory 2018-08-06 12:35:16 PullTheOtherOne
    There's no single formula, but off the top of my head I'd say these are some fairly common ingredients: * Frequent/sudden contrast between **sneaky-sounding jazz combo stuff** (often drumset with a ride pattern and sax or another woodwind, accompanied by psychedelic-ish sustains from something like a vibraphone or tremolo guitar), and **big orchestral stabs or fanfare-ish moments.** * Translating big-band brass arranging techniques to a full orchestral brass section. (I'd wager that if you took any big band chart and re-orchestrated the brass section for a 4-3-3-1 brass, you'd hear some hints of "spy" flavor). * Tuba or bari sax, and/or sometimes even timpani might play the role traditionally filled by (jazz) upright bass * Strings mostly used for support, or for sustains and countermelodies -- not a lot of string-dominated moments. Upper strings often supporting/doubling a more prominent flute part with no particular regard for traditional orchestral balance issues (e.g. flute amplified on stage or in mix) * Short, minor-ish melodic motives which usually involve some kind of chromatic "twist." Often used in sequence. Plenty of rests mixed into the melody or between melodic fragments None of these are hard-and-fast rules, they're just some ingredients I tend to associate with the "spy" sound.

  2704. musictheory 2018-08-06 18:09:54 Xenoceratops
    Watch [Ben Eller](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqwpdddKBpQ&list=PLetEpa_0rdYDSO9rll4ymDoAFT-qnrOnW). He's amazing. Learn [the names of the notes](http://www.simplifyingtheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/guitar-note-1024x259.png) on the E and A strings. Learn the E and A [bar chord shapes](https://www.guitarhabits.com/the-four-most-essential-barre-chords/). They're also called "barre chords", but no one has ever given me a good reason why it would be "barre" instead of "bar", since they involve barring, not barreing. Seriously, if you know bar chords and the names of the notes on the E and A string, you can figure out the rhythm guitar part for most songs.

  2705. musictheory 2018-08-07 09:27:27 Bowchamp
    Okay sorry I hate to get you to spoon feed it to me but those are some complex chords and im curious what the fingerings you were doing when you tried it were? like for Fmaj7 I'm doing 133210, for Gm7 I'm doing 353333 but IDK how I feel about it. and for Gm9 I'm doing 353335 which works well since the 5 on the high e string matches the C13b9. Also IDK what I was thinking with the bassline... I wish I could blame my tool for my mistake but I was using a keyboard haha. Teaching myself songs by ear is I guess clearly still a work in progress. There are several other songs on his new album I am wanting to learn so I'll try to listen for the notes you heard and try to apply what I learn to the other songs. also as reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP6Wucyi-JU This is his Tiny Desk performance of the song. It was released after I made this post.. or I would have used this as reference instead because it makes things much clearer.

  2706. musictheory 2018-08-07 09:35:12 Bowchamp
    That does make a difference so thank you! I generally like playing at least 5 strings though so I am currently playing the 133210 variant of FMaj7 using my thumb on the low E string so that I can keep the high E string open. Really like the fullness that fingering produces.

  2707. musictheory 2018-08-07 11:07:46 claybobay
    Thanks! What about the single string scale?

  2708. musictheory 2018-08-07 18:10:18 Jongtr
    It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between a modulation and a temporary "tonicisation" (by a secondary dominant). In this case, a modulation to F# minor would (almost certainly) be indicated by a C# major, C#7 or E#dim7 chord preceding it. But that could still be a temporary tonicisation, unless it sounds like the key actually shifts. I.e., the F#m has to sound like a whole new tonic chord, and not just a briefly enhanced vi chord. You can usually confirm a modulation if the new V chord (C#) occurs again, perhaps along with the iv (Bm) or ii (G#m7b5) - that will settle F#m as a new tonic. But if the F#m is followed by Bm and then E(7), I'd guess it would just be the vi chord. Having listened to it ... there is a C#7 leading into F#m, but then the sequence goes off into other chromatic territory... [This] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8C7ZxsJCU) version of the theme is actually in E major, and the equivalent move is therefore via G# into C#m (0:36) - but the big dramatic cadence into the G#7 chord (0:44) ends up modulating to the original theme in G major (string arrangement)! IOW, the move to the relative minor is a kind of tease or feint: The G# tonicises the C#m at 0:36, but only briefly; the C#m gets no chance to establish itself because of the chromatic passage back to G# - and then into G major.

  2709. musictheory 2018-08-08 12:50:45 MessianicAge
    It's in Gb major. Gb / Dbadd4 / | Cbsus2 / / / | With the little Eb Bb string riff, the chords would technically be Gb6, Db6add4add9 (not sure if that's the best way to write it), Cbmaj9.

  2710. musictheory 2018-08-08 23:07:37 qwfparst
    There's a distinct difference between "tones" and their acoustic realization. >It is possible to use tunings in order to acoustically differentiate Ab and G#. (As is commonly known, string players and vocalists often do this in an ad-hoc fashion.) My point is that it is not necessary to do so; they are still conceptually distinct even when they are acoustically identical. >Think of it this way: on the one hand, there is pitch-space, which is acoustical, and, on the other, tone-space, which is musical; what a tuning does is to establish a mapping between them. However, what our letters (A,B,C,...) refer to are the elements of tone-space (the musical construct), and not those of pitch-space (the acoustical construct). >https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6kxflo/why_dont_i_just_sing_numbers_instead_of_solfege/djsvvkp/?context=3 Admittedly 12TET allows some interesting things to happen, which is why I like the spiral model as well. But it's much more akin to the movie magic that allows an actor to play multiple roles on the same screen. Pianists who work in a forced equal-tempered environment have to deal with this reality directly by learning how to use means other than pitch manipulation.

  2711. musictheory 2018-08-09 01:04:49 welcome_man
    Yeah; i found myself trying to emulate Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, Sarah Vaughan, Donny Hathaway vocal lines on the guitar. It really gave me a sense of how important single string articulations are in creating interesting melodies.

  2712. musictheory 2018-08-09 03:13:52 musicquestion4
    And then [Loose Ends - Hangin on a String](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz1kvk9qeWI&frags=pl%2Cwn) has a variation of this as well, which is common in a lot of soul, rap, and R&B, so I suppose that's where the historic African influence comes in?

  2713. musictheory 2018-08-09 04:16:39 ebbanflo
    Most 'solos' are scale-based, so every solo should be melodic to some extent, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by melodic soloing. 'the "big secret" is...Essentially, it is to just learn how to play vocal melodies of popular songs on the guitar and study how they fit into the overall key-scale in a manner that connects the scale to the chord tones.' This is just how you learn to write a melody. It doesn't have to be for a solo, or a vocal melody, it can be for anything. Melody is one of the most important things in music. A good melody can quite literally change the world. While I think this is a great exercise, I wouldn't personally call it the big secret. I would say an important important aspect to melodic soloing is the 'ark' or 'story' of a solo. So often you'll hear a guitar solo (whether the player is emulating the vocal melody of the song or not) and it just feels flat, you lose interest fast. Take a look at someone like Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughan, or for a more modern perspective John Mayer. Yes, these players all have insane chops, but you'll see them pull out those chops at critical moments in a solo. These players all have stories in their solos, and the audience can feel the dynamic shifts in these solos which makes it feel like more than a guitar solo. Learning vocal melodies and then trying them out at solos is a great great exercise/technique. Even better in my opinion, is to just try singing your solos. Sing yourself a little riff, and see how fast you can replicate what you just did on guitar. But don't expect to sound like Jimi Hendrix after doing that. There is SOOOO much more than the actual notes you are playing.... you need to think about your tone. What do you want to sound like? You need to think about how your pick or fingers hit the string, how you use vibrato and bending (if you're going to do that at all).Think about the level of volume that is coming from your amp and how loud you actually want to be playing. Think about how your playing comes out at different amplitudes via the amp and gain a firm grasp on how to control it. I personally think the "big secret" is time. And patience. And practice, not only of what you play but of how you play. My personal biggest moment of growth is when I tried using a Jazz III pick for the first time, which is much thicker and smaller than a normal pick. Until I tried it, it was something I would have never thought about, but it undoubtedly changed my playing and tone to the point that friends were asking if I bought a new pedal or amp. Play play play!

  2714. musictheory 2018-08-09 04:36:52 ILoveKombucha
    It's pretty amazing. I know there is this string quartet Adam Neely talked about in his most difficult music video, where they perform music with tons of microtonal adjustments. And it's actually been done! https://youtu.be/IaLwrLRpZ1w?t=6m42s Anyway, thanks! By the way, that video of Costa's piece is pretty cool! Very interesting!

  2715. musictheory 2018-08-09 08:12:47 Gustyarse
    I forgot this. I genuinely forgot this - I played a shitload in my late-teens/early 20s and I could just solo away for donkeys. Came back to it in my late 30s and whilst I hadn't forgotten much technically, I couldn't string a solo together at all. Just cliches and gaps. It's been bothering me for years, I was thinking it was like some writer's block thing. Really putting me off playing. Thank you *so much* for this. Most helpful advice I've had in the last 20 years. edit:: for me it was learning Clapton was playing the vocal line for 'Blue Moon' in Sunshine of Your Love. That was when, as a 16 year old, the whole world of improv - or 're-using' came open to me. And then I had life stuff, stopped playing and forgot it.

  2716. musictheory 2018-08-09 08:55:02 65TwinReverbRI
    While there may be a few people here familiar with what you're asking, don't forget that this is an international forum so your question may be too specific or clarification may be needed. Bach, Beethoen, and Mozart make sense. But there are plenty of post-Beethoven composers that are important - it really depends on what time-periods this history part encompasses. Haydn is probably the most important composer in that time frame. Haydn is considered the "father of classical music" along with most of the forms of classical music - he is the "father of" The String Quartet, The Piano Sonata, The (Classical) Concerto, the Piano Trio, and to some degree the Symphony as well (the symphony was around for a bit, but it was in Haydn's hands it became what was passed on to Beethoven). He was largely responsible for "standardizing" the multi-movement forms (number of movements, speed of movements, key relationships of movements, and form of each movement, etc.) to the "classical model". Unfortunately, he often is overshadowed by those other composers mentioned, but is contributions are actually way more important. We might say, Haydn "invented" the style, Mozart "crystallized" it, and Beethoven "stretched to a breaking point". That's why these 3 are known as the "Viennese School" (often called the "first" Viennese School to differentiated from the "second" which is Schoenberg, Webern and Berg, whose contributions to music were also as important, though in a much later historical period you may not need to study).

  2717. musictheory 2018-08-09 14:58:37 electroacoustic1289
    Yes, I agree. The Fibonacci can be a fun way to generate materiel in various ways, and then the creativity is left to the composer. I like your idea of taking a string of numbers in the series and taking them as 'modulo' 12 - creating sorts of tone rows or modes or whatever you want to assign those values to. Thanks for the links and the discussion!

  2718. musictheory 2018-08-09 18:18:13 PlazaOne
    On a 19-fret guitar you've got a range of nearly four octaves - from open low E on the bottom string up to a high B at the 19th fret on the top string. With 24 frets you'd be able to reach another E, although for many styles of playing you might never need it! As well as standard guitars and bass guitars, there are other sizes less well known. Seth Lakeman is one current player who uses a *tenor* guitar, which just has four strings and the higher notes. And then *baritone* guitars, with a longer neck and tuned down to A, have been used plenty by surf bands, punk bands, country players, and more. Tenor and baritone are more normally used to identify registers of a singer's voice, but they can be used for instruments too, including guitars and saxophones.

  2719. musictheory 2018-08-10 02:35:26 ttd_76
    I have a guitar with only one string and only one fret. I think I've figured out how to play this scale. But my question is what is the recommended fingering? bb2 to bbbbbbb5 seems to be a difficult stretch.

  2720. musictheory 2018-08-10 04:13:06 SomeEntrance
    I would do 3 grand staves: one for strings, one for winds, and one for brass. Each on their own, because of their register span and number of instruments, can represent both a melody and the full harmony. So decide how your would do your doublings (often at the octave or double octave) with these 3 forces. Low winds, low brass, are great for strenghting brass. Flute and trumpet are great for brightening string melodies. Horns are good for sustatained notes/pedal points, Etc. Brass are so strong, they're usually used less, and for emphasis. Winds are used more, and strings can be going all the time. This assumes you know instrumentation.

  2721. musictheory 2018-08-10 11:20:56 ttd_76
    If it were me and just these two chords, I would probably play these in the same neck position, taking advantage of the fact that D and B are only three frets apart. And then just see what shapes result from putting your pink on D and your index finger on B on each string. If you start on the sixth string, you wind up in seventh position. Your Dmin root would be on the sixth string, tenth fret. You’d play it with your pinky and you’d be working out of roughly the Gmin CAGED shape or some close facsimile. Your Bmin root would be on the on the sixth string, seventh fret. You’d play it with your index finger and would be working out of roughly the Emin CAGED shape. Meaning good ol’ box pentatonic position. Now move to the fifth string. You wind up in second position. You would have a D on the fifth string, fifth fret and so you work out of the Cmin CAGED shape. Your B is on the fifth string, second fret and you would be working out of the Amin CAGED shape. You can also play in the 14th position, which is the same as the second position just everything is an octave and 12 frets higher. Now go to the fourth string. You wind up at the ninth/tenth position. Put your pinky on the 12th fret of the fourth string, which is D. There’s actually another D on the sixth string at the tenth fret whining you can hit with your third or index finger. So you are working out of the Emin CAGED shape. Good ol’ box pentatonic again. Your B is at the 9th fret of the fourth string and you can play that with your index finger. So now you are using the Dmin CAGED shape, however you like fingering that. Third string, pinky at seventh fret for D and index finger on fourth fret for B. There is a D an octave lower on the fifth string fourth fret so with that as a root you are basically playing out of the Amin CAGED shape. There is a B an octave below at the sixth string, seventh fret. So Gmin CAGED shape. Second string, D is at the fifteenth fret. There’s a D an octave below on that on the fourth string, 12th fret. So you are in Dmin CAGED. Your B in the second string is at the 12th fret. There’s another B an octave below on the second string, 14th fret. So that is the Cmin CAGED shape. First string is the same as the sixth string as it always is. Now notice what happens with your CAGED pairings: String 6: G and E shapes String 5: C and A String 4: E and D String 3: A and G String 2: D and C You went through all five CAGED shapes for both the Dmin and Bmin chords. Also, there’s a pattern. The Bmin is always the next CAGED shape up from the Dmin. If Dmin is the C shape, Bmin is A. IF Dmin is A shape, Bmin is G shape. G and E, E and D, D and scroll back around to C. It will always work out like this. It doesn’t matter whether you use CAGED or some other fingering system. The various shapes will always cycle through some symmetrical/logical pattern if you start fro the same finger and go down the strings. If you want to stay in the same position or as close as possible through a set of chords, start on the sixth string, find the root of one of your chords, then find the closest root of the other chords. Sometimes they will be on a different string, but find the nearest fret. Then determine what finger pattern in whatever system you use covers those chords. Move a string down, repeat. It’s usually advisable to do it this way as changing left hand positions leads to economy of motion and not getting lost on the fretboard, as well as good voice leading. But of course, it’s up to you. Some people stay very rooted and play mostly vertically. Some people like to move horizontally more often. Depends on the size of your hands, how you think about the fretboard, what types of music you play, and just personal preference. It’s best to know as many shapes/patterns as you can but most people, even if they can see all the notes all over the neck still tend to have favorite positions. They’re flexible enough to use other positions or just wing something if they need to, of course, but they have preferred spots. Also, try not to think in terms of modes as fingering patterns or shapes. Modes are ways of divvying up octaves into 7 notes. They are not instrument specific and not defined by shapes or fingering patterns. On piano or trumpet, there are no shapes but there are still modes. As long as you are playing the same notes, you are playing the same mode. Doesn’t matter where on the neck or what strings or what fingering. There are positions that may lend themselves better to playing the Locrian or whatever mode because you have access to three octaves worth of root notes, and the fall on your fingers well, but you can play Mixolydian out of that same position, too. And sometimes you may have to.

  2722. musictheory 2018-08-10 21:16:51 Jongtr
    There's a few reasons why guitarists might tune down. In rock bands, it's very rarely anything to do with the vocalists. Rock guitarists first started to do this because Jimi Hendrix did it. Ah, he's God, so it must be good.... Hendrix probably did it (standard down a half-step) to get more string-bending action. But obviously if you want to play along with his recordings (usually heavily dependent on open string chords, usually key of E, sounding as Eb) then you need to tune down too. But the more guitarists followed suit (such as SRV in particular), the more it was seen as a cool thing to do. Many players told themselves the guitar sounded better like that. Aside from the string-bending thing (if you keep the same gauge), it sounded "heavier", or something (like a semitone makes all the difference...). Other rock guitarists did investigate the practical possibilities in more depth (literally), going to drop D, drop D down a tone ("drop C"), etc. Dropping the bass string a tone means you get a power chord on the same fret on the 3 bass strings - which may make up for the fact you can now only play in one or two keys easily. Vocalists? They'd just tune in to whatever tuning the guitarists had decided on. Still, it would certainly make sense, as singers get older and their ranges drop (at least at the top end), that they would tune down to maintain the same chord shapes. One famous singer (not vocally challenged, but maybe guitar-challenged) who tuned down to make the chords easier while still accommodating his voice was Paul McCartney with Yesterday. He sings it in F, which is a lousy key for guitar (unless you're a jazz musician, in which case you get used to it); so he tunes down a whole tone (DGCFAD) and plays as if in G. There's a whole other culture of *alternative* tunings, which is a different matter. Nothing to do with singing, and everything to do with being able to achieve different chord voicings, normally in one easy key, or getting certain resonances from the instrument (usually an acoustic one). Joni Mitchell is well known for using over 40 alternative tunings, almost never playing in EADGBE. Guitarists who choose a suits-one-key tuning will use a capo to get different keys (i.e. to suit their vocal range for different songs).

  2723. musictheory 2018-08-11 01:10:06 65TwinReverbRI
    "sometimes" yes. There are actually a number of reasons associated with the voice, and other reasons as well. Vocalists can't sing for 3 hours without their vocal cords getting tired and them not being able to hit the same notes. For an untrained bar-band vocalist who is singing most songs at the top of their range - byt the 3rd hour of playing, their voice is going to be worn out and they simply won't be able to sing as high. That's over a 3 hour span. Imagine what happens with night after night touring and travel, and drug and alcohol use/abuse, and smoking, and poor diet, and exhaustion, and so on. And then, you're aging the whole time - which also as people get older, their range lessens. For bands that have iconic songs that fans expect to hear "exactly like the record", once the singer can't hit the notes, they have to tune down (because usually the parts rely on open strings on guitar and it just won't sound the same if you just play it down a half step). So it is especially common now in the "aging rocker" industry to tune down further live than the recorded versions. This is especially true of people who sang at the top end of their range all the time, or just had stratospheric voices - Sting, from The Police, sings things transposed down a 5th or more now (though slightly different from "tuning a guitar down"). There are a couple of other reasons though. Firstly, many bands just adopted a lower tuning in their formative years because their idols did it. Also, any "metal" or "heavy" band often did it because it just sounded "thicker" and "heavier" - and actually that turned into a rather ridiculous trend in the 90s that spawned the 7 string guitar "how low can you go" craze. Metallica might tune down NOW, live, to accommodate Hetfield's voice, but if they tuned down in the past, when he was younger and they were recording, it may have been just because they wanted a heavier sound, or because Black Sabbath did it, and so on. FWIW, Scale length on a guitar affects tension, so a Les Paul is actually "looser" feeling than a Stratocaster with both at standard tuning and the same string gauges. So a lot of Strat players just simply liked that "looser" feel tuning down a half step gave them. A lot of Blues guitarists weren't necessarily worried about "heavier sound" from tuning down, but more the feel of the instrument - and someone like Stevie Ray Vaughan was an athletic guitarist - he used really heavy strings, but tuned them down a half step. If he was at standard, it probably would have been nearly impossible to play at that tension - so just like tuning down helps the vocalists sing in a slightly lower part of their range which helps their endurance, playing tuned down on a guitar means less tension which also helps the guitarist's endurance (SRV played so hard that he essentially tore off his fingertips and had "holes" in them that he'd use Superglue on - because the show must go on). Many local amateur bands tune down for the same reasons - they're playing and singing 3 hours in a row (many concerts by rock bands only last an hour or so for each artist). And there are some people who's natural vocal range and the breaks in their voices are at points where some keys "fit" them better than others, so Eb might be better for them. I should add to what JonGtr said, while Hendrix did probably provide the inspiration for people like Van Halen to tune down, but Hendrix came out of blues playing and most blues artists didn't use any standard and just tuned the guitar to whatever - constantly changing to open tunings (that were in D anyway for example) or just tuning the guitar to wherever it was that day. Even Andres Segovia, the classical guitarist, who would be outside of the influences of any of these people (and pre-dates them) tuned down because of both the tension on the strings and resonance of his instrument - the guitar itself just sounded better tuned down a bit. They didn't have high and low tension classical strings back then like they do now, so each guitarist bought a set of strings and experimented with the best tuning for their feel and sound of the guitar - of course they had to tune to other instruments when playing with them, but solo, they put it where they "thought it best". So it can be to help out the vocalist, especially those trying to hit high notes their endurance or age can no longer allow as easily, but it can also be for sound, or feel, which luckily helps out the vocalist too!

  2724. musictheory 2018-08-11 02:38:17 Jongtr
    > What is the point of alternative tunings if not for the vocalist? As I said, some of them are designed to get specific chord voicings or resomances that are not available in standard, or sometimes to enable percussive playing. "Alternative" tunings normally refer to non-standard tunings (open tunings, modal tunings), not standard tuned down (or up). > for the Song Spirit Crusher, why do they play it in D Standard instead of E Standard? You'd need to ask them. It may well be that the vocal would have been too high in E. But it may also be they just liked the sound or feel of the guitar in D standard. > Also can you explain a bit more about drop tunings changing power chords? Drop D means the three bass strings are D-A-D. That's a power chord; so power chords are available with a simple barre on those 3 strings. > Also ive heard of something called New Standard Tuning, why is that a thing? You may get some clues here (I've never tried it myself): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_standard_tuning. (It obviously isn't "standard" in any meaningful way, that was just Fripp hoping it would catch on...) > So i have kinda gathered that vocalists have to sing in the same Key as the guitarists correct? Correct. > And if you're in the "Key of C" for example that means you're using a C scale right? That's a little more open, but basically yes. The "key of C" just means C major is the tonic chord, and the C major scale would probably be the basic set of pitches - but chromatics and borrowed chords are common. Remember the point about standard tuning (including D standard or C standard) is to make as many keys as possible as easy as possible. There is no tuning that makes all keys equally easy. EADGBE happens to suit the keys of G, D, A, C and E best (and Am and Em). Drop D (DADGBE) would make the key of D easier, but other keys a little harder. Open D (DADF#AD) would make D easiest of all, and other keys a lot harder. (Players in that tuning would use a capo to change keys.) Slide players generally choose open tunings (open strings tuned D, E, A or G major chords). Keith Richards often uses open G with no 6th string (-GDGBD), which means one or two chord shapes will give him any major chord (one shape is just an index barre, the other one adds 2 fingers).

  2725. musictheory 2018-08-11 02:46:56 Jongtr
    It's a good question, actually. When a singer's range drops, they have to lower the key of the songs they used to sing. If a guitarist is used to playing easy shapes in the old key, they might want to detune the guitar as well, to match the drop in the singer's range. E.g., if the song used to be in G, with nice easy G, C and D shapes, but now the singer can't get the high notes any more, he might need to sing it in F. F is a much less comfortable key for guitar: the chords needed would be F, Bb and C. For a jazz guitarist, no problem at all - they rarely play open string chords anyway, and know lots of alternative shapes for every chord. But for a rock or folk player who likes the open chord shapes, they don't want those barre F and Bb shapes. Tune the guitar down a whole step, and they can keep their G, C and D shapes (which will now sound like F Bb and C).

  2726. musictheory 2018-08-11 05:00:31 it-is_what-it_is
    >What is the point of alternative tunings if not for the vocalist? Easier to play certain chords or scales? Like for example, for the Song Spirit Crusher, why do they play it in D Standard instead of E Standard? Like what did they gain from doing that? I know you touched on it a bit, but im a big Dream Theater fan and it seems like every damn song is a different tuning and i was curious why they just dont play them all standard. I play lots of metal, so yeah it's because a lot of modern metal guitarists have gravitated towards lower tunings for a "heavier" sound. John Petrucci in particular frequently plays a 7-string guitar, giving him access to play songs in the key of B quite easily. Try playing the song "As I Am" in the key of B vs. in the key of E and you will see why they went for that sound. But then take a song like "Pull Me Under" from earlier in their career, which is in E standard tuning - that song would sound completely different if they played it in another key and probably not as good. Still plenty of heavy metal bands get tons of mileage out of E standard tuning - Metallica and Opeth in particular played tons of songs that sound extremely heavy in the key of E. Metallica's "Sad But True" was an exception and one of their first songs IIRC that was in D standard - and again it just sounds way heavier in the key of D than it does in E. Since then I think they started playing more songs in lower tunings just to get a heavier sound and open up more keys, not necessarily to accommodate James' vocals.

  2727. musictheory 2018-08-11 13:33:15 MessianicAge
    >Em/C I'd maybe call it a Cmaj7 chord although it's true that the original is an Em and the way it's played in this version is kind of like E minor with C in the bass. >*Having trouble w/ this chord, is it Asus4? D/A? A9sus4 I clearly hear the keyboard playing a B in this chord. I find it weird that the guitarist is not playing this as well. His thumb is barred over the low E string (playing an A) and he is playing a G and D with his first and third fingers respectively. It's so easy to just play the A on the low E string with the third finger, the G with the pinky, the B with the middle finger and the D with the index finger. The reason you thought it was maybe some sort of major chord (and a chord with D in it for that matter) is because the G, B and D form a major triad. >Eb7#11** >**this is the chord I'm most confused by, seems like it's definitely Eb w/ an 'A' in there, but unsure of how it functions in this progression. The first thing we have to look at is the fact that the lyrics "faster than my bullet" are to the notes A G A Bb A G. So we basically have the #11 in some parts and the 5 in others. Given that there is no Db in the chord, I would just call this an Eb major chord with a kind of ambiguous situation going on with the 5th/#11. As far as how it functions, it is a borrowed chord. Just as many progressions will have I iv, the Eb major is just the reharmonized version of what would be C minor (Eb major is relative major of C minor) 2:48 not sure why guitar player thought it was a good idea to play a riff with an E natural over the Eb chord

  2728. musictheory 2018-08-11 14:42:31 Xenoceratops
    >Do down/drop tunings just give the guitar a darker/heavier feeling? Not really. Most (all?) of Metallica, Megadeth and Anthrax is in E standard. Listen to old school thrash and speed metal, like [Judas Priest - Painkiller](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM__lPTWThU) or [Kreator - Material World Paranoia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5vIPpy4A8), and you'll see they all do standard tuning. The heaviness comes from the composition, and honestly, the bass and drums. Guitar by itself sounds pretty thin. When the bass is doubling the guitar, it gets a lot heavier. Drop tunings can potentially affect composition, because it makes it possible to play power chords with one finger. One thing that downtuning does is decrease string tension. That makes it easier to do bends, but there are plenty of blues guys who tune E standard and bend a lot more than Necrophagist ever will. Downtuning is more fashionable than it is functional.

  2729. musictheory 2018-08-11 19:39:18 Jongtr
    > So do bands/songwriters typically play a song or riff in a bunch of different tunings and keys before they decide which one they like or do they just kind of know? Probably not. They probably go with whatever tuning they've got, and riff away until they find something they like. It's just possible that once they add a vocal, the singer might find the key awkward - which could mean either too high or too low for comfort. So if the guitarist is wedded to his shapes - especially if open strings are included - he might retune accordingly. One example from old school rock is Hotel California. It was written (by the guitarist) in E minor. But the singer found the melody in that key way too low. So they changed the key to B minor. The guitarist wanted to keep all his chord shapes (lots of open strings involved), so he put a capo on fret 7: i.e., played the whole thing higher. (Tuning down 5 half-steps would have done the job too, but that's much less practical.) B minor is not a very hard key even without a capo, but the open strings in Em played a crucial part in the 12-string intro. > Why does playing in Drop/Down tunings make songs sound 'heavier'? It's just lower in pitch. People equate "heavy" with "low in pitch" - at least for guitar sounds. It doesn't seem to apply to heavy metal vocals, which are typically screamed at high pitch! > Is there some kind of resource that tells you what keys are easiest to play in which tunings? It's common sense really. Drop D, open D, modal D (aka DADGAD) all make the key of D easier. (drop D and modal D are quite good for D minor too.) Open G makes G easier. Drop C makes C easier. Etc. EADGBE, meanwhile, makes G, D and A all pretty easy. It's all about the open strings basically. Guitarists regard easy keys as those with plenty of open strings, so they don't have to play too many barre chords.

  2730. musictheory 2018-08-11 22:33:08 it-is_what-it_is
    I think the correct answer is "it depends on the artist." Some guitarists stick to the same tuning for most of their career, doesn't mean that they only write songs in a certain key but perhaps the tuning of their guitar has a big impact on songs they write, if only for the sake of simplicity. If you're writing riffs you can experiment playing them in different keys to see what you like better. For my electric guitars I have two 6 strings (one usually in standard and one in drop D) and a 7 string in B standard, some of the riffs and songs I write just sound better in different keys, even if I first come up with it on a different guitar. Other times I know what key I want a song to be in before I even pick up a guitar.

  2731. musictheory 2018-08-12 16:47:18 Jongtr
    The harmonic series is multiples of the fundamental produced by fractional vibrations of the string. Here's a chart of the harmonics of the A string (chosen because its frequency is a neat round number) up to 19. Each harmonic number is the same as the string fraction: e.g., the 3rd harmonic is produced by the string vibrating in 1/3s.) HARMONIC - FRET - FREQUENCY - NEAREST NOTE - cents away from ET fretted equivalent 1st 0 110 Hz A string 5 fret 0 2nd 12 220 Hz A string 3 fret 2 3rd 7, 19 330 Hz E (329.6) 2 cents sharp string 1 fret 0 4th 5, 24 440 Hz A " fret 5 5th 4, 9, 16 550 Hz C# (554.0) 14 cents flat " fret 9 * 6th 3 660 Hz E (659.2) 2 cents sharp " fret 12 7th 2.7, 9.7, 14.5 770 Hz G (784.0) 32 cents flat " fret 15 * 8th 2.3 880 Hz A (880) " fret 17 9th 2 990 Hz B (987.8) 4 cents sharp " fret 19 10th 1.8 1100 Hz C# (1108) 14 cents flat " fret 21 * 11th 1210 Hz D# (1244.5) 49 cents flat " (fret 22.5!) 12th 1320 Hz E (1318.5) 2 cents sharp " fret 24 13th 1430 Hz F (1396.9) 40 cents sharp 14th 1540 Hz G (1568.0) 32 cents flat 15th 1650 Hz G# (1661.2) 12 cents flat 16th 1760 Hz A (1760) 17th 1870 Hz Bb (1864.7) 5 cents sharp 18th 1980 Hz B (1975.5) 4 cents sharp 19th 2090 Hz C (2093.0) 3 cents flat * nearest fretted notes (noticeably out of tune with the harmonic) The "FRET" column is the position of the harmonic "nodes" on the string, the point to touch if you want to bring out the "natural harmonic" in question. ("2.7" means between frets 2 and 3, a little closer to 3. 1/7 of the string length. Good luck finding harmonics above the 10th.... the distances between the nodes obviously get smaller and smaller.) E.g., play the 4th, 5th and 6th harmonics on the A string and it will sound like the A major triad played at x-x-x-14-14-12. (Except the C# will be flat.... see below.) Notice how many are "out of tune" with equal tempered (ET) notes (strictly speaking it's the latter that are out of tune, while the harmonics are "pure"). 2 cents (2/100 of a semitone) is negligible, which is why perfect 5ths (and 4ths) sound so strong when distorted. If you can detect the effect of that difference - between, say an E of 330 and one of 329.63 played in unison - it would result in "beats" of around one every 3 seconds (a "difference tone" of 0.37 Hz, or cycles per second): an extremely slow chorusing effect, not at all unpleasant. (Piano tuners listen for these beats. Bear in mind a 2 cents difference is a different frequency value for higher and lower pitches - it results in faster beats the higher the notes are.) However, the 14 cents between the two C#s is more significant. Check the tuning of the 5th harmonic (touch over fret 4, 9 or 16) with your guitar tuner and it will tell you it's significantly flat - assuming the string is exactly in tune of course. Normally, from acoustic strings, pianos etc, a played C# is tolerable alongside an A (those with sensitive ears may still object, but obviously it's tolerable for the vast majority). But distortion means the clash between the 5th harmonic of the A and the 4th harmonic of the C# will become much more evident. Between pitches of 550 and 554 you'll hear beats of 4 per second. Arguably still a potentionally attractive shimmering, but to most ears it will just sound like something is out of tune. But mainly, with a triad chord, there are all the other overtones in the picture too, of course (of the chord's 5th as well), so you just get a kind of muddy soup of frequencies. (At this point, one has to point out that this soup didn't bother Hendrix, with his distorted 7#9 chords... "mud" obviously has positive attributes too.) As you can tell, the harmonic representing B is only 4 cents out - one reason sus2 chords (especially Hendrix's favourite pair of stacked 5ths, the 1-5-9 chord) sound clean and strong. The sus4 is a different matter. D is nowhere in the harmonic series of A, but A is a strong harmonic of D. This means D is the acoustic root of an A-D 4th. This is the ambiguous charm of a sus4 chord, with two acoustic roots in a kind of equilibrium: A the root of A-E, D the root of A-D. A tends to win out, simply because it's the lower note and root position 5ths are stronger than their inversions. In a distorted chord, this balance is kind of maintained. The overtones of D are not too unfriendly with those of A (of course), and some are quite compatible with those of E. Naturally, as the overtones get higher and more numerous, more "mud" will appear, but it should still be smoother than a major or minor triad. (The frequency of the D string is 146.8, if you want to do the math... see how close multiples of that are to overtones of A. The 3rd harmonic, e.g., is 2 cents away from 440.) Naturally, you could make the case that an A-D-E sus4 chord is really (acoustically) an inverted D-A-E, as A and E are both in the harmonic series of D. ;-) If we arrange the notes as stacked 5ths, it sounds strongly rooted on D. It's the placing of the D higher in the chord, establishing A as the root, that produces the classic dissonance of a suspended 4th: D is forced to give way and resolve to C#, to confirm A's dominance. Modern habits of harmony, however, have allowed us to enjoy that delicious ambiguity of the sus4 - we like the classical resolution, but we also like the mild tension when it just hangs there.

  2732. musictheory 2018-08-12 17:40:05 LukeSniper
    If you tune your B string slightly flat, you can play full A shape major barre chords with heavy distortion. Van Halen did it. Check it out: https://youtu.be/jvV_ga3X0Cs

  2733. musictheory 2018-08-12 18:01:26 TophatKatakuri
    Oh sweet, something to try for sure, maybe I’ll do it with the G string since I prefer E rooted barre chords.

  2734. musictheory 2018-08-13 05:20:18 pro_magnum
    The second string would be an inversion of the D chord and not the root. When I play my guitar is still let it ring because it doesn’t fucking matter. Just like when I play the C chord on my guitar, I have an extra finger (my pinky) and play the G on the lower E string.

  2735. musictheory 2018-08-13 05:21:25 xcrissxcrossx
    The notation for a D major with the A string added is D/A or D root A. This is different from a typical D major chord. Most of the time you will want to use a typical D major.

  2736. musictheory 2018-08-13 05:35:49 smaxwell87
    Just something to add on to what others are saying... The two strings you miss out on a D major chord (The A and low E string) are strings 5 and 6, not strings 1 and 2.

  2737. musictheory 2018-08-13 11:18:19 Oriamus
    So I haven't read the other comments so someone may have said this, but here are my thoughts. When a chord has it's root note as the lowest note, as in the D of a D major chord, it is at it's most independent and stable. If we move the D up and F# is on the bottom, it loses stability and the chord feels like it needs to go somewhere or at least move the D back to the bottom. The same thing happens *again* when you put the top note of D F# A on the bottom, like you would do by wacking the A string on a guitar. The chord loses stability, and functionally, it's treated more like a dominant chord than tonic. It feels like it needs to resolve somewhere. tl;dr you *can* hit the A string, but the D chord loses harmonal integrity when you do that.

  2738. musictheory 2018-08-13 21:17:58 PlazaOne
    Yes, the nexus between worlds can be hard to locate. There's a virtuoso *guzheng* player called [Bei Bei](https://www.youtube.com/user/BeiBeizheng) whose traditional music inspired the dance producer Shawn Lee, leading him to write a suite of pieces for her. Unfortunately he had failed to identify that the guzheng is tuned neither chromatically nor diatonically - it is in fact tuned pentatonically (additional pitches being achieved with slurs, through pushing on an individual string behind its bridge). Consequently, she was unable to perform any of his original pieces. Unphased and still enthusiastic, he went away and re-wrote everything, and eventually they did collaborate.

  2739. musictheory 2018-08-13 23:55:07 MessianicAge
    D major C major G major F note The guitar is tuned to drop D tuning (DADGBE) first chord (frets bottom 3 strings from lowest to highest) 0 5 4 second chord x 3 2 third chord starts with x 2 0 then is 5 2 0 (both of these are G major) then there is just the note F, played on the third fret of the lowest string

  2740. musictheory 2018-08-14 12:54:13 orangejay36
    The strings are looser when tuned lower therefore allowing the player to pick faster much easier; it also takes less pressure to press the string into the fretboard allowing the player to hammer/pull much easier as well.

  2741. musictheory 2018-08-14 21:15:29 orangejay36
    You’re comparing two instruments with strings that are designed at completely different frequencies, different string size... etc. take two guitars, tune one in E standard, the other in C standard and see what’s easier to play. Imagine a hammock tied between a tree. If the hammock is tied as tight as possible between two trees and you lay on it, it will barely sink. Now loosen the hammock and sit on it. It will sink much lower and sway easily with that very same weight. Same concept with guitar strings. You’re also assuming a player picks at the same pressure from E standard to C standard; if that were the case you’d be correct stating that the horizontal displacement of the string in a lower tuning would be harder to pick faster because the string displaces more. But, that’s not what happens. Players use less pressure to pick the strings in lower tunings- the string displaces the same as in standard tuning with half the effort, allowing the player to play faster with less pressure.

  2742. musictheory 2018-08-15 02:02:20 ExarchOfGrazzt
    Unfortunantly, hard to be sure, since there a billion things which could do. Could be synth or a distortion pedal on a guitar, maybe even an electric violin or other type of string.

  2743. musictheory 2018-08-15 08:59:51 TheCoolSquare
    To actually answer that, guitars do have a range. Most guitars have a range from E2-E6 (4 octaves) in standard tuning, if it's a 24 fret guitar, 22 frets go from E2-D6, etc. A seven-string would increase the range to B1-E6 in standard tuning.

  2744. musictheory 2018-08-15 22:05:03 catplaps
    [shimmer reverb](https://youtu.be/HrxfNVYirCo), too. same idea with long tails, but adds a pitch shift component as well (commonly +1 octave). adds an automatic "angelic choir" kind of ambience to just about anything. changing the shift(s) to more complex intervals can be interesting, too. (the linked video has examples.) some other simple processing techniques like chorus (basically multiple copies of a track with slow, out of sync vibratos) and unison (again, multiple copies detuned by different amounts) can make something sound more lush and ethereal. this is essentially how synth string patches are built up out of basic square and saw waves. these effects all work in stereo, too, which can really add to that literal feeling of space and immersion in the sound.

  2745. musictheory 2018-08-16 06:49:59 vornska
    Cosigned, but with an objection to calling Vieuxtemps and Ysaye obscure. I'm pretty sure more string players have heard of them than Palestrina! The people who compiled that site are from CIM and it shows: a lot of their examples are common in the student-performer repertoire even if they're not ballyhooed in academia. That doesn't, of course, detract from your actual point. It actually reinforces point 3: if we expose students to more diverse rep in class, maybe some of them will look into performing it!

  2746. musictheory 2018-08-16 06:58:13 Xenoceratops
    Whether it is perceptually possible or if there's a sleight of hand involved, the compositional mechanism is still the same: there are multiple lines being expressed in different tonal environments that do not seem to mesh. In Mikrokosmos 70, the keys (F# and D) are related by third, encouraging a tertian justification which would determine that D is the tonic. I would argue that this is really only effective in the last two bars of the piece though: I definitely hear the first 10 measures as an F# melody against a D accompaniment, and then the next 7 measures as a D melody against an F# accompaniment. The two bars after that (with the mezzo forte) begins a merging of the tonalities into a double tonic complex (notice the corresponding motivic elements are now presented in different keys simultaneously so there is no longer a stratification between melody and accompaniment), which is eventually realized as a composite chord at the end. I'm not saying that [Krumhansl and Schmuckler](http://music.psych.cornell.edu/articles/tonality/PetroushkaChord.pdf) are wrong (and I will have to read the article to comment further on their methodology), but I don't think this view—that simultaneous recognition of multiple tonalities is impossible—accounts for my perceptual experience of polytonal music. As an example, let's take measures 699-721 of Bartók's [String Quartet No. 5, V](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du07qCXkNa8&t=30m11s). At 699, I think we can agree that there is one tonal center: A. At 711, the A accompaniment is still going and I recognize the continuity between that part and the preceding 12 measures. However, the melody from before is now transposed up a minor second to B♭. I hear B♭ as a new tonic that is happening at the same time as the A tonic underpinning the other parts. That trilled A at 719 sounds like a leading tone to B♭, not as a tonic in A major. At the same time, I hear the E7 underneath as V7 in the key of A. This was the impression I got the first time I heard this piece, and I was definitely unprepared to hear this passage. (Just listen to the entire movement and you'll hear what I mean.) --- I am skeptical of music cognition studies. From some literature I've read, it seems the cognition has to catch up to the music. At the very least, I feel the peer review has to be more stringent. (I'm not very deep into music cognition, and the article you reference—and the one I'm about to reference—is from the 1980s, so maybe things have improved.) I find the questions some of these researchers ask, the assumptions they make, the experiments they design, and the conclusions they draw to be problematic. Fred Lerdahl's 1988 article, [Cognitive Constraints on Compositional Systems](http://www.bussigel.com/lerdahl/pdf/Cognitive%20Constraints%20on%20Compositional%20Systems.pdf), has this to say about perceptual difficulties in 12-tone music: >Now we are in a position to see why serial organizations are inaccessible to mental representation. Rather than explore the subject through the idiosyncratic serialism of Le Marteau, I will refer to elementary aspects of the Classical 12-tone system, which has been more widely influential. I will give three causes for serialism's cognitive opacity. >Before proceeding, I must emphasize that the issue is not whether serial pieces are good or bad. As with tonal music, some serial pieces are good and most are bad. Nor am I claiming that listeners infer no structure at all from musical surfaces composed with serial techniques. What listeners in fact infer from such surfaces is an interesting question, one that deserves theory and experiment in its own right. But this is not the issue here. **The issue is why competent listeners do not hear tone rows when they hear serial pieces.** >The first reason is that serialism is a permutational rather than elaborational system. **Pitch relations in virtually all "natural" compositional grammars are elaborational.** Take for example the pitch sequence B-E-F sharp. It is easy to imagine any number of melodic embellishments internal to the sequence. This typically happens when children sing and performers improvise. Like the syntax of a sentence, musical elaborations can continue recursively to an indefinite level of complexity; for example, sonata form is an expansion of the Classical phrase. This feature enables pitch relations to be described hierarchically by a tree notation. >**Serialism instead depends on specific orderings of the elements of a set. Distinctions arise from permutations of the elements; for example, the inversion of a 12-tone row has the same 12 pitch classes but in a different order.** The order position of the elements is therefore essential to the identity of individual set forms. **From this it follows that internal elaboration of any element by other elements will undermine a set form.** Consider the row of Schoenberg's Violin Concerto (1936), shown in Figure 8 with order numbers given above. The sequence B-E-F sharp appears at order numbers 3-5. If one wanted to elaborate E, say, with G or with B flat-A, creating the sequences B-E-G-E-F sharp or B-E-B flat-A-E-F sharp, the integrity of the row would be destroyed, since G, B flat, and A have order positions elsewhere in the row. A tone row is not an elaborational structure. (The same point could be made with reference not to elements but to the intervals between elements.) >**The little research that has been directed towards serialism supports the contention that permutational structures are hard to learn and remember.** Since other human activities are not organized in such a fashion, it is hardly surprising that the issue has in general been ignored by psychologists. The situation reminds me, though, of Chomsky's (1965) observation that many logically possible grammatical constructions never occur, such as forming interrogatives from declaratives by word reversal or by exchange of odd and even words. There is unfortunately no one on whom to test these linguistic counter-examples. Music offers a unique opportunity in this regard. Surely children can be found who have been raised on a steady diet of serial music. Do they identify tone rows? A negative answer will provide strong counter-evidence concerning the structure of musical cognition, and may suggest inherent limitations on cognitive organization in other domains as well. >Ironically, Schoenberg was much preoccupied with the issue of comprehensibility. I suspect this is one reason why in his 12-tone phase he adopted Classical motivic, phrasal, and formal structures. **As a result, his serial music satisfies the rhythmic Constraints 3-6. But the permutational basis of his pitch organization assures a gap between the compositional and listening grammars.** (Lerdahl 1988, 115-16) Lerdahl assumes the basic unit of 12-tone music is the tone row and its basic operation the permutation of the row. He assumes listeners must recognize the row and its permutations to make sense of the music, and this is extremely difficult (and therefore a cognitive deficiency of serial music) because it's hard to memorize permutations. He privileges elaborational schemes, in line with a Schenkerian hearing of music. What he fails to perceive is the prominence of smaller set-class motives in 12-tone and serial music. Notes added between that B—E—F# motive may well break serial continuity, but it's easy for a listener to hear G—A—D as the same motive in inversion and transposed. As it happens, much of the pitch structures in 12-tone music operate like this (an observation I tried to encourage in [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/93os0b/understanding_twelvetone_music/)). It's difficult to label rows as they whiz by, but I am confident if you presented me with a recording of all the permutations of a single row (provided it is a row with sensible construction) that I could tell you which ones have invariant hexachords because I am listening for pitch class and set class. When you sit down and analyze 12-tone music (let's assume Schoenberg and Webern, because not all 12-tone systems are the same), what do you find? Composers are concerned with things like hexachords, trichords, invariance, combinatoriality, themes, motives, similarity and difference. None of these guys go in with the aim of presenting 12 randomly selected pitches in order, one after the other, and seeing how much they can invert and retrograde the thing. Regardless of my view on the structure of 12-tone music, I am doubtful of Lerdahl's overall claims about permutation. I suppose he would say the permutational combinations in [the fugue from Bach's BWV 582](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie52xH8V2L4&t=7m46s) (in which the subject is never 'elaborated' upon but always permuted) are difficult to perceive. The prevalence of melodic inversion in old music traditions generally makes me skeptical of Lerdahl's permutational straw man. --- Back to the question of the perceptibility of multiple tonal centers. I'm wary of somebody telling me that Bartók quartet passage only has one possible tonality, because, ***motherfucker, I hear two pitch centers***. However, I've also been trained to a fairly high degree to listen for tonal centers, just like I've been trained to listen for set classes and permutations of fugal subjects. I don't think I'm typical of the general population in my ability to identify structures in music. I'm not complete either: I presently cannot identify most rhythmic patterns in Latin jazz because, guess what, I haven't been trained in Latin jazz rhythm. If you tell me, "that's a cumbia," I'll just have to take your word for it, because how the hell would I know? Does this mean the cumbia rhythm is imperceptible? Hell no.

  2747. musictheory 2018-08-16 11:28:25 ihatemakinaccounts
    Na man a clap per second is essentially silence interrupted by a short burst of high frequency. 1 Hz is more like a guitar string that waves from one side to another per second. And that's why we can't here it. It just isn't registered as sound. Think of 1 hz drum. That's basically the membrane moving up and down really slow. I can create low frequency sound by waving my hand through the air but even my skin brushing against the air will creat low amplitude (volume) high frequency soungs (like really quiet whistling). Take what I say with a grain of salt, I'm not a trained producer, music is my hobby, but I have a heavy math background. Math doesn't always translate 1 to 1 in the real world though.

  2748. musictheory 2018-08-16 13:39:46 Xenoceratops
    > Fair enough! The serial subject is a different topic all together... The irresponsible cognition claims are the same topic, though. Once again, I need to read the Krumhansl/Schmuckler article, but based on what you've said I think there might be some problems in their experiment design or at least in the interpretation of data. That said, Bartók's polytonality has always struck me as being clearer and easier to grasp than Stravinsky's. Two triads plopped on top of one another without any other context (à la the Petrushka chord) does not adequately create the sort of stratification I expect out of polytonality. In the Bartók string quartet, both of those tonal layers have a harmonic progression and distinct direction. >like you, I doubt that listeners could recognize a row aurally, let alone its permutations. Now hang on, I never said this. I *do* think listeners can recognize a row aurally, as well as its permutations. If you have decent interval recognition, I can teach you to aurally identify the permutations of a prime row in two hours, maybe less. Can you auralize an ascending major second starting from a given reference pitch? How about a descending major second from the same reference? Great. You're 1/6th of the way to recognizing a prime row and its inversion. Retrograde (and retrograde inversion) is potentially harder, but there are shortcuts that let us make educated guesses. It's not any different from learning to recognize permutations of a fugal subject, except that the relationships may be more abstract: that descending major second may be rendered as an ascending minor seventh. After teaching you what to look for, I'd find a relatively easy piece, such as [Die Sonne kommt!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF-lLy09pZo&t=1m57s) from Dallapiccola's *Sieben Goethe Lieder*, because it only contains four rows that are closely related (P8, I9, RI9, and R8; would be more ideal for pedagogical purposes if it were I8 and RI8, but oh well) or one of Ross Lee Finney's didactic pieces, such as [Barcarolle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3jIH6jtS1Y&t=1m33s) from the 24 Inventions, because it only contains P0 and R0 and the last trichord of P0 is followed immediately by the first trichord of R0 in the same register (meaning you hear F#-G-A ascending, then A-G-F# descending, so the start of the retrograde row is obvious). However, my point was that composers and listeners of twelve-tone music don't care about aural identification of specific tone rows as much as Fred Lerdahl thinks they do (or should but fail in doing so, as it were). I don't need to know which permutation and transposition of a row I am dealing with to hear the all-combinatorial property at play: I'm listening for pitch collections and set class invariance, which is essentially what combinatoriality prioritizes. It's the same process that lets me recognize, by ear, the descending whole tone 0 (C D E F# G# A#) and ascending whole tone 1 (C# D# F G A B) in a non-12-tone tune like [Matching Mole - Marchides](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJdKFqc0m3U). Lerdahl essentially says, "permutations are hard to keep track of, so therefore 12-tone music is aurally incomprehensible." In reality, comprehensibility in 12-tone music is often based on other factors (which are permitted by the row, but more at a background level). Fred Lerdahl is, in my opinion, misrepresenting and misinterpreting 12-tone music in that 1988 paper. I suspect that Carol Krumhansl and Mark Schmuckler may not be doing such a great job of representing polytonal music in that 1986 paper.

  2749. musictheory 2018-08-17 03:12:26 etxjro
    > When you're studying Western music theory you are studying something made by (up til modern contributions) white males. We don't actually *know* to what extent this is true, and focusing on these things strikes me as somewhat unproductive anyway. String instruments in the modern sense (both plucked-string and bowed-string types) seem to have come to Medieval Europe from the Middle-East, and possibly some of the related theoretical notions did as well. The name which we now know as "passacaglia" apparently first referred to a native dance from the Americas. And so on and so forth. Yes, western art music was, by and large, an elite pursuit, but this doesn't mean that non-elites had *no* place in it. And it seems *really, really* weird to expect to focus on "historical injustices" when historical injustices of some form or another are basically inherent to *any* sort of elite pursuit - hence, possibly *any* (non-folk) *art-form whatsoever* prior to the industrial age!

  2750. musictheory 2018-08-17 07:33:28 jessecarpenter0
    I like music theory on the guitar. It’s different. Scales are super logical. But you MUST TUNE TO PERFECT FOURTHS. The B string on the guitar is the death of music logic. Tune that sucker to a C and the E to an F and you’re good to go. You will learn a lot about music and scales like this. However, chords are difficult and nonfunctional on the guitar. 4 fingers is not enough to perform fancy chords. Scales = guitar Chords and arpeggios = piano.

  2751. musictheory 2018-08-17 10:09:51 BRNZ42
    I'll try to bring in my perspective, as someone who was in a similar boat to you, and am now much more advanced. I'm a professional bass player, and a strong theorist. I also dabble in guitar and piano. ---- First thing's first, don't think that guitar gives you any advantage because of its tuning. The b-string isn't going to help you learn theory. If anything, it will make it harder, because you have to compensate for it as you move patterns across the neck. The advantage of guitar is that it is a good instrument for learning scales and for learning chords, two fundamental pieces of music theory. It is also relatively portable, meaning you can find more opportunities to practice, and more opportunities to just "play what you're learning." The drawback is that it isn't always easy to apply early theory lessons to guitar. Voice leading is difficult on guitar, and most guitarists use moveable shapes instead of smooth motion. It's hard to hear chords and melody at the same time with a guitar, because it's difficult to play both at the same time. ---- Piano is the best for learning theory. It just is. It's the most versatile, has the biggest range, is the easiest to play various voicings, and is great for chords and scales. You don't have to be a piano wizard to plunk your way through theory concepts. Want to hear your 4-voice chorale to check the voice leading? Piano can do that. Want to hear chords and Melody simultaneously? Piano can do that. The biggest drawback to piano is that it is less portable, so you have to do your piano studying where the keys are. It's also got a steep learning curve, it's a long way from "I can plunk things out" to "I can play a gig on keys." The shapes don't transfer to the guitar or bass, so you're learning two sets of shapes. ---- Bass. Here's the thing. If you consider bass your primary instrument, you should be trying to apply your theory knowledge to it. Isn't that the point of learning theory--to be better at music? But the ways in which you apply that theory are going to be very bass-centric. Bass isn't good at chords, so you're limited to scales and arpeggios. If you learn about a chord or a chord voicing, you probably can't just play one on a bass and hear how it sounds. You *can* play chords on bass (I do), but it's not the instruments strong suit. Instead, your theory will largely revolve around arpeggios. As a bass player, it's important to be able to see a chord, and know what notes are in that chord, so those notes can be used as passing notes or leading tones. It's important to learn scales for melodic lines and soloing. It's important to learn a good sense of rhythm, and how to create a groove. If you want to play bass, you gotta learn theory. But it's difficult to become a multifaceted theorist with bass as your only aural tool. ---- So what should you do? No matter what, focus on your primary instrument. Play what you like to play, and practice transferring concepts to that instrument. Also learn piano. I'm not talking about learning how to sight read or kick ass on keys. Learn shapes and chords so you can see music on the page (weather something you wrote or an excercise) and reproduce it for your own ears. Learn how chords and intervals "look" on the piano, because it will help intuit those concepts. Teach your ears to match up written concepts, shapes, and sounds. How did I do it? 40% Bass, 20% Piano, 20% Pencil and Paper, 20% Ear Training. My goal was to become a professional bass player and to be able to compose music for full ensembles. I got there.

  2752. musictheory 2018-08-17 15:51:05 taylorjacks
    I don’t know of any resources but we had a hardcore class in this when I studied as a composer at a uk conservatoire. The tutor was simply a genius in this whole area and would play a string of unrelated 4/5 and 6 note chords which we would have to transcribe after hearing only a reference ‘A’. He taught us to repeat each chord in our inner ear from root up as a spread chord so you can separate the notes internally. After some practise it really works and you can get pretty speedy at it. I use this technique when transcribing or analysing music to this day and find it highly effective.

  2753. musictheory 2018-08-17 23:49:09 PianoViolinMan
    Piano. Coming from a jazz upright bass and 5 string violin player.

  2754. musictheory 2018-08-18 10:17:58 jaykzo
    [Born This Way - Lady Gaga](https://youtu.be/wV1FrqwZyKw) - The extended video version has these awesome augmented arpeggios to give a spacy and uncertain on-the-edge-of-your-seat puzzlement. I personally find them great as a "question mark". The best functional I've found for them is the modes of Melodic Minor, the augmented chords are actually quite accessible and pleasing with melodies on top. Example, using C Mixolydian b6 (5th mode of F Melodic Minor) you can string together a C major - AbAug progression, melodies with the scale over that Aug chord can create delightfully weird and disconnected emotions. I'm still confused by them though and still feel like I don't have a good grasp of their potential...

  2755. musictheory 2018-08-18 10:28:12 Conrad59
    Dotted sixteenth notes. But you shouldn't write it as a long string of dotted sixteenths; you should break up the notes with ties and beams so readers can see where the beats are.

  2756. musictheory 2018-08-19 02:40:47 65TwinReverbRI
    OK, let's clear up a little common confusion: Using chords from outside of the key is not a "key change". And a modulation is not necessarily a "key change" in the sense that we put a new key signature into the piece. If it is in fact "in" F#, then you write it in F#. Just simply add accidentals as necessary for any key centers the music moves through. This is how it's traditionally done. IOW, if it move to B, or C#, or even Ab, you don't put in a "key change" in terms of a key signature change. You just write in the accidentals as necessary for the chords. There are plenty of pieces of music that run through the circle of 5ths in keys (or a string of 7th chords, etc.) and we just put in the accidentals as necessary. That's even true of pieces that modulate from say, C Major to G Major for the B section - we don't put a key signature change for the G Major part - we just write in the F# as necessary in the B section. And since it's going through so many in such a short time, you just do it this way. It'd be different if, say, you had an A section in G Major, and a B section in Eb Major, and then it went back to G Major for a repeat of the A. There you *might* want to notate a key signature change at the new section since both the key and section coincide - and let's assume they're going to run for a while - but even then if the keys aren't too far apart (or the section is not too long) we can just put in accidentals.

  2757. musictheory 2018-08-19 04:55:49 LiamGaughan
    1st one - E major if the previous chord was C#m , try 7th fret A string, A barre shape. 2nd one- it's a minor 7th chord to my ear. 6th fret, D#m7 (it's the same as an D#m shape, so Am barre shape, but take off your little finger to create x68676 (low E to high E)

  2758. musictheory 2018-08-19 16:07:21 vegan_anakin
    I am pretty new to guitar (I know a decent amount of music theory). When you play a chord, for example A7, do you actually know which string corresponds to which note or do you just memorize the structure of your fingers meant to be used for the chord? When I play the piano, it's so easy to just play around with the notes but it takes ages to know which note is on which string when I play a chord on a guitar

  2759. musictheory 2018-08-20 03:00:32 MessianicAge
    I just took a look at [this](https://youtu.be/jUdMv2jwROo?t=1m30s) video of the song being performed. It looks like the guitarist is playing an F#m7add11 (this chord is sometimes referred to in guitar circles as F#m11, even though it doesn't have a 9th). It looks like the fret numbers from bottom to top are: 2 4 4 2 0 0 Thumb is on the low E string, ring finger is on A string, pinky finger is on D string and middle finger is on G string.

  2760. musictheory 2018-08-21 01:27:25 Top40Theory
    "An astonishing amount of popular classical music is written by three people, all from Austria: Joseph Haydn, Ludwig van Beethoven, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. These three composers are responsible for virtually every surviving piece in the universe in which the 21st century comes after the 18th. You can credit Wolfgang, Joseph, and Ludwig for all the following hits: Symphony #5, Symphony #7, Symphony #9, Symphony #40, Symphony #41, Symphony #102, Symphony #104, String Quartet #12, String Quartet #15, String Quartet #18, String Quartet #22, Piano Sonata in C major, Piano Sonata in G Major, Piano Sonata in Eb Major, Piano Sonata in A Minor, Piano Sonata in D Minor, Piano Sonata in Bb Major. With only three people writing so much of what we hear, is it any wonder that all classical music sounds the same, using the same PACs, sentences, periods, Alberti bass, and sonata form?" [https://www.top40theory.com/blog/the-tragic-decline-of-sonic-literacy-and-quality-in-classical-music](https://www.top40theory.com/blog/the-tragic-decline-of-sonic-literacy-and-quality-in-classical-music)

  2761. musictheory 2018-08-21 01:57:25 notsohipster
    Curious what to do with this chord progression. Also wondering why it works I start with capo on the third fret of my guitar and play an E shape and hammer off and on everything but the index finger. So G and G11. I then slide down to 5th fret (relative to capo) and play the E shape without my middle finger so the notes are GFFDDG. Not sure how to name that chord. Maybe a G7 no 3rd? Then I go up and strum everything open except for the 4th fret on the A string (still relative to capo) so the notes are GEFBbDF. I have no idea what to call that either. Some sort of G Minor? Then it slides back to G. The whole progression sounds really cool. Kind of jazzy. It reminds me of a Radiohead style chord progression. But I don’t know why it works, or what to do from here

  2762. musictheory 2018-08-21 02:26:28 gilly_90
    I'm working on something that has an intro consisting of a standard open Am and what I believe to be a Gadd11 (I barely know what this means, I just googled the chord shape) the notes being B,D,G,C. Then it moves to a progression of C, then that G11 from before but with the open high E string (making it a G6add11? C7M9?) quickly transitioning into a G then a C7M and finally Am7. I'm really out of my depth here, my chord knowledge usually bottoms out around 7s and their variants and I came up with this simply by making a fingering mistake and thinking it sounded great. It all seems to fit quite nicely into the key of Am, resolves really nicely. Any guidance on what I've accidentally done to sound good and what chords I'm actually using would be fantastic.

  2763. musictheory 2018-08-21 23:21:50 banjalien
    The good news is you don't have to stay horrible at it.... 1)I'd start off by taking something you already know the sound of, something you've heard since a kid; perhaps a nursery rhyme, hymn, pop tune, etc. Sit down at your instrument and try to find that completely by ear. Start on a different string and different fret with a different finger a few times, ie, different keys. You say you can find stuff on the fingerboard but it's something to always work at. This speeds up your ear to hand coordination-hearing something and knowing where it's at. 2)Practice singing melodies back that you hear, make a habit of it. One thing I find is people take a recording and play a game of fast-forward/rewind, over and over, to the point they aren't even listening any more. It's a game of hunt and miss. Don't do that. Play the music, a short segment and then hum or sing it a few times until you can do it without the music. Try to find it on your instrument only after you can at least hum it. My opinion is to start with songs that have words. Practice transcribing singers. If you can't transcribe some guy singing quarter notes then a fancy guitar riff isn't a good starting point. As has been alluded to by Reverb, some of figuring out riffs by ear is knowing lots of vocabulary/licks. 3)Harmony wise-start with three chord songs. I made a list for all of my students, songs that were only 3 chords songs, stuff they should try to learn completely by ear. Quite a few were lame country songs but my point was limiting it to only 3 chords and they had to be easy to hear. The reality is while some music may be only three chords, there are so many sounds going on that a beginner can't possibly hear the chord changes due to the distractions. The only way you get better at this is what I call error-correcting. You play along, you make errors; you correct until the errors decrease. When I started I couldn't even heard a I-IV-V, now hearing chords/harmony is probably one of my biggest musical strengths. Lots of hours spent playing along to recordings. 4)I realize it's not for everyone but sight-singing helped my ears. Solfege is what helped me be able to transcribe something without an instrument. I think singing is great; even if your voice sucks and you aren't trying to be a vocalist. Sing basslines, sing arpeggios, etc. All of these bring clarity to your inner hearing.

  2764. musictheory 2018-08-22 01:18:54 RichardPascoe
    There are only three motions in music: 1. Contrary 2. Oblique 3. Parallel In order of strength - 1 is the strongest and 3 is the weakest. When you play chords the bass should go in the opposite direction to the upper notes in the chord which is contrary motion. Oblique motion is when one note is played continuously while the other voices move up or down. On the piano play Middle C continuously with the left hand and move the triads formed on the white keys with the right hand up or down. Sometimes Oblique motion is called a Pedal. Parallel motion means the bass and upper voices move in the same direction. Though this is the weakest motion it has many uses and should not be avoided. All that has been said above also applies to two voices. On the guitar every time you play an open C major chord and then play an open A minor chord you are playing contrary motion because the C (3rd fret A string) drops to the open A string while the G (the open G string of the open C chord) voice moves up to the A (2nd fret B string). Don't worry too much because whatever chords you play will only exhibit one of the three motions above. Just take time to look at whether the bass is going in the opposite direction to the other voices. Hope that helps. regards Richard

  2765. musictheory 2018-08-22 04:48:55 Xenoceratops
    It's solid stuff. [Op. 4, Verklärte Nacht](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhT6afzke-c) - Originally for string sextet. There's also a string orchestra arrangement, but I can't find a recording I like. [Op. 5, Pelleas und Mellisande](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ChHR8tT8cQ) - I think you'll like this one. More of a Wagner/Strauss vibe, with a dash of Debussy's orchestration. [Op. 8, Sechs orchester Lieder](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7io8UqcQjg) - For the fan of orchestral songs à la Mahler and Strauss. Lush and chromatic.

  2766. musictheory 2018-08-22 07:56:24 beatleboy07
    There's no particular reason to choose Eb over D# unless it relates in some capacity to material before or after that may be in a key that is related to Eb or D#. If it's just a single work that is in the key of Eb/D# minor, there's no particular reason to choose one of the other apart from ease of reading. You'll find people have different opinions on that.....string players like reading sharps and woodwind players like reading flats. For the same reasons, you are also free to transpose your C major music into B# major.

  2767. musictheory 2018-08-22 09:07:54 ojalaqueque
    Actually i´ve been thinking of adding chapters suitable for a decent practice on 4 string bass, and maybe also low G ukelele at some point (and guitar at the same time in both cases). By the time i could recommend you going through CAGED, 7 pos, and 3 NpS, of course only reading the lower strings. Not the best solution but should work ok enough until i get to work on that, or until you get some decent resources elsewhere.

  2768. musictheory 2018-08-23 04:03:26 rick_rackleson
    Other people have given some good advice on studying and improving, so I'm gonna focus on what's not been said already. If you're struggling live and don't have time to do the studying that's been suggested, just do experimenting live BUT don't just play a note or two and think on it. Play a string of arpeggios in a scale you know well. Sounds bad? K. Play the same arpeggio a half step up or down. Continue til it sounds right. Or even after it sounds right, then return to what sounded right at the end, then use that as a framework for the rest. Mess around with timing, bends, whatever. The important thing is to be decisive with what you play, ESPECIALLY when you're unsure. Play it with confidence and everyone will assume it's on purpose. Flub around and you'll sound like a chump. Another thing you can do to spice up a solo is (assuming you know the key you're going to be playing in) use a capo to make as many open notes on key as you can, within reason. Then you can add pull-offs to open notes to your solo more fluidly.

  2769. musictheory 2018-08-23 06:12:20 Jongtr
    1. Music lessons at grammar school, 1960-62 (age 11-13). (Learned notation, and the G major scale on recorder.) Not interested in music at all at this time; no discernible talent whatsoever. 2. 1965, started learning guitar, self-taught from book which contained some rudimentary theory (diatonic chords in major key). 3. 1966-1970. Joined first band (on bass). Taught myself basic piano and various other string instruments. Bought and borrowed songbooks (Beatles, Dylan, Chuck Berry, folk songs, classical guitar pieces, etc). Transcribed other songs by ear. This taught me about song form, chord progression, key changes, improvisation, etc. 4. 1970. ABRSM's 'Rudiments and Theory of Music'. (Didn't understand most of it.) 5. Mid-70s: William Russo's 'Jazz Composition and Orchestration': good chapters on counterpoint (understood most of that). 5. 1979-82. Various music theory and history books from Art College library (titles forgotten). 6. 1990s. Sporadic jazz classes (part time). Books read include: Eric Taylor 'AB Guide to Music Theory pts 1 & 2'; Tom Bruner 'Arranging and Orchestrating Music' (Mel Bay) - very useful; Mark Levine "The Jazz Theory Book" - impressive, persuasive, but (I realised later) misleading; Jamey Aebersold 'Jazz Handbook' - mostly useless. 7. 2000s. Various internet theory forums, beginning with rec.music.theory. Various websites, including: https://www.musictheory.net/ https://www.dolmetsch.com/theoryintro.htm http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-alphabet.shtml, http://www.peterfrazer.co.uk/music/tunings.html. Books: Dave Stewart 'Inside the Music'; George Heussenstamm 'Harmony and Theory pts 1 & 2' (Hal Leonard) - very good; Robert Rawlins and Nor Eddine Bahha 'Jazzology' - boring; Kostka & Payne 'Tonal Harmony' - dry, couldn't finish it. Various books on the science, culture and psychology of music : D Levitin, C Small, H Goodall, O Sachs, A Moore, etc. Throughout this whole time, I've played in various amateur and semi-pro bands (folk, blues, rock, jazz, soul) and transcribed for pleasure as well as to build repertoire. I've never taken any theory exams or instrument grades; never attended music college, aside from a 6-month part-time music teaching course (2002). IOW, I'm a thorough amateur! Don't take any of my advice!

  2770. musictheory 2018-08-23 09:40:02 65TwinReverbRI
    If Parks had made a YT video, I think it might be called clickbait. It sounds like they're going against conventional wisdom just to get readership, ruffle feathers, and so on. Though that's one MO for a lot of authors - to debunk conventional wisdom - and they're not always wrong. I would say that one issue here is that Parks may be trying to fit a square peg in a round hole by trying to apply a more traditional tonal analysis to Debussy's music, which is not that tonal. I'd say that Debussy is probably more tonal than many used to assume he was - IOW longer ago the music seemed very adventurous but now, reflecting back on it, we see it's maybe not as adventurous as we first thought, so there may be some merit in discussing it that way. But I still do always see a danger in trying to make things "conform" to tonal ideas when maybe rather than expanding the definition of tonal music to include that music, or analyzing the piece in such a way as to make it fit the tonal norms, why not just accept it's modal? It's not like it's the end of the world or something. _____ I think, making a case for modes, is forgetting modes and just making the case for "pitch collections" or as we know them, scales. Is Parks also arguing that Debussy's use of the Whole Tone Scale also represent prolongation of X area? Does "Voiles" start with a Tonic Prolongation? A Dominant one? Why then should the String Quartet's Phrygian opening be seen as, what, Tonic prolongation? It's pretty clear he used Pentatonic Scales "as pitch resources" so it seems to show a lot of "scale thinking" versus "tonal center thinking". Now, that's not to say he didn't use modes in a quasi-tonal context - and he certainly would have been raised playing tonal music. If anything, Debussy really broke from tradition. Maybe his early works are more tonally inspired, but mature and later works are really "a new style, rejecting the old" in many ways. Now, again I'd agree that may there is more continuity there than it seemed at first, but without reading the books and just going off on my own rant and limited expertise, it seems that Parks is either just wrong, or has an ulterior motive here.

  2771. musictheory 2018-08-23 17:15:36 ppzhang
    Hi OP, one more thing seems confusing to me. [The modenizer](https://grunfy.com/modenizer.html) you develoed shows that G Dorian has the root note at E string **5th fret** (that is A actually, by selecting G then Dorian in the tool). In contrast, G Dorian should have root note at E string **3th fret**, according to this post: [G Dorian Mode](https://www.guitar-chords.org.uk/modes/g-dorian-mode.html). What are you thoughts?

  2772. musictheory 2018-08-24 01:33:17 RichardPascoe
    It is not theoretical but historical and cultural. For example the snare drum is a Turkish instrument. It was introduced quite late but think what Hip-Hop and Rock music would be like without it. Another good example is the saxophone which was invented to be an orchestral instrument. Never found a regular place in the orchestra but ended up being used in about everything else. Even the string family of the orchestra, which has been around for hundreds of years, was not an intentional creation. The cello doesn't even come from the same family as the violin. The cello comes from a family of string instruments called Viols which had frets. I think the question you asked is valid. Music seem to be more arbitrary rather than designed. Probably a bit of both. regards Richard

  2773. musictheory 2018-08-24 01:48:51 DRL47
    Actually, the cello is in the violin family. The string bass (bass viol) is in the viol family. It has sloping shoulders and is tuned in fourths instead of fifths.

  2774. musictheory 2018-08-25 02:02:16 Jongtr
    This is really a history question. [This] (https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/wiki/faq/history/alphabet) may help, but the way I like to see it is with the help of a guitar string. 1. Divide the string into simple fractions: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4. This will land you on fret 12 (1/2), frets 7 and 19 (2/3, 1/3) and frets 5 and - if you have one - 24 (3/4, 1/4). The point about these divisions is they produce the perfect intervals, the strongest consonances: octave (1/2), perfect 5th (2/3), perfect 4th (3/4). 2. Now look at how the *octave* is divided: frets 0-5-7-12. Take that 2-fret whole step between 5-7 as your unit ("tone") and see how many you can get into the other two spaces. Two and half, right? So we've created a 7-note scale with 5 whole steps and 2 half-steps. 3. You can arrange those two and a half tones in various ways in those 5-fret spaces, which gets most of the "modes" in common use. The major scale was actually a fairly late arrangement, which is why our basic scale is called "C" and not "A" - the letters were assigned to notes first, centuries before the major scale arrived. It so happened that the arrangement from A was A-BC-D-EF-G-A You might find [this] ( http://www.peterfrazer.co.uk/music/tunings/greek.html#2.2) interesting. (Yup, math I'm afraid...)

  2775. musictheory 2018-08-25 03:36:06 evijet
    The best explanation I've heard has to do with how the harmonic series can be used to derive the major scale. When a string (or reed, lips, vocal cord, etc) vibrates, it does so not only with a wavelength equal to the full length of the string, but also with a wavelength of 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc of that of the string. Since frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength, the frequencies of sound generated are 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, etc that of the fundamental (the lowest frequency, with wavelength equal to the full length of the string). Our ears perceive a doubling of frequency as an octave, so 1x, 2x, 4x, etc are all the same tone each one octave apart. Therefore, the first two "new" tones, which are not the same as the fundamental on a different octave, come from the harmonics 3x and 5x the fundamental. The relative amplitude (volume) of each of these harmonics vary from one instrument to the next, but generally speaking the amplitude decreases with higher harmonics, so these first two new tones are the most audible. Therefore, it makes sense to include these tones in a scale. You can derive a major scale from these overtones as follows: Start with an arbitrary note, called C. Play a new note with a frequency 3x that of the fundamental. This will be one octave plus a perfect fifth higher than the first. Move that back down an octave and you are a perfect 5th above the C, on G. Similar for the 5x harmonic, moved back down to the same octave as the others you have a major 3rd, or an E. Since the harmonics get less audible as they get higher, the first "new tone", built on 3x the frequency of the fundamental, the perfect 5th, is in a sense the most important. So, repeat this process a perfect 5th above and below the starting tone (C). Starting on G you'd get G-B-D, and starting on F you'd get F-A-C. Put all those notes in order and you have the major scale. Building a scale this way you'd get something close to, but not quite, the major scale that we use today. The perceived distance between successive tones of the scale would be *about* equal for each note, except for between the B and the C and between the E and the F, which would be *about* half what it is for the other tones. In the interest of building instruments that can play in any key, we compromised and rounded these distances off to be the whole and half step - that compromise is called "equal temperament" **TL;DR:** You can derive the major triad from the harmonic series, and create a major scale from triads on, P5 above, and P5 below an arbitrary starting point. After rounding things off per the compromise of equal temperament, you have the pattern of whole and half steps that make up the major scale, and therefore the white keys on the piano.

  2776. musictheory 2018-08-25 10:32:14 DonutHoles4
    I have a question about inversions. If i have an inverted C chord on the guitar, and it looks like this from low string to high: ECGGEC -- on guitar, how do i know which inversion it is? The E is in the bass so does that mean it is first inversion?

  2777. musictheory 2018-08-25 11:29:23 The_Original_Gronkie
    Do you have any idea how many great musicians couldn't read music, or never took lessons? Because of that, some of them came up with extremely unusual playing techniques. Muddy Waters was left handed so he simply turned the guitar around, but never restrung it, so he played with the high E string on top and the low E string on the bottom. Jeff Healey was blind, so he never saw someone hold a guitar, so he taught himself with the guitar on his lap. Louis Armstrong could never read music, yet he was by far the most influential jazz musician in history. Sometimes not knowing the conventional rules forces a musician or composer to solve his musical problems by innovating his own rules. People tell you that they love your music. How do you know that what they love about it arises from the way you have solved your musical problems in your own unconventional ways? You see your lack of musical education as a negative, when it could be the very thing that makes your music unique to you. If you make beautiful music that others love, then you have fulfilled your musical destiny, and you have nothing to apologize for, and everything to feel proud of.

  2778. musictheory 2018-08-27 01:56:44 Jongtr
    The first one is a kind of pseudo-bossa nova style - although that's nothing to do with the strings. The second one is just vintage popular music - before it got called "pop". The string orchestration was standard stuff in those days, and I doubt it has a name.

  2779. musictheory 2018-08-28 09:32:17 brotherbonsai
    Seconding ask r/edmproduction, but one of the techniques is detuned unison oscillators on a lot of the lead and pad synths. I.e. a sawtooth smack on pitch with another one slightly below, blended together further with a little chorus or overdrive. This emulates the effect of a full string section playing a line versus a single instrument.

  2780. musictheory 2018-08-28 09:50:16 musicneuroguy
    The easier way to think about it is as an inverted pedal point - instead of the bass note remaining the same, the D from the B string is held through all the chords. Bringing up mu is slightly off, as it has a particular voicing (root, fifth, ninth, third).

  2781. musictheory 2018-08-28 19:17:32 UomoAnguria
    Try inverting the first two chords! You could even string more chords all with the same note on top (tonic or fifth of the home key): iv - bVII7 - bIII - bVI - bII - I

  2782. musictheory 2018-08-28 20:35:40 FwLineberry
    Start by learning the C major scale all over the fingerboard - up and down each string and across the strings in every position.

  2783. musictheory 2018-08-28 21:56:17 MustBeThursday
    Memorizing the notes of the fretboard can be kind of weird. A lot of people have trouble with it. Start by just memorizing the notes of the E and A strings from the nut to the 12th fret. Once you do that you're halfway there. Then the notes of the D string are the same as the E string, just two frets higher. The G string is the same as the A string, just two frets up. The B string is the same as the A string, but this time two frets down. And obviously the high E string is the same notes as the low E, and the whole thing starts over at the 12th fret. If all else fails you could make some stickers with the note names of the C major scale, put them at the appropriate places on the fretboard, and use that for a bit until you have a better handle on it (though this isn't the preferred method). When it comes to getting better at improvising, the things that helped me were getting used to playing the diagonal patterns of the scales, and getting up and across the fretboard instead of hanging out in the standard box patterns. Learning arpeggios and their inversions was also pretty crucial. A lot of great riffs and solos lean heavily on chord tones. A good grasp of arpeggios pop all those chord tones right out of the scale for you, and by keeping track of those you can reference the chord changes by adding in some of those notes as you wander through that scale. If you're willing to pay for lessons, that would probably be the most effective help. There are a lot of great books and YouTube videos out there, but the problem with those is that you can't ask them questions. And it sounds like having a teacher in the room who can answer your questions, and restate the answer in different ways if it isn't clicking, is what would do you the most good right now. (Edit: a letter.)

  2784. musictheory 2018-08-28 22:22:31 Jongtr
    > I have a complete block when it comes to understanding what fret corresponds to what note on each string Well, that suggests your first task. ;-) I suggest (with FwLineberry) that you learn the C major scale notes (the sharps and flats are obviously easy once you know that). And my additional suggestion is to use the CAGED system - much maligned in some quarters, but it's the way many of us self-taught players learned the fretboard before anybody called it a "system". It's just how the fretboard seems to be mapped out in chord shapes. If you've been playing a few years you probably know it (or about it) anyway. (Don't go for the associated scale patterns just yet, just the 5 major chord shapes.) E.g., all 5 shapes of a C chord (all over the fretboard) contain the notes C-E-G. All 5 shapes for a G chord contain the notes G-B-D. You can see how this will help place markers on the fretboard, and the shapes (unlike scale patterns) are easily remembered. However - this is nothing to do with *improvisation*, it's just about mastering your instrument, familiarising yourself with the territory. The note names are only really signposts on the way - you don't think about them (much) once you know your way around. Improvisation skills (once you know your instrument) are threefold. (1) Knowing lots of melodies (lead vocal or instrumental lines on existing tunes). (2) Knowing the melody and chords of the tune you want to improvise on. Ideally by heart. Melody first, chords second. Maybe also bass lines, rhythms, and any other significant elements. (3) Thinking rhythmically and melodically. (1) is where you get your vocabulary from. It's what you create your ideas from in general, whatever piece of music you're faced with. If you don't have any ideas (or just the same old boring ones) it's a sign you haven't learned to play enough melodies (or sing them, even better if you can!). Improvisation is a melodic/rhythmic process, and you can't produce those ideas if you haven't absorbed enough of the vocabulary. Learning other people's solos is good too, but that's kind of second hand (and often personal to that player). Composed melodies are first hand material - the best resource for how melodies work, not only from note to note in time, but against the chords (which is obviously why you need to learn the chords too). You learn not only the character of specific chord tones (the nostalgic sweetness of a maj7), but also the expressive power of extensions - the poignant yearning of a 9th, the warmth of a 6th... (2) is what gives you the actual raw material to work with (song by song), to shape as you want. You take bits of the melody and mess around with it. Look to the chord tones to find other targets for your phrases. Think about the lyrics (if any), and other ways in which you might sing each phrase - then play it that way. You're in a dialogue with the composer. He/she said it that way. Maybe you can say the same thing *this* way... And in a jazz context you're also in conversation with the rest of the band! A whole other dimension... ;-) (3) will also come (steadily improve) if you do enough of the above. It's not magic, it's like learning any language: you can't just make it up in your head, you have to copy the people who can already "speak" it (composers and improvisers alike). Once you know enough, you're no longer consciously putting together fragments you've picked up; it all becomes subconscious, and feels like your own "voice". You steal everything, but no one else will steal exactly what you will, or do the same things with it even if they do. That's what makes you "original".

  2785. musictheory 2018-08-28 23:29:38 Jongtr
    This question comes up about once a week it seems. The phenomenon is common, and known as pitch memory, or tonal memory. It's normally associated with familiar melodies, or notes heard often in the same context. E.g., as a guitar player of some 50 years, I can tune a newly strung guitar to within 50 cents of concert with no reference. I don't have perfect pitch, I just have an ingrained memory for how a concert tuned guitar sounds (the bottom E string most of all). http://cogprints.org/643/1/pitch.HTM

  2786. musictheory 2018-08-28 23:58:24 65TwinReverbRI
    For this kind of String Orchestra with solo Instrument, you probably want to look to Vivaldi - who has tons of concertos, some for Mandolin or Lute that have been done on Guitar. Corelli also did a lot of that same kind of vibe - but this piece you linked to has distinct similarities to Vivaldi's Four Seasons concerti. There are Guitar Concerti as well, but they are primarily later into the Romantic Period by composers like Sor and Giuliani, and don't have as "Baroque" a feel to them. Probably the most famous (or maybe most overplayed...) Guitar Concerto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9RS4biqyAc Here's the Vivaldi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBJ8BmFPt3U Here it is on Lute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyY5pB2a0cU YJM is kind of "mixing elements" playing modern "classical" (or nylon string) guitar in modern composed music that is trying to sound like the older Baroque stuff where it would have typically been Lute, or later (like the Vivaldi) arranged for guitar. So the other suggestion for the Lute stuff comes from that. FWIW, if you don't know, they used to call the whole YJM kind of movement "Bach Rock" because while not being truly Baroque music, it did have a lot of elements mixed into a modern (at the time) metal/shred context - and if you listen to some Baroque Trumpet music, you can hear why shredding mixes right in with it!

  2787. musictheory 2018-08-29 00:59:18 RichardPascoe
    Just some facts that may help you: 1. The range of the guitar is three octaves. From the open low E string to the E on the twelfth fret of the high e string. 2. The open G string of the guitar corresponds in pitch to the lowest open Violin string. 3. The guitar is a transposing instrument because the sounded note is an octave below the notated note. Therefore middle C is really on the 1st fret of the B string. 4. Each fret on the guitar is a semitone. Hopefully that will shrink the fretboard a little bit. Don't worry about the notes above the twelfth fret. Learn the notes in the three octave range first. regards Richard

  2788. musictheory 2018-08-29 04:07:34 DRL47
    The E on the bottom line of the treble clef is the "E above middle C", which is the open first string. BUT, if it is actual guitar music, you would play the E which is an octave lower. That would be the second fret on the D (fourth) string. That is because guitar music transposes down an octave from where it is written. If it was piano music, for example, you would not transpose the octave to get the correct note. That said, there are multiple places to play the same note. The second fret on the D string is the same note as the seventh fret on the A string and the twelfth fret on the low E string. The only notation to tell you which position are position numbers above the staff. They are optional and not always present. Of course, tablature tells you exactly where to play the note.

  2789. musictheory 2018-08-29 04:07:42 65TwinReverbRI
    If you're reading standard sheet music, it tells you which E to play - the one in the top space is the first string open (or that same pitch on other strings). The E on the first (lowest) line is the E note on the 4th string 2nd fret. The low open E string is three ledger lines and a space below the treble clef staff. If for some reason you see a letter, "E", then it probably means an E chord, unless it's specifically spelling out a melody. If that's the case, you need to be learning to read some other form of notation if the octave is not designated (E4, E5, etc.) If you're asking where to play the SAME E pitch, on various strings - like the 1st string open, the 2nd string 5th fret, and the 3rd string 9th fret are all the same WRITTEN E and sounding pitch - just played on a different position on the guitar, that is not notated in sheet music by the noteheads. Instead, some other information is given, such as the string number (a numeral in a circle) or finger number (just a numeral) that makes it clear. For example, the open E string might have a "0" (or "O") for "Open" or "zeroeth fret". Position can also be implied by "Cejilla" markings which uses a Roman Numeral, often like C.VI to show you your first finger should be in 6th position (playing notes in the 6th fret) and then any top space E you see would have to be taken on the 3rd string most likely. All of these in any combination can be added to standard Sheet Music. Tablature is another way to indicate position as it tells you exactly what string and what fret to play (and can also include finger numbers, whether it's barred or not and so on) though most turntable eliminates some of the other info from standard notation that is helpful. If there are no markings, and the other surrounding notes don't really give you any clue, it's really up to you. If you're playing E-C#-D on the first string, you could take the E on the 1st string open, or you could play it on the 9th fret of the 3rd string. The former is going to have that "open string sound" and may not blend well with the others, or that may be an effect you want. So up to you which one to use if not specified.

  2790. musictheory 2018-08-29 04:31:28 Oriamus
    All string players have this problem, some far more than others. Guitar is a particularly bad offender in that there are so many places on the neck that you can play the same note that it's hard to ascertain which one to play. It's the context of the song you're playing. If the surrounding notes are notes you can't really reach for one reason or another, then try moving that original E to make those notes easier to reach. Hopefully that makes some kind of sense.

  2791. musictheory 2018-08-29 05:48:48 holditsteady
    not sure what you mean, but you probably need to dampen the unused string with your fretting hand

  2792. musictheory 2018-08-29 06:01:13 Abysswalker_8
    They do, that song is by the brilliant producer duo e.one Here are some other songs they've done, if you're interested (pay attention to their string arrangements and creative vocal melodies as well): * WJSN - [Miracle](https://youtu.be/XsGnmbd7kqA) * April - [Take My Hand](https://youtu.be/Zt0eKY3R9kQ) * GFriend - [Luv Star](https://youtu.be/eotod7O4REw) * WJSN - [Renaissance](https://youtu.be/XfjuRIhDwaU) * April - [Lovesick](https://youtu.be/F-ue4ZF3kXg) * GFriend - [Gone With the Wind](https://youtu.be/gElD6o6QXrs) * WJSN - [Prince](https://youtu.be/L46_syguTak) * WJSN - [Secret](https://youtu.be/_uJxJ7tSi1w) * WJSN - [BeBe](https://youtu.be/6mhmvj6nufM) * GFriend - [Crush](https://youtu.be/sA7InlHFSKI)

  2793. musictheory 2018-08-29 06:03:52 65TwinReverbRI
    Yes and no. This is actually a huge topic that has to do with the way music evolved, but let's say that the whole 4-Part thing is kind of over-rated. It's not that it's not important, but there's so much emphasis placed on it that it seems to be more prevalent, or more important than it really is comparatively speaking. 4-Part harmony really grew out of Renaissance Vocal Polyphony, where you had 4 parts - Soprano, Alto, Tenor, and Bass, all "singing a different melody" and thus we have counterpoint/polyphony. There were of course 2, 3, and 5+ voice polyphony pieces as well. The focus on 4 part probably comes largely from the study of Bach Chorales in Theory Courses - and part of that has to do with the consistency of style in which they're written, which is easy to cull rules from. Really, 4-part harmony - and polyphony in general - which fugues are a form of (fugues can be in any number of parts but 3 and 4 are probably the most common overall) became passé in the Classical Era, and they're more a part of the Baroque Era that preceded it, and even Renaissance before that. There are of course Fugues and 4 part pieces written in the Classical Era, but there was a shift in focus to "Melody with Accompaniment" So we call the "4 Equal Parts" or "4 melodies at once" Polyphony, and in the case of Fugues and imitative forms, Polyphonic Counterpoint. The "melody with accompaniment" is called "Homophony" - which is an odd word because it sounds like the parts would be homogeneous - equal, but really it means that the accompanimental "voices" kind of subsume into a "chordal" role, where the melody stands out and the other parts don't act so much as individual parts anymore, but as "vertical structures" or at least notes that are dependent on each other. Of course there's an evolution here, and grey area, and a continuum - people like Mozart shifted between these techniques freely even within the same piece or section of a piece. But as a general rule, 4-Part (or other various parts) Polyphony gave way to Homophony through the Baroque period where there was kind of a transitional era. Naturally, the Orchestration approaches differ as well. Baroque music does tend to follow more of a SATB layout with the Soprano member of each family taking the top part, and so on down the line. In Classical Era Orchestration, you're more likely to get Violins playing the melody, while the rest support, and if Oboes are present, they'll just "fill out the harmony" a lot of times - not taking the Soprano and Alto parts like they might have in the Baroque. When we get to the Romantic Period, Orchestration starts to become more about "color" and timbre, and while certainly 4 part (and everything else) writing still exists, things can be done just for color. I think one problem is, most people associate "Orchestration" with the behemoth Romantic Period style - Mozart and Haydn don't even have full woodwind sections in their orchestras (except for maybe Haydn's last one, or a few exceptions here and there) and Beethoven famously hadn't been including Trombones until the final movement of Symphony 5. So the way people think of "Orchestration" today is VERY Romantic Period biased. _____ Of course, it depends on what you mean by "more complex" symphonies and so on, but if you look at Haydn's earliest symphonies, you can see pretty easily that a lot of things are just 2 part counterpoint - the 1st and 2nd violins play the upper part, and the violas and celli play the lower part (bass not always included at that point, but would double cello). Taking a smaller form piece - Haydn's Piano Trios - the early ones the Cello just basically doubles the Bass part in the Piano - though it would have more likely been Harpsichord or Fortepiano at the time - and this is a direct descendant of the Baroque Trio Sonata and figured bass style. Honestly, the best way to figure this stuff out is to take orchestral scores, and reduce them, and figure out what's going on. Composers have their own personal orchestration styles, and then there are general trends within stylistic periods - or even certain types of pieces. I think we can say as a general rule that 4-part harmony becomes sort of the "preferred" approach through the Baroque period, but with the rise of Monody (a form of Homophony) greater emphasis is placed on a Soprano/Bass framework, with inner voices (of however "parts" needed) do the job of "filling in" the harmony in much the same way we have 1 or 2 melody instruments in something like a Trio Sonata (2 melody), a written bass line, and then the inner parts aren't written, they're just improvised. That style leads more directly to Symphonies and String Quartets and so on - follow the 2 Violin sections in a Symphony or Quartet and you'll likely see the 1sts and 2nds constantly trading parts and changing roles - so neither of them is the "Soprano" per se. And the Violas may play the role of "Alto" and Cello "Bass" in a 3 part texture, or Cello may play the role of Bass, Viola Tenor, 2nd Alto, and 1sts Soprano if they do 4 part (the French name for Viola is "Alto" and Cello, when it goes high, reads Tenor clef, so what's that tell you!). So there's less of a strict "top down" SATB distribution in Homophonic pieces and Classical works in general, except when they might specifically be playing a Chorale type section of Fugal section. HTH

  2794. musictheory 2018-08-29 06:20:10 firetruckfiretruck
    In the tab you posted you are playing octaves with the fifth muted. The middle string will be muted if your index finger lies quite flat without actually pushing down on the middle string. Essentially you want to apply just enough pressure to mute the string without causing it ring out. Hope that helps

  2795. musictheory 2018-08-29 06:36:26 65TwinReverbRI
    Decades ago, we called "ghost notes" those things that were unintentional but made a sound. An example might be the beginning of Purple Haze, where Hendrix plays a fretted note, and just simply kind of rubs it hard enough with vibrato against the fret to get it to sound, but he accidentally (on purpose probably) bumps into the surrounding strings causing them to ring a little. Another example is when someone plays a note, and lifts a finger, and doesn't intend to do a pull off, but it sounds the note anyway (or they lay a finger down and it makes a note sound, without them actually intending to play it). I've heard the term more recently used to mean what everyone used to call (and still should properly be called) "choked" notes, which are notes you pluck, but the hand doesn't put any pressure down so the notes don't come out, or you can barely get a sense of pitch from them. We would call those "muted" notes as well, but usually muted also primarily means muting with the RH as in "Palm Mute" (which still gets the correct term...). In an octave, we would usually say the middle string is "muted" as it's very often not really intended to sound at all - it may be a little chunky within the sound or something, but it's usually "choked" or "muted" (better) in the same way doing "chicka chicka" with your hand laid across the strings to create that percussive sound is. People online are screwing up all kinds of terminology ("Legato Techinique" is the worst IMHO - it's called Slurring and has been for decades) so Ghost Note seems to have taken on another meaning as well, but in the octaves I'd still definitely consider it a muted or choked note.

  2796. musictheory 2018-08-30 00:16:04 Jongtr
    Lots of melodies consist of little else but arpeggios. First one that comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CI-0E_jses Of course, the more interesting the chord, the more interesting the arpeggio is when turned into a melody - such as min9 beaumega1 says. Some ideas [here.] (https://www.guitarworld.com/lessons/expand-your-melodic-colors-9th-arpeggios) More examples of arpeggio-based tunes [here.] (https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-well-known-melodies-that-are-arpeggios-of-major-and-or-minor-chords-e-g-Ob-La-Di-Ob-La-Da-for-a-major-chord-arpeggio) In rock, guitar solos based on arpeggios are quite common, and often turn out strongly melodic: e.g. Hotel California (12-string intro and final harmonised section of solo), and Sultans of Swing. Even more common in jazz, eg Charlie Parker, where arpeggios formed the major part of his solos, and some of his melodies. IOW, not a new idea at all, but still a good one!

  2797. musictheory 2018-08-30 01:55:20 Derantol
    Yup. I definitely feel myself playing a phantom violin (and at this point, bass guitar sometimes), feeling out notes and their relationship to one another. Specifically, I think my strongest point to begin with was intervals - I know that if I have one finger up a string and up a half step, I've got a minor 6th interval, no matter where I actually have them on the instrument. But I never had to think that; I just heard the notes, felt myself play them on my hand, and then translated directly from my finger positioning to the name of that interval. If you think it's the transposition that does it, I could see why I had such an easy time. Once you figure out that the violin is essentially the same, no matter what position your hand is in, transposition quickly becomes second nature. I don't have the piano chops to think through transposition the same way on a keyboard, but maybe that's the key skill that I'm lacking that would "unlock" the piano for me.

  2798. musictheory 2018-08-30 04:16:58 ttd_76
    You're in good shape, dude. I think you actually have a pretty good idea of what you need to work on and how to do it. You just have to put some time in and do it. I think there are three immediate things you can do: 1) Start by learning your triad shapes all over the neck. Especially ones that use three strings and can be played as chords. There's only three basic major triad inversion shapes. Learn all three, they're pretty easy to look up on google. Then play them up and down the neck vertically, making sure to adjust for the messed up G to B string interval. Then if you know which string/fret is the third on each inversion, then the minor inversion is just moving that note a half fret down. Honestly, you can tackle one or two inversions a night and practice for 10 or 15 minutes. In a week or so, you'll have them all. You'll have to keep playing them to get them totally burned into your long term memory and playable on instinct. But that'll happen as you use them. The actually hard, active learning part is done. No big deal. 2) Just start memorizing the fretboard notes. Do one string at a time and/or all the strings one fret at a time. This is honestly just rote memorization. There's plenty of online "games" that will help. Tenuto is one but there are dozens. Or just make flashcards and run through them. If you do one string a day and practice 15 minutes, you will be done in a week. Again, it will take a lot longer for you to not have to think or to cheat and count some frets but the real hard work will be done. From there you can just spend 5-10 minutes a day quizzing via one of the online games, and you will also reinforce your knowledge by using it when you play. Like now that you know a G major triad, start playing that G major triad shape on each string. 3) Now learn the actual notes for every triad. C major= C, E, G. This again is mostly memorization of circle of fifth type stuff. You can look up the triad notes online, and just memorize one or two a day. If you memorize the major triads, then you know the minor triad is just moving the third a half step down, so that makes remembering the minors easier. What makes it even easier in your case is that you say you already know this, you just kind of blank out on guitar. So this is another thing you just work on 10 minutes a day. Practice your G major triads, sing the pitch and the note. So just working through your major triads on guitar for 15 minutes now will help you reinforce the shape, the sound, the fretboard, AND the notes. Being musical and knowing theory from other instruments means you are really almost halfway there already. It shouldn't be too hard for you. &#x200B; And then the fun part starts. Now you can just go and play all the songs you know or whatever new songs you want to learn. Find some tab and play it. Only now play them using the new chords you know. So instead of power chording your way through Knocking on Heaven's Door or what not, try using inversions. A good trick here is to start off with a string set like the middle three strings and take a pretty simple three or four chord song. Start with the first chord and play it with root in the bass on that string set. Now play your way through the progression using only those those three strings BUT moving your hand as little as possible. Which means instead of playing one inversion and then moving your left hand up and down the neck, you will find the inversion of the next chord in as close the same position as possible. By doing this, you are learning about voice leading and how it can give the same set of chords a much different and smoother, more sophisticated flow. So you start to hear how guitarists can come up with cool sounds and riffs from the same basic chords. And it's forcing you to really know your triad shapes, fretboard notes, and naming chord notes at the same time. I would honestly tell you not to get lessons until you have done this. Again, not having it stone-cold memorized instant-inversion-whenever you want, but understanding the concepts clearly and being reasonably familiar so that if given a minute you could work out a cool voice-leading line for a three or four chord progression. To me, knowing this stuff is fundamental to everything else. So you won't get that much out of lessons if you don't have this basic knowledge. And it's not worth it to pay a teacher $30 an hour just to have them tell you to make flashcards and memorize the fretboard. Save your money for lessons when it really counts-- when the teacher can show you something you can't learn yourself but you have the underlying knowledge to understand what they are showing you. Give yourself a 4-6 weeks just to work on this. None of it is particularly difficult, it just takes patience and a bit of organization to keep focused. If you have a few bucks, there are two awesome choruses on [truefire.com](https://truefire.com) you can buy. One is called "CAGED triads" by Rob Garland. It's pretty easy to follow and the nice thing is he shows you where the triads are in the common chord shapes you already know. The other one is called something crazy like "Hendrixian Triads and Double-stops" or something like that. Terrible name. But it's the same thing. The instructor just walks you through where all the triads are and examples of how you can play some popular, well-known songs with triad arrangements. Most of those Truefire courses are like $20 if they are old (which both of those are) and they run some kind of sale every month on whatever the major holiday is and then you can pick them up for $15 or less.

  2799. musictheory 2018-08-30 16:02:55 PM_ME_UR_PERSPECTIVE
    Mick Goodrick has his students play things on one string so that you hear where you're going instead of relying on patterns. You want to connect your instrument to your brain as directly as possible. I play saxophone, so I sing a 2 or 3 note phrase, play it on the horn, sing the same notes and add one, and continue on in that fashion until I have a long line of notes. Like a game of Simon, basically. You have the advantage of being able to sing AS you play, so that's the first thing I would do. Then it's just learning solos and listen to as much music as possible. Listening is not talked about as much as it should be. Learning to play the instrument is important, but if you don't have anything to say, it doesn't matter how well you can play. Actively listening to music is the most important thing to me for getting and idea of what I want my musical voice to be.

  2800. musictheory 2018-08-31 04:03:56 ttd_76
    But then you're using three fingers, or possibly all four. The nice thing about the one fret min7 is that not only does it free up your other fingers, it's easy to find the right key by just looking at the top string (same as the bottom string) and barring. But beyond that it's basically just the left half of the classic box pentatonic shape so beginner guitarists already know what they can play with those other fingers they just freed up. Nothing wrong with x2423x either though. You're not working out of the box pentatonic but you are still working out of a CAGED/EDCAG shape. And the root is in the bass so it's kind of easier to hear and work with. You're a little lower in the register so you've got some room to move up or down (or to cede it to a lead instrument to play). And really it kind of IS just the box pentatonic, just move everything one string lower. I dunno, both are nice drop-2 voicings. Both are pretty handy. Neither one is super-hard to finger (and one is actually super-easy) or understand. I guess I would consider both shapes to be "need to know" chords even for rock guitarists who don't use min7 as much.

  2801. musictheory 2018-08-31 06:52:31 LiamGaughan
    Ah it's the fucking worst, I agree whole heartedly. There's no need for a full vocal track to be on every guitar book transcription IMO. Simple songs become thousands of pages long. It's overwhelming and it's a big reason why so many of my students are scared of 'reading music'. They buy a book and on each page there's sometimes only two bars of music because of the vocal score, and lack of repeats because of something dumb like a palm muted chord on the end of the 4th time round or something..... This is why I make all my own scores for my students. I've also seen some really bad cases of 'over-transcription' like in this beatles revolver book: https://imgur.com/a/mvWG0e6 That ain't no G6 son, he was just moving from Am to G and you notated that. And all the 1234 string stuff. They've literally transcribed the exact time he finishes the transition from one chord to the next. It's insanity IMO. I've also seen strummed chords notated with full notation and tab for partial catches of the strings. So it looks horrific on the page but it's just a normal chord strum with a normal rhythm but maybe on one up-strum the guy missed the high E string. COME ON!!!!! The way I see it, beginners need less information. Pros learn what to ignore in the information. These official books sometimes give you everything and piss off both potential users. Bass is my primary instrument and bass transcriptions tend to be better. Ideally, I like my songs to be 2 pages max for a pop song using simple repeats and 1 D.S max, and then with some context depending on the level of the player. For instance, a Red Hot Chili Peppers transcription I would use in a lesson, would not write out every single variation flea picks to play over Am and Fmaj7 in californication. I would maybe write out the first one, and use that as an opportunity to show the student some ways to develop his own 'licks'. And then if I'm on stage, the same applies. I don't need every god damn fill, and I don't want verse 2 writing out again for a hammer-on halfway through..... rant over. Edit: all the vocals, no chord symbols. worst worst worst!!!!!

  2802. musictheory 2018-08-31 12:15:24 ttd_76
    It’s crazy how effective the “unitar” exercise is. It teaches you to better see the fretboard (not applicable for non-guitarists, lol), to hear modes, and to improvise all at once. You are also learning left hand movement (again not applicable to non-guitarists). I can’t figure out the secret of why it works well. I think it’s a combination of the basic rules of the exercise being so simple (just playing on one string) while there are no musical restrictions at all other than using the proper mode. It almost forces the creativity and understanding out of you because you are trying to make something out of nothing. I go back and do a little unitar playing at least once a month. It’s always the same. “Dang, this is boring and sounds like crap....oh hey, there’s a little something, can we at least try to make that work...” and then by the time my four minutes is up I got a little groove going, a few motifs and melodies. It really forces you to pay attention to all the little things you thought you knew, but didn’t. Play on just one string against just one or two static-y chords for four straight minutes and you will gain newfound respect and understanding of that one string and that mode. Instead of practicing 500 ways to play in C major and getting distracted by which position to choose and what to play over which chord in the progressions, you just play C. So simple. But you reeeaaally get in touch with C major because by simplifying everything else, now you have the freedom to explore each note and interval. But maybe the real key for me is it’s so easy and rewarding. It only takes four minutes to do one string/one mode. And it feels like no matter how good or bad you are at guitar, you pretty much always start off sounding like ass and end up sounding better so you feel good when you are done. One of the few things you can practice where you can feel improvement in just that small span of time.

  2803. musictheory 2018-08-31 21:46:51 DJ_Ddawg
    Most drop 2 Voicings are easy to finger. It’s best to learn all inversions On One String set rather than just 1 Inversion.

  2804. musictheory 2018-09-01 01:08:01 ttd_76
    If you're playing jazz I suppose that you should know every drop 2 and drop 3 voicing all over the guitar even if you end up not using some of them. I agree on learning all the inversions on one string set first, because then you can start applying them to voice leading right away. There are other reasons as well, but that's the big one. Learn all the inversions on one string set, then move on to the next string set.

  2805. musictheory 2018-09-01 06:50:04 RichardPascoe
    The only book that I know of that actually works and does teach you how to read music is Solo Guitar Playing One by Frederick Noad. You will need a nylon string guitar, a footstool, a music stand for the book, and a chair (no arms and at the right height). It takes months to actually learn to read music not years. So don't expect to learn to read music in a week. Give it three months. Don't bother with any other methods. A new copy costs £17 from Amazon - which is less than the price of a guitar lesson. You cannot argue with the price and you must have the paper printed version. You will not learn to read music online, through Kindle or using any other technology. You need the printed book on a music stand at eye level. regards Richard

  2806. musictheory 2018-09-02 20:46:03 mads161
    When string players see that they play two quavers, both on an up bow, then two on a down bow or vice versa. Gives a slightly different tone quality to the quaver. Hope this helps!

  2807. musictheory 2018-09-03 22:34:39 analysisparalysis12
    I’ll answer the second question first - I think that, in general, anybody who plays an instrument with fixed intonation will find it harder to pinpoint intonation when compared with an instrument that needs tuning. That being said, there are relatively few instruments which typically *aren’t* tuned by their performer - piano, most percussion, and pipe organs are the only ones that stand out to me. Pretty much any string, wind or brass player is responsible for maintaining and checking their own intonation, and so I think they have to develop good ears for it. Your first query is harder for me to answer, but I’m not entirely sure what you mean by it - are you talking about the ability to recall and play back melodies? Or being able to recognise inherently good/bad qualities within a melody? It’s tricky because melody is a more ephemeral musical component - harmony has been fairly rigorously studied and categorised across all sorts of genres, and we thus have a wide variety of tools available to describe harmonic movements. Melody is much less rigorous - so without quite understanding what the question refers to, I’m gonna have to pass, sorry. As for who’s got the ‘best’ ears in general? I’m gonna say harpsichord players. They have to be able to tune their own instrument, and typically need to be able to do it in several different temperaments and pitches. They need to be able to play solo, to work in small ensembles, or to follow the music in an orchestra. And they typically have to learn and play their music by listening to the other parts in their ensembles, and then translating that to the (often sparse) figures that they read with their bass line. It’s hardly a blanket statement, but if you tested a group of musicians on every element of aural comprehension, I think harpsichord players would come out looking pretty good.

  2808. musictheory 2018-09-04 01:47:16 Jongtr
    I would agree that players of unfretted string instruments probably have better ears for intonation than players of fretted instruments, or instruments with (normally) fixed tuning such as keyboards. I know my beginner guitar students, certainly, tend to rely on tuners, and often can't hear when their instrument is out of tune, even badly. (They usually detect something is wrong, but can't tell what it is.) And of course, when the instrument is in tune, then they rely on the frets for everything else. My guess, then, would be that the players with the best ears would tend to be those that need to check (and confirm) their tuning constantly as they play, with the fewest mechanical guides. This would apply to bowed string players, trombonists - and of course to vocalists! (I suppose some string players will get used to fingering positions and forget to listen, and maybe singers get used to the feel of particular notes rather than their sound...) Most wind players need to lip notes into tune, but I think many beginners will just press the right keys and hope for the best. (I've known a few amateur saxophone players who seem to have no concept of intonation, believing their instruments are naturally in tune all the way up....) Guitarists are the same to some extent: frets are more reliable (closer to equal temperament) than saxophone keys, but many players are unaware of the effects of fret pressure, especially on light gauge strings.

  2809. musictheory 2018-09-04 04:56:01 jenslarsenjazz
    I will see if I can find an example. It is a 3 note arpeggio on one string (with legato) and then a finger picked note on a higher string.

  2810. musictheory 2018-09-04 08:36:47 ILoveKombucha
    Sounds like you have the basis of an experiment.... One poster (BRNZ42) said "mostly no" (it doesn't matter). What he (or she) is saying makes more sense if you are just accompanying someone. At that point, you are just harmonic background for something more interesting. What you do won't matter so much in that case (it still could matter a bit!). If you are playing solo, it matters a lot more, and I would say it matters A LOT. VOICE LEADING considers how the note from one chord moves to the note in the next chord. Smooth voice leading is melodic. If your chords just randomly jump all over the place, with no consideration for voice leading, your progression will not sound melodic and smooth. In some styles, that is fine (and again, generally as more of a support role, rather than the focus). But I think the music can benefit a lot from careful thought as to voicing. I disagree about BRNZ42 about the guitar. He says you will often not be able to control voice leading very well given the limitations of the guitar. That is true if you only use the basic open chords or barre chords AS-IS. A better guitar player will skip strings, or leave off the last string or last couple strings... or various other things, to make the voicing the way he or she wants it. One thing you can do is take simple folk melodies or children's melodies, and play a chord progression that harmonizes that melody. Twinkle Little Star is a good example. If you just randomly change your voicing of the chords, the melody will be lost. Is that a big effect? Does that strongly influence the sound of the song? I would sure think so! You gotta try and see for yourself. As Twin Reverb says, learn a lot of songs. Analyze what is going on.

  2811. musictheory 2018-09-04 14:30:10 phalp
    I don't have good resources for you but if it's a kind of crappy old piano, don't listen to the doubters. With all respect to professionals who can make the thing *stay* in tune, it's really not that hard to put it better in tune if it's out. Just make sure you tune each string *down* before you increase the tension, so you know the wrench is on the string you're listening to (and not some random string). Something I wish I'd known about the top octave or so is that the strings may have a kind of bridge to shorten them so if you put your mute on the wrong side of it, you're not actually muting.

  2812. musictheory 2018-09-04 21:31:21 1HornSalami
    These are full bends and half bends, you have to bend the string a full note or a half note up!

  2813. musictheory 2018-09-04 22:03:36 arexv10
    Hi, thanks for the reply. When it you say bend the string a full note, or half note up, do you mean it bend it to the first string or the sixth string? I'm kinda confused sorry, or do you mean like make it a higher pitch or lower pitch depending on the arrow? Thanks for your reply though

  2814. musictheory 2018-09-04 22:20:45 DRL47
    If you bend a string, it stretches tighter, which makes the pitch go up. You can bend it enough to raise the pitch a half-step higher, or you can bend it more to go a whole-step higher. The only way to lower the pitch is to use a whammy bar.

  2815. musictheory 2018-09-04 22:32:33 stapler8
    If you've got less of a musical background, this explanation might help. When you're bending a string, the note's pitch increases in the same way it would if you played a fret or two higher. Every fret is equal to a half tone's increase in pitch. So if you're bending to 1/2 then you increase the pitch by bending until it makes the same sound as if you played one fret higher up the neck. For a full bend you bend the string until it makes the sound of two frets up. Bending can only make the pitch higher, so don't worry about that. The only exception is using a whammy bar which does decrease (and on some guitars also increase) your pitch. Hope this helps!

  2816. musictheory 2018-09-04 23:30:51 grunfy_com
    In addition, bending direction doesn't matter...so bending string down or up should produce same sound... some strings are easier to bend down e.g. top E and A strings....otherwise you might slide of the neck.

  2817. musictheory 2018-09-05 02:57:09 axisofelvis
    300+ strings! That can't be accurate. 88 keys, with either 3, 2, or 1 string per. A quick search and the answer is 220-240.

  2818. musictheory 2018-09-05 06:02:45 Jongtr
    > How do you know what notes are in the melody and the chords? Have you found the sheet music somewhere? I transcribed it by ear (a few years ago). (In fact, listening to this performance, I realised I had a couple of the chords wrong first time. ;-)) > The chords are played by bass guitars, correct? Nope. Bass guitars don't play chords. The chords here are played by the orchestra. You see two guitars (at the time point we're discussing) a 4-string bass guitar on the left playing single bass notes (chord roots), and a normal 6-string guitar playing the melody. The first part of the melody (those 4 notes D-A-F-C) happens to be spelling a chord arpeggio (Dm7), and playing chord tones after that, but the main chords are from the orchestra. > What kind of guitars are those, anyways? Some kind of electric/acoustic mix? Both solid-body electric guitars. > What is that instrument called that the guy with the glasses plays with those white hammers? Tubular bells.

  2819. musictheory 2018-09-05 10:51:52 MessianicAge
    I had to watch [this version](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXiK64cuYsg) as the link you sent me has one of those "The uploader has not made this video available in your country" warnings. Assuming that this version is accurate, then those 3 chords are Dm7b5, D7, and G7. The chord progression to the chorus is: Abmaj7 / / / l Bb / G7/B / l Cm9 / / / l / / C7 / | Fm9 / / / l Bb / / / l Ebmaj7 / / / l Dm7b5 D7 G7 / | edit: I just listened to the fansoop version, which has far better audio quality. It is clear to me that the on the first chord the guitar is playing somewhere in its chord the note Eb (I couldn't discern this with the low quality version), meaning that we are, in fact, dealing with an Fm7 chord (and F is clearly in the bass). At the same time, though, there is a D in the lyrics each time we hear this chord in the first half of each chorus (as the notes on these three chords are D, C, and B, respectively), so that complicates things. I guess if we wanted to be really technical we could say Fm76 or Fm7/6 or something (this notation feels clumsy to me but it is technically correct) for this chord every time we encounter it in the first half of each chorus and Fm7 every time we encounter it in the first half of each chorus. On the second chord, I do not hear any D anywhere (which is weird, because when I listened to the low quality version I found on YouTube, it sounded like D definitely was in there, meaning that we would have D7 for the first half of the chorus and we would technically have D7b9 every time we go through the second half of the chorus when the singer is singing Eb), not in the chord, not in the lyrics (I'm not sure what u/Jongtr is referring to when referring to the singer singing a D at 1:12 - the notes she sings at this particular point - and at every time we are at this point of the second half of the chorus - are F Eb and G, so Eb on the second chord - I also don't hear any E natural in the second chord - if the waveform analysis machine is picking up some faint trace of an E it's probably a mistake on the part of the rhythm guitar player, who I think is playing chords on the D string, G string and B string, meaning that it is possible that the rhythm guitar player is inadvertently playing the high E string - quite interestingly, I actually hear someone playing an E at 3:04 during one of the G7 chords in the guitar solo, I'm guessing by mistake). It is very clear to me that we have an F#dim7 chord with F# in the bass. The chords, then, are Fm76(first half of chorus - second half is Fm7), F#dim7, G7. The chords to the chorus are, therefore: Abmaj7 / / / l Bb / G7/B / l Cm9 / / / l / / C7 / | Fm9 / / / l Bb / / / l Ebmaj7 / / / l Fm76 F#dim7 G7 / | Abmaj7 / / / l Bb / G7/B / l Cm9 / / / l / / C7 / | Fm9 / / / l Bb / / / l Ebmaj7 / / / l Fm7 F#dim7 G7 / |

  2820. musictheory 2018-09-05 14:41:33 Evan7979
    Really depends on the project (and the composer). Most gigs I end up writing something. The amount depends. Some composers will be very specific and you just take what they have and translate it for orchestra. Some composers like you say are so time pressed (as are we!) that we sometimes get just string/piano parts for a cue and fill in the rest or sometimes we just get a melody and an emotional word ('action') and have to write something. That's not very often though. I'd say it's probably 75% orchestrating with the odd bit of writing or touch of flair like adding countermelodies/extra harmonies. 20% writing from mockup sketches and filling out scores and 5% completely writing from scratch. If that happens we usually do get a composer's credit with additional music. We're under immense time pressure though and the music really suffers when the orchestrators have to write which is contributing to the general deteriorating quality of the music in film. I often have a 70-piece orchestra to orchestrate a 5 minute cue for in 30 minutes or something ridiculous. You just can't get quality music that way, it turns into a machine no matter who is doing it. Finally, the biggest moment when orchestrators have to step up to the plate is the scoring stage. When it's all getting recorded we'll frequently have composers or directors want to change textures or balance and that's what seperates the pros really. I've had to redo an entire cue for full orchestra from my laptop on a 10 minute break with copyists stood over my shoulders making the parts as I go. A lot of composers nowadays just get bewildered in those situations and wouldn't be able to do it because of the lack of familiarity with orchestral music and the repertoire. But the upside of that is we have a lot of a composers writing a lot of different styles for our films!

  2821. musictheory 2018-09-06 10:44:30 Xenoceratops
    >Consider 1 flute backed by 16 violins. On the score, both parts are marked 'Forte'. If all 16 violins were playing the same 'Forte' they would play solo, I can only assume the flute would be drowned out completely. This depends on the flute's register. Strings are mostly consistent in volume across their register (but take more effort to get as much volume the further up the string you go, because there's less string vibrating and therefore less air being displaced). A flute or piccolo playing in the first octave can be drowned out by ONE (1) violin if their registers overlap too much. A flute/piccolo in the second or third octave can hold its own, even in a tutti passage (though you may need to do octave doubling above to get a flute melody to stand out if the melody is in the 2nd octave). The higher up you go, the more shrill the flute gets. Compare to the clarinet, which is an amazing instrument and can play fff or ppp almost anywhere in its range. >From the conductor's point of view then, do the two Forte markings mean: >• "The violins should be mostly drowning out the flute because together they will be louder" or >•"The violins and flutes should be heard at roughly equal volume"? There's the "old school" way, which is you write "f" for everyone and the conductor shapes it so the violins quiet down a bit and flute comes out. Then there's the "new school" way, which is you write "f" for the flute and maybe "mf" for the violins to get the same volume in both parts. I'm not a conductor, so I can't comment much further. I'm more of the old-school type when I compose. Want a passage to sound forte? Mark it forte. I'll use mixed dynamics if there is a dynamic idea in the counterpoint, i.e. a big ff punch in the brass over a quiet pp sustained pedal tone in the strings.

  2822. musictheory 2018-09-06 11:03:24 FwLineberry
    Just based off the examples, I'd say an important key to coping his style would be really knowing three-string chord inversions.

  2823. musictheory 2018-09-06 23:03:25 Kekes
    the acoustic guitar is being played through the entire song, even through the solo as far as I can tell. The "synth"-y string sounds are likely from an actual mellotron, knowing Steven Wilson's love for that 70s prog sound.

  2824. musictheory 2018-09-07 01:20:02 DeathFromRoyalBlood
    Great exercise! I also have a suggestion that touches upon hearing the different colors and sounds that each mode offers (taught by my guitar instructor). Play each mode over a single note (drone). Cello Drone Track: https://youtu.be/MimVnBAuYqA So start with C Ionian and move thru all the modes (C Dorian, C Phrygian, etc.) and listen to their different qualities. You want to empathize the notes that make each mode unique. I play guitar and I think it’s beneficial to play up and down on one string. For example, C Dorian is a natural minor scale with a #6th (F#), so play notes that jump or skip in and out of the note and try to compare that vs. using the major scale with the F natural. You may start to hear songs or themes that have that unique quality or arrangement of notes. This gets your ear familiarized with that unique modal sound. I feel like this is a better approach than the “C Dorian is just the same set of notes as the B Major scale.” While yes, this is 100% true, it doesn’t provide you with what each mode and all the unique sounds they offer.

  2825. musictheory 2018-09-07 01:40:45 Jongtr
    You mean the bridge of rhythm changes? It's still functional harmony - a string of secondary dominants - but it's true that the concept of an over-riding key starts to disappear. It seems to demand that each chord is treated as its own thing, and the same as the last one. The term "mixolydian mode" is then useful, if only because it's shorter than "major key of the I of which this chord is V" ;-). But there would still be room for chromatics. "Mixolydian mode" is just shorthand for a starting point: but then so is "chord tones plus common sense passing notes" - the point about "common sense" being that it can include chromatics as well as diatonics. And of course, one thinking about phrasing across the chords, linking them, voice-leading, targeting notes, etc. The problem with chord-scale theory (and it's not really the fault of the theory) is that "mixolydian mode" - perhaps because of that magical sounding academic word - is treated as the be-all and end-all: a cookie-ciutter approach requiring no musical thought.

  2826. musictheory 2018-09-07 04:45:47 TheRealBillyShakes
    I really did play that piece. We were taught the modal box shapes so that we could instantly improvise in any key starting with any fret of any string. Yes, we learned the entire fretboard, but if my instructor said, “Key of Bb,” and your starting point was “10th fret, bottom string,” you had to know that the box shape you would use right there was the Phrygian shape, even though you would re-shift the tonic to the Bb on the fly. And yet, I still eat shit in this thread by guys who have trouble playing barre chords.

  2827. musictheory 2018-09-07 08:41:01 leonardearl
    This is, I think, a fundamental misunderstanding of postmodernism. While postmodernism doesn't engage very much with the idea of "objective quality", that doesn't mean it holds that all things are equal. The core of postmodernism is the rejection of grand narratives and the embracing of a multiplicity of models of understandings. Postmodernism recognizes that our perception of the world and art is changed by the cultural and personal background we live in and self-conciously recognizes that, typically subverting it. Postmodern art doesn't ignore the repetoire of symbols and motifs that have been culturally built over time, it plays with them, acknowledging their fictionality in order to ascertain deeper truths. The archetypal postmodernist composer is probably Schnittke, and two short works of his you might want to look up are his *Klavierquartett* and arrangement of *Stille Nacht*, or listen to his *Concerto Grosso No.1*. His *Klavierquartett* is a short single-movement of a string quartet based on a scraps by Mahler. However, unlike how a composer from the pre-modernist period would handle it, the original material *ends* the piece instead of beginning it. Schnittke uses the Mahler excerpt, written in a more traditionally emotive style as a sort of tragic afternote to his own work, which seeks to reconstruct a piece of music that never existed, and whose time is passed. This is the essense of postmodern music, a conscious playing around with convention as a way to make commentary on the material and the artform itself. As for whether it matters what notes we use outside of any postmodern framework, of course they do. It's absurd to think otherwise. Our brains have evolved to respond to the relationship in frequencies of sounds. We instinctually find a 5:4 ratio (major 3rd) more stable, and typically pleasing than a 17:16 (don't know what). The cultural associations we develop beyond that are, to an extent, arbitrary, but once they exist in the mind, they're there. We're conditioned to associate major chords with stability, contentment, even happiness, and those associations will exist and impact how your music is heard and what meaning your audience derives from it.

  2828. musictheory 2018-09-07 13:47:07 ttd_76
    Probably because it’s too formulaic. Once you get your melody, mute your chord progression. Just listen to the melody on it own. Does it have some sort of ebb and flow? Like a call and response, or rhymic variation, accented notes, off beats? Does it make a nice sort of wave shape where it goes up for a string of notes, then go back down perhaps quicker and then maybe up again? Think about octave displacement, where you transpose a note or section up an octave. Now go back and rework your chord progression. Maybe dorking around with your melody makes you have to change a chord, maybe not. But think about voiceleading. Is there a way to revoice your chords so they form some nice lines instead of just all the voices jumping in parallel from I to IV and then to V? Can you insert some passing chords in there, maybe make a sub? Think again about rhythm, is it just straight quarter notes, or maybe you can add some swing to it. Or at least vary your pattern. Now add another layer, like some kind of riff or just a very lush, textural pad sound. If you are going for rock or blues think about all the 12 bar blues or classic rock songs written with just a I, IV, V. What are they doing differently than you? I like to think about music theory as a way of describing “moves.” You don’t use it to write. You use it to observe/listen. You find things you like from other people’s songs. You use theory help you remember “Oh that’s a Dmin arpeggio riff with an added 6.” Then you can play that “move” yourself or start working on variations to it. Theory is not good for writing music. It’s for explaining or describing it after the fact. You use it to learn, but once learned you have to try and turn it off to some extent when you write because it stifles your creativity. It’s like writing a book where you first think about what words you want to use, then how long it will be. Just write, let the ideas flow. Edit out the bad ones and work on grammar later. Especially when you try to work digitally. It’s easier to write in eight notes or quarter notes, then just loop stuff or copy and paste. It’s hard to work on things when you aren’t creating the sounds spontaneously. Like if I want to maybe play around with a line on my guitar and try some different things, I just play them and compare. It’s hard to do that when it’s like “mouse, mouse, turn a dial, mouse, mouse, select, call up plug in, mouse, effect, dial, etc.” I feel like it takes ten times longer to write anything that way, and it is frustrating and you get bored and lazy. Everything sounds mechanical because there’s no way to capture “feel” like that.

  2829. musictheory 2018-09-08 00:47:43 kisielk
    One of the best methods I learned, which I'm almost embarrassed to admit was not that long ago, is to play in terms of roots and intervals. It basically involves knowing all the notes on the fretboard, and then being able to jump to them over chord changes. You don't have to \*play\* those root notes, just use them as a reference point for playing intervals and scale fragments. It really opened up my playing and improvisation and it was the first time I felt free of box patterns and 6-string scale sequences as is commonly taught in guitar.

  2830. musictheory 2018-09-08 12:23:57 ttd_76
    First, you don’t have to tune everything to the same key. Especially in modern music, the line between what is a mostly atonal beat (traditional drum hit) vs what can be considered a pitch can be blurred. Like think about a rock concert. They play 15 songs probably in at least 5 different keys. But you don’t see the drummer retuning his snare 5 times. He just hits the same drums the same way regardless of the song. Or consider rap music, where the person is rapping OVER a sample and not so much singing WITH a sample. If the sample is just background, it may not need to be tuned. But with all the different sounds you can create digitally nowadays, things don’t always fall neatly into a category of some kind of rhythmic bang from beating on something vs a pure vibration coming from a reed or a plucked string. You get things that are kinda rhythm but also kinda have a tone. So your “beat” may or may not have a key. It could be in between where you may want to tune one element of it but not others. Or, it may not matter at all. It’s just a matter of whether it feels like a beat, noise or just a textural element or if it feels more like a melodic or harmonic element. As for keys, they are a specific pattern of notes you use within one octave. Your track/sample/synth may encompass many octaves. Like a piano has a very low C and a super high C. Both those notes are still C’s and in the key of C. A bass plays low notes, so a bass C is different than the high C that a piccolo plays. But those stil C’s and in the key of C. So you could be playing very low or very high and still be in the same key. A key is not a range of notes, but rather how that span of notes gets divvied up. There are traditionally 12 possible tones in one octave. Those octaves repeat themselves at given frequencies. The key dictates which 7 out of those 12 notes in an octave is used in any given octave whether that octave consists of high notes played or low notes. All major keys sound the same in that if you take a song in G major and transpose it to C major, it’ll sound mostly the same. All minor keys are like that as well. But minor and major are different. A song in G minor will sound different than a song in G major. The caveat is, all the instruments that create a harmony/melody together have to be in the same key. If everyone is playing in C major and then next time you play the song everyone decides to play in G major, the song still sounds the same. If one person stays in c major, and one person plays in G major, it will sound awful. Yes, you can change keys in the middle of a song, and it happens somewhat frequently. But you can generally hear it. The song feels like it shifts mood/vibe. And they change keys precisely for that effect. Especially going from major to minor. And again, everyone has to change keys together if you do this. You can’t just change keys for one track/voice/instrument. So put this all together. If you take your vocals that sound good and areF major and try to put it over someone else’s song that is in F minor, you’re going to sound bad because things are being played in two different keys simultaneously. So he is going to have to shift his instrumentation around to be in F major or you will have to shift your vocals to F minor. But eithe way, there’s going to be a somewhat noticeable shift in vibe to either your track or his because something is getting switched from minor to major or the reverse. Not everything on his track or your mix may be in a key. Like I said, pure beats and samples don’t have a key. They’re just rhythms or noise and don’t really have a musical tone to them. Those tracks you might be able to leave alone. Or you can try transposing them. Since they don’t alteady have a clear singular tone/frequency anyway, sometimes it doesn’t matter if they are transposed. A lot of times it does though; they sound weird. Certain samples really only sound good in limited ranges. As to what changes exactly need to be made to meld your two tracks, I would trust the audio engineer on this. He doesn’t appear to be saying anything crazy. You have two or more parts in two different keys so they’re going to have to get sync’ed up to the same key.

  2831. musictheory 2018-09-09 04:13:34 Geromusic
    D# minor and Eb minor both have 6 accidentals, so neither is the more logical choice as far as the "write with as few accidentals as possible" convention. Next I would look at any chromaticism and see if it has a tendency to add more sharps or more flats, and choose the one that avoids the most double sharps and double flats. After that I think it's personal preference. String players are often more comfortable with sharps and wind players with flats. Have fun!

  2832. musictheory 2018-09-09 22:21:38 Copilotclaude
    Just to add to the mix: Good soloists often mess with their intonation. Sax players might play a hair sharp to get their sound to stick out on top of a full band (some players do this by accident...) . Then there's all the "blue third" stuff in the blues ofc. I'm told that solo violinists dip into just intonation when they can (eg playing the 3rd of a major chord "exactly right" rather than in ET) - although I've never sat and talked to a string player about it. I think in general you can mess with microtonal stuff a whole load and it works out pretty ok!

  2833. musictheory 2018-09-10 03:27:04 FwLineberry
    7 frets up on the same string Up one string, up two frets Down one string, same fret

  2834. musictheory 2018-09-10 03:34:40 65TwinReverbRI
    If you play an E Harmonic Minor backing track, you play E Harmonic Minor. If you play E Phrygian Dominant backing track, you play E Phrygian Dominant. It's that easy. There's no need to say, "over X chord, I play this, and over Y chord, I play this" if you're thinking "I play E Harmonic Minor over the Em chord and B Phrygian Dominant over the B chord". Yes, the two modes are rotationally related, but really, you're in Em and you play Em. If you find a C chord in the progression you don't (or shouldn't) change to some C scale - you just keep playing Em and you might emphasis the notes of the C chord, but otherwise you're still playing Em. If you were playing in B Phrygian Dominant like the solo in YYZ, then you don't change to some other mode over the C chord (that would end up being the same notes)- you're still just playing the same freakin scale - B Phrygian Dominant. On the B string, 0 1 4 5 7 8 10 12 would be B Phrygian Dominant It would also be E Harmonic minor, with the 5th fret being the tonic. Which means the E string: 0 2 3 5 7 9 11 12 is E Harmonic minor - and also B Phrygian Dominant, but again, don't play E Harmonic Minor over the E chord and B Phrygian Dominant over the B chord - you play E Harmonic Minor over an entire progression in Em, and instead when the "key" is B Phrygian Dominant, you use that over the whole progressions. Playing the same scale but changing it's name just because the chord is different is unnecessarily overcompensating things.

  2835. musictheory 2018-09-10 04:03:35 Derantol
    Violinist here - you're pretty much described my experience with that. On a violin, you've got 4 notes that you can't change the tuning of on the fly - each open string, typically GDAE from bottom to top. Everything else you can tune on the fly, edging it up or down tiny amounts. Honestly, it's no different than the majority of wind instruments - sure, you have a set of keys you press for a certain note, but for some instruments, there is another set of keys that gets very close to the same note, and in both cases you can bend the pitch up or down with your lips or mouth or whatever. I think the reason that the violin has an easier time of it is that you can (and often do) play double stops, two notes at the same time. If you tune those notes just right (get it?), you can hear otherwise almost inaudible overtones, since your ear is so close to the instrument. For non-string instruments, practicing that level of tuning with two separate instruments and two separate players is certainly something you can do, but you can't practice that kind of intonation solo without resorting to a tuner or pitch generator, which doesn't really give you the "live performance" kind of tuning that is ideal for intonation practice. I guess an exception would be the thing where you hum a note while playing some other note - I've played around on a trombone and tried humming the fifth above or below the note I was playing through the instrument. It's weird and difficult (at least for me, since my proficiency with brass instruments is "I can make a reasonably stable tone in the center of the range"), but if you can lock your hum in at the right pitch, you get a slightly more intense version of the same experience that I've had listening to myself play two notes on the violin perfectly in tune. It's almost like you can *feel* the notes locking in and creating those overtones. And now that I'm thinking about it, I've been in choirs that have produced the same thing. It takes a super SUPER live acoustic, like a gym, and you still have to have everyone very well in tune, and you only hear it with certain types of songs. But I've had chords where I couldn't hear myself singing - instead, I just kinda *felt* in tune. Anyway, yeah. Violins typically end up playing in just intonation, especially when fully solo, because that's what naturally sounds the best in most cases.

  2836. musictheory 2018-09-10 04:20:32 selloa
    Why yes there is! The amazing Ligeti Violin Concerto. It has the soloist as well as the principle viola each tuning a special 'scordatura' on their instruments, while the orchestra remains in standard tuning. The scordatura for the solo violin is 55 cents higher, which is achieved by tuning the instruments E-string to the solo double bass seventh natural harmonic of its G-String, which in turn sounds 45 cents lower than an f. The solo viola tunes its D-string to the fifth natural harmonic of the bass' A-string, sounding a c sharp 14 cents lower than normal. Each soloist as well as the orchestra tune their other strings in perfect fifths. It's also got Ocarina quartet in it with two soprano ocarinas in C, one in 'high F' and an alto ocarina in G. It sounds absolutely amazing :) If you ever get a chance to catch it live somewhere with a skilled ensemble, you are definately in for a ride!

  2837. musictheory 2018-09-10 06:06:12 Jongtr
    If you have an E harmonic minor backing track (whatever that is), then any other mode of that scale - including B phrygian dominant - will sound like E harmonic minor. IOW, you can choose an E harmonic minor scale pattern that some fool has labelled "B phrygian dominant" (maybe because B is its lowest note), and accent B all you like, but if E sounds like the root of the backing track, then the sound you produce will be E harmonic minor. E harmonic minor with maybe an emphasis on the B. That's not phrygian dominant. If you want a B phrygian dominant sound, choose a B-root backing track (a B major or B7 chord), and play the E harmonic minor scale over it - *any* pattern of E harmonic minor you like, anywhere on the neck, starting on any fret on any note. Of course, you can accent the B note too, which will help, but the chord backing chord is giving you the tonal centre. Likewise, if it's E phrygian dominant you want, choose an E major chord (or E7) backing, and play A harmonic minor over it (again, any pattern you like). EDIT: just to add: "accenting" the root note is not as effective as *ending phrases* on it. E.g., without any backing at all, you could make A harmonic minor sound like E phrygian dominant by starting and ending phrases on E - if you do it enough and make it convincing. Naturally if you also have an E backing track (one E or E7 chord), that takes the weight off you a little. But the main point is, you can solo anywhere on the fretboard, because those E root notes are everywhere (two per string). No particular pattern (of A harmonic minor) is required; just knowing where those E's are... ;-)

  2838. musictheory 2018-09-13 00:14:46 WesleySideStory
    Yeah the first on is tough to name without it being awkward. I’m trying to think of a way to keep the E in there without it causing too much function problems. I just like the bass voice leading as E G A F as it is a very simple and classic string of notes that feels F major. To me. I’m not sure if naming the key something else or a mode or making a slight altercation to the first chord will help.

  2839. musictheory 2018-09-13 01:09:10 65TwinReverbRI
    Fm/C = F minor chord with C note in the bass (lowest sounding note, thus, inverted). Em - A7 in that notation is meant to show that there are TWO chords in that MEASURE. You could assume that the A, C#7, and F#m all get 4 beats, and the Em and A7 get two beats each. There's no standardized way to write that but especially with the "|" lines that's the assumption. Some people do things like put them in brackets" C - F - [C-G7] - C for example (helpful when using dashes between measure long chords rather than the vertical line). Inverted chords are dependent on the lowest-sounding note only. The *distribution* and *amount* of the upper notes doen't matter. E-G-C, E-E-E-E-E-G-C, E-C-C-C-C-C-G, etc are all first inversion C chords. "C6" is also an actual chord so it's really not a good idea to use inversion numerals with letters. C/E, or I^6 is best. "C6" as a chord (C-E-G-A) is best just called "I" or the context needs to be clear so any use of "I6" shows it's a "6" chord, and not a first inversion chord. Actually, it makes people a little crazy here when a person posts some convoluted string of numbers for a chord progression - I think they're thinking they need to be "smart" and want to post numerals because they think it's the thing to do. No, most of us would rather see the actual chords. 'I have a song that goes I-iii...." screw that. "I have a song that goes C - Em - etc - that's the way to write it. I - iii - IV would all be assumed to be in root position yes.

  2840. musictheory 2018-09-13 08:45:38 JSW2K7
    Yes, instruments will vary their volume when playing individual lines to give it a contour, however I think what you're asking is to do with the art/science of orchestration. &#x200B; Certain blendings of instruments will or will not work together, and in the real world dynamics are not faders to be simply moved higher or lower. For example, a harp will never be heard over a full brass section, or certain groupings of notes in a chord may not 'blend' (sound nice and coherent). The style of music used in Hollywood films today (popularised by Hans Zimmer) is completely unplayable and impossible to perform live. There's a certain phenomenon known as 'impossible strings' where he likes to use a string melody over 12 blasting fff horns. This would never work. This music is recorded in sections then automated around like a clip in a DAW, and audiences can tell that something isn't quite right. &#x200B; Orchestration takes a lifetime of study and listening to real orchestras to understand inherently. The quickest way of doing so is by transcribing music that you love then comparing your result to the real score, as well as getting your music played by live musicians. &#x200B; Mike Verta is by far the most straight-to-the-point internet personality that explains how to do it properly while keeping a job in Hollywood. Watch him get progressively drunk over the space of 7 hours while critiquing people's work here. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75rkrApiKw4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75rkrApiKw4) The Orchestration Online community is also very welcoming. I hope this helps! You've just started on a lifetime of study my friend.

  2841. musictheory 2018-09-13 17:08:54 Jongtr
    Flat signs go after the notes. ;-) So that should be: G G G G Bb Bb Bb Bb Db Db Cb Db. It would really help to hear this, because it's hard to draw any conclusions from what is essentially just a string of notes, with no guide as to rhythm or timing. As just notes (not chords) they could all come from the B harmonic minor scale, meaning the notes should be spelled G, A#, B and C#. Alternatively (spelled with the above flat enharmonics), the Ab harmonic minor scale is a possibility, but you have no Ab, so it's unlikely that's the key.

  2842. musictheory 2018-09-13 22:45:04 evijet
    Since the guitar is my primary instrument, I picture it on the fretboard: two frets up on the next highest string is a perfect 5th, one fret up on the next highest string is a diminished 5th/augmented 4th, and since it's spelled Bb and not A#, it's a diminished 5th. You could also picture it on the piano if you're more familiar with that instrument: a 5th between any of the white notes except for between the B and F is a perfect fifth, and E to Bb is a half step smaller than the perfect fifth between E and B, therefore it's a diminished 5th. Or you could count the half steps, which works OK for smaller intervals but not so much for a 5th. Then there is the method that I was taught in high school music theory class, which is cumbersome in my opinion: Regardless of the key signature, pretend you are in the key of E major which has 4 sharps and therefore includes a B natural, so E to B is a perfect fifth and therefore E to Bb which is a half step smaller must be diminished. I do not use that method.

  2843. musictheory 2018-09-13 23:49:05 PlazaOne
    You aren't the first, and won't be the last! C is a "pitch" and the next C in each direction is an "octave" up or down. Octave because the familiar Western (European) system is based around using a scale that contains 7 pitches: ABCDEFG, so the eighth one is where it starts repeating and "oct" is the Latin prefix meaning eight (like October was the eighth month of the year back when the Roman's began the year in March, yay! Or an octopus has eight arms). Then you can squeeze in five more notes between the original set. On a piano your white keys are the "diatonic" notes, and the five black keys are the "chromatic" notes. On a guitar you'd simply see twelve frets making up the octave - not equally spaced, but gradually getting closer together as you go higher up the neck. Pitches are not measured as a linear relationship, but as a logarithmic one. The standard tuning system is A=440 Hz (Hertz is the unit for measuring wave forms in numbers of cycles per second). The next A down would be half the frequency, so 220 Hz. The next A up would be 880 Hz, then the one after it 1760 Hz, then 3520 Hz, etc If you look again at a guitar, the octave is midway along the length of the open string. If you look at a church organ and inspect the pipework, you'll see some very big pipes and many smaller ones. Interestingly, as well as doubling the length of a pipe to generate the pitch an octave lower, another alternative is to block one end and force the soundwaves to travel further before they can escape. This is how wind instruments are played, by using fingers or keys/buttons to block most of the holes except for the required pitch.

  2844. musictheory 2018-09-14 00:55:50 65TwinReverbRI
    >Forgive me any small mistakes, but basically there’s 7 notes, (or main ones?) Correct. There are 7 "letter names" - A B C D E F G >But there’s a C key on a piano, and another C further up etc and so on. Correct. >They sound different, but also kind of the same.. (at least compared to the other notes) Right. One is "twice as high" or the other "half as high" etc. as the other. In physics, this is a doubling or halving of frequency. If one of those C notes was creating vibrations at 250 times per second, the next one up would be double that, at 500 times per second. Since they do "sound kind of the same" we gave them the same Letter Name - they are both "C" notes. >What actually IS a musical note, what do these two (or more) C’s have in common, because they sound different.. A musical note is produced by a regularly vibrating (periodically oscillating) object like a piano string, guitar string, air column in a flute, etc. We count vibrations per second (vps) and call that the "frequency", which is how many times per second the string (etc.) makes one complete "up and down" vibration (it's more complex than that, but basiclly one cycle, so we also say "cycles per second"). The Frequency is usually given in "Hertz" so 250 Hz = 250 cycles per second or vibrations per second. We could have infinite numbers of vibrations per second but what we did over time is pick specific differences between notes so that the note A is 110 Hz, and the note B is 123 and C is 131 (or about, we actually have different tuning systems available). We did this so "like" notes are doubles of the previous frequency - A 110 - the next A up is 220, the next A up is 440 and so on. B would be 123, the next one would be 246, etc. Since A up to the next A, or C up to the next C covers a span of EIGHT letter names, this was called an "Octave" - so "up an octave" means the frequency is twice as much. So those two C notes are "in different octaves" - one is an octave above the other, or the other is an octave below the other, depending on whether you start on the higher or lower one. You are not alone in your confusion and it's a common hurdle for beginners on instruments - when you teach a child where A B C D E F and G are on an instrument and then you get to the next A, they're like "but you told me A was here". In written music, the two notes appear in different places on the musical staff, so they LOOK different and it's a little easier to understand. In writing, we used to do things like: CC C c cc ccc for each C up an octave, or, we did C C' C'' C''' C'''' and so on. Now we use something called "Scientific Pitch Notation" where middle C is C4, and the lowest C on a piano is C1. The only funky thing about this system is the letters start at A, but the numerals start at C! So it goes C2 D2 E2 F2 G2 A2 B2 C3 - so C3 is an octave higher (twice the frequency) of C2, and without SPN it's just called "C", but as you've heard, it sounds somewhat similar, but different - enough so we named them the same letter, but WROTE them in different octaves. (note, some places use C3 as middle C just to be annoying ;-)

  2845. musictheory 2018-09-14 01:29:37 evijet
    Regarding nature vs history, I don't think there is an absolute answer. It isn't one or the other, and while there is an interesting discussion to be had about the extent to which it is one or the other, I guess I'm just more interested in the natural piece, so to answer your question: > I don't think it's fair to say that's all that it is > Why? I'm not saying this is how it actually happened but I like to imagine that at one point long ago someone was experimenting with a 3-string fretless stringed instrument of some sort and realized that if they placed their finger over specific parts of the string without pressing down all the way to the fret-board and plucked the other end of the string, the string would vibrate and create a sustaining musical tone, unlike elsewhere along the string where the sound would not sustain - they discovered how to play harmonics. So they marked the parts of the string that made these sounds, at 1/2 the sting's length, 1/3 the length, 1/4 the length, and 1/5th the length, and so-on. They noticed the similarity in sound between the open string, the 1/2 harmonic, and the 1/4 harmonic, which are an octave apart. They noticed that the 1/3 and 1/6 harmonics sounded the similar in the same way. They realized the higher harmonics above say 1/6 or so depending on the construction of their instrument were inaudiable, or maybe they falsely assumed that it was not possible to generate sound with fractions any smaller than 1/5 or 1/6. Either way, they found 2 new notes above the tone of the open string, and they experimented with how to tune the different strings such that an open string sounded like a harmonic played on a different string. They decided to tune the next highest sting to sound the same as the harmonic that sounds when they play the harmonic 1/3 up the lower string - they tuned the instrument to fifths. Now they started trying to find the parts on the fretboard where, if they pushed their finger all the way down and plucked the string, it generated the same note that the 1/3 and 1/5 harmonic sound. Recognizing the similarity in octaves and re-arranging all of these tones into a single octave, and repeating the pattern for higher and lower octaves, they learned to play the diatonic scale. Again, I'm not saying it happened this way, but if it did would you call it a discovery or an invention? I'd say it was some of both but there are certainly aspects of it that were a discovery, and those are the aspects that I am more interested in. The part that was a discovery was how to play harmonics, and they only non-octave harmonics they could play that weren't a repeat of the open string tone or other harmonics were found at 1/3 and 1/5 along the length of the string. Another part of this process that was a discovery, not an invention, was the fact that tones seperated by an octave sound similar. Combine these two non-invented physical phenomena and you have the major triad: the open string, 2 octaves below the harmonic played at 1/5 the length of the string, and 1 octave below the harmonic played at 1/3 the length of the strings. This was long before equal temperment (which was definitely an invention, not a discovery) so this was the major triad, pulled directly from notes in the harmonic series, which occur strictly due to physical phenomena. With that in mind I'll comment on another part of your post: > But it's worth remembering that Ionian mode (and its companion Aeolian) has only been part of the western system for a few centuries, and is intimately linked with our bizarre (in world terms) obsession with triadic harmony. Without that (largely artificial) harmonic system, Ionian would have no special significance. Since the major triad comes directly from the overtone series, I question the idea that triadic harmony is an unnatural obsession with strictly cultural origins in western music (if that was in fact what you are implying). The west may have made that discovery and ran with it, but it is nonethelss based on a natural phenomena. Since we get the major triad from nature, and the major triad has both a major and minor 3rd (minor between the 3 and the 5), I think it makes sense not only to say that triadic harmony is a natural phenomena, but also that Ionian is the natural choice for a central mode for the reason that I discovered in response to the other commenter here: If you alternate major and minor triads starting on D, you can get through all of the 7 notes before needing to break the pattern to avoid an accidental, and C is in the middle in that case. You can use those same 7 notes to create any of the modes, but Ionian is the one where the tonic lies directly in the center. That to me provides a pretty good explanation as to why Ionian is the natural choice for the central mode for triadic harmony, which is itself based on the natural phenomena of the overtone series.

  2846. musictheory 2018-09-14 06:49:06 einsnail
    The arpeggio patterns that the harp is playing have a slight bit of motion to them as they change chords. The opening ascending figure sounds to me like it is based on a voicing of a C11 chord (the third is omitted like you would expect.) The voicing sounds to be C-G-Bb-(D)-F. Occasionally it sounds as though the E is added in on a descent to give that C mixolydian sound that you may be referring to. The descending portion that starts with the string line opens with a simple descending two octave CM chord in the upper register of the harp. There is a B added in which gives a M7 quality to the chord but with the string like it seems to bring out more of an Em sound sometimes. As the arpeggio develops the upper G note moves down to F# creating a 'lydian' sound in the context of a C-E-G-F# chord. I think the alternation between adding in sevenths and ninths as well as the creeping in of the lydian voicing give the passage its overall sound, the modality that you are referring to. It reminds me of the opening to Final Fantasy II with the alternation between seventh and ninth chords as well as the minor tonality of some chords giving it this open and expansive sound. &#x200B; Cheers! &#x200B; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kxt8BmfpDM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kxt8BmfpDM)

  2847. musictheory 2018-09-14 17:10:13 Jongtr
    You're close with the tuning, but I think it's the more unusual DACGAD. (The constant open 4th string - capo fret 4 - seems to be an E note.) The chords he's playing are: 11-11-4-9-4-4 = C# G# E E C# F# = C#m(add4) 9-9-4-8-4-4 = B F# E D# C# F# = B(add4add9) ? 7-7-4-6-4-4 = A E E C# C# F# = A6 (The 4th fret notes are open strings, of course, with capo on 4). The 1st and 3rd chords are the main ones, with the 2nd one a passing one, linking the others in both directions. I.e., the 2nd chord is both 2nd and 4th in order, just 2 beats, while the others are 6 beats each. It has a hint of Emaj7 about it (with the D# against the lower E), but is a hard-to-name hybrid chord. There is a B major triad there, but also the C# and E (but no G#), hence my complicated symbol. But beaumega1 is right about the essence of it. It's all diatonic to E major, although - despite that E drone on 4th string - I think it seems more focused on the relative minor (C#). Essentially, it's a i-VII-VI-VII in C# minor. (C# aeolian if you want a mode name. ;-)) You won't quite get the sound he gets with any shapes in EADGBE, if you're concerned about that. But if you just want to play along in that key (in EADGBE, no capo), with a similar sound, the following shapes will get you close: 9-11-9-11-0-0, or 9-11-11-11-0-0 = C#m11 7-9-9-8-0-0 = B(add4) 5-7-7-6-0-0 = A(add9) If any of those shapes are awkward, you could just mute the 4th string throughout (it's only doubling up one of the other notes).

  2848. musictheory 2018-09-15 00:24:38 jaykzo
    Here's my go to trick- Take minor chords and string them together as chromatic mediants or tritone relationships. So like if you're on a Cm, go to any minor chord that is a m3 or a M3 up OR down. Also go to the minor triad built off the tritone, F#. Your melodies will have to morph around each chord, settling into a chord tone. But you will ALWAYS have a creepy and unsettling progression.

  2849. musictheory 2018-09-15 06:15:25 lightningrunaway
    Start playing natural notes only, E F G A B C D E, from open string and go up to the 12th fret. Play them and say note out loud. Then once you got those notes you can add sharps and flats.

  2850. musictheory 2018-09-15 06:30:14 lightningrunaway
    Well there are 6 strings. Each day do a string in the key of C. The 7th day do them all. Next week do G. In 12 weeks you will have learned all 12 notes in all strings and all they 12 major scales as well. Also once you got it up to the 12th fret go until the end of your fret board so you know your whole guitar.

  2851. musictheory 2018-09-15 06:36:41 FwLineberry
    Right. So put them in order staring from E: E F G A B C D E Remember there's only one fret between E-F and B-C and two frets between all the rest. Start on the open string and figure out where those notes are up to the 12th fret. Then do the same thing going backwards. then try finding the notes at random. Once you get pretty good at that, try adding in sharp or flat notes. If you know where B is, Bb is just one fret below that etc.

  2852. musictheory 2018-09-15 06:40:06 65TwinReverbRI
    OK. Why didn't your guitar teacher provide you with a diagram or other instructional material? I'd say that's a clear indication you need another guitar teacher. It's here a little ways down under "Notes on the 1st String (High E)" and there are two diagrams, one as a fretboard, and one as tablature. It then takes it string by string.

  2853. musictheory 2018-09-15 07:51:22 65TwinReverbRI
    Still not sure what you mean. You look at the diagram, and see that E is the open string and you memorize it. Then you look and see that F is the 1st fret, and then you memorize it. Do this for all the notes all the way up. Do it a couple of times a day, every day. It also helps to play it and say the names of the notes as you play then. Then try little two and three note patterns - E-F-G, G-F-E, A-B-C, C- B-A and things like that.

  2854. musictheory 2018-09-15 10:03:28 CyclingMaestro
    Strauss Alpine Symphony brass Bartok String Quartets Bach Bm Mass Pantera :)

  2855. musictheory 2018-09-16 01:58:28 SinisterMinisterX
    About question 2: "playable" notes can depend on dynamics or articulation. I'm a string player (bass). Freshman year of college theory, I'm assigned to write a wind trio. On strings, it's usually easy to play any note at any dynamic. So I called for the bassoon to give me the lowest pitch in its range, pianissimo. My bassoonist literally laughed in my face. That pitch is possible, but requires moving so much air it can't be done pianissimo (at least easily). A good orchestration book will give you all these tips, but I've always found that I remember personal encounters like that more. If possible, get friends to try out your stuff and advise you.

  2856. musictheory 2018-09-16 02:08:52 65TwinReverbRI
    Just to touch up some typos you have: The letters are good enough. However, you have SIX letters and your tab indicates the 6th string is not played! E - 2 B - 4 G - 5 D - 4 A - 2 E - X So you've actually got: B - F# - C - D# - F# (you have an extra B in there). And that is Baddb9

  2857. musictheory 2018-09-16 02:40:48 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, it could be, but typically isn't. Look, Stravinksy didn't go "oh shit, I can't use that note, it's not resonant enough" or "damn, I *have* to use this note because it's resonant, but I wan't to use this note instead and have it be resonant". All of this is too abstracted from actual music making to really be all that useful (unless it's a concept you intentionally want to explore in a piece, which most people don't). One thing that everyone always forgets in these things is that not all instruments have the same timbre. And some instruments (individual instruments) even have their own resonant frequencies. You can't possibly predict that Jimmy, with his flute with an overly prominent 5th overtone, is going to be playing the piece (unless written specifically for him). Clarinets, and Horns, have strong odd-numbered partials so any discussion of even-numbered partials are irrelevant. Flutes have very few partials - so discussion of ones beyond the 3rd partial become irrelevant. Furthermore, higher partials - unless unnaturally louder because of an instrument, string, room, or player deficiency, decrease in volume up the series so the higher they are, the less actual impact there is. The absolute best thing anyone can do who is interested in writing music is forget about overtones. If you're into the whole acoustics bit, then fine, and if you want to write music that specifically integrates those things into music, then fine. But again their influence on composer's decisions are really indirect. Even composers who wrote tonally weren't sitting around going "oh fuck, the minor triad is not represented in the overtone series until very high up in the series, or it's an "abomination of nature" because you can only create it in reverse so I can't possibly use it in my piece". What I think you should take from this is it's not how you write music, but it's a way you could write music if you were so inclined. Now, I'm not saying that playing a higher note that is an overtone of a lower note is useless or anything - in fact, we kind of already do that if we play C-E-G-B and play an E, or G above. But you could try Bb, which is an overtone of the C, and IMHO just as resonant as the G# of the E is. But honestly, most composers don't compose that way - they don't "justify" their note choices on resonance alone - that would be silly (again, unless that was some specific goal of a piece - and to do so without using the notes that are already part of the chord...). Instead, it's based on the sound they want. So see it as ONE OF MANY possible approaches for creating chords or voicing chords, as a way to get or exploit this particular quality. IOW, if you want this kind of sound, this is one way to get it. But, we as composers don't always want just one sound...so I always have seen this book as what we now call "prompts" for composing - ideas and techniques we can use to get certain sounds and explore certain sound worlds, but they're all tools and means to an end, not the end itself. Best

  2858. musictheory 2018-09-16 03:27:44 65TwinReverbRI
    These are always tough. We recently had this discussion which may be worth reading: https://www.reddit.com/r/composer/comments/9f2z3w/feedback_for_a_2_part_invention/ I made (or tried to make) the point that even though you may be trying to "write in your own style", whenever you write a very well known form, especially one associated with a particular style and in that case, and here as well, a certain composer, the comparisons are inevitable. Now, the only way to learn is by doing, and getting critique, so that's good. But what this means is that the only objective critique anyone can give you is if your work meets the standards that are so well-defined by that style and composer. Also, you have to understand that people like me come into a question like this with what I've been seeing over and over again here - which is people trying to learn to write music without ever actually learning to play music, and worse, not even listening to music. I think we had one somewhat recently who even said, "well I haven't listened to very many String Quartets" - yet they were trying to write a String Quartet. Your music appears that you don't really have a command of traditional Minor Key music, and a general unfamiliarity with fugues in general. It looks like you're trying to write a Fugue based on a generic recipe rather than having tasted enough different Salsas (the condiment) to decide on which one you want to try to make. The things you point out as being not-so-great about your subject are not really issues, and again that leads me to believe you're trying to write it from "instructions" without knowing what the final product is supposed to sound like. I'd say your biggest issue aside from not using traditional Minor, is that you have a rather long subject that has at about the point where the Answer would typically come in, the Answer coming in within the Subject! Look at measure 5. You've got the opening motive again. It's the same rhythm. It's the same contour. It's almost the same intervals. But the worst thing is, it's on the Dominant. This is a good place for the Answer to enter, it's a pitch the Answer would likely enter on! In fact, it sounds like this IS the Answer and you just forgot to write the counterpoint in the first voice! There are a few other things - the Eb in m. 2 would almost invariably turn back to the D rather than jump up to the G like that. The rhythm in m. 6 is not a happening thing. I happened to be looking at a Percy Goetschuis's Counterpoint text of which we had an old copy in our Conference Room. I've looked at a few of his works (many are available for free online as they're out of copyright and public domain now) and the writing style is rather dated - like that 1880s to 1920s style of writing that seems "old fashioned" to us now. But this book begins with "The Conduct of the Single Part or Voice" - and it exhaustively - and I mean exhaustively goes through things you think would just bore you to tears. But, while I was reading it, I'm thinking, he's exactly right - he constantly pulls examples from Bach and shows plenty of evidence to support his claims (though I will say, sometimes he says something that may not be totally exhaustive and doesn't present evidence to the contrary). Percy G basically went through all of Bach's motives (and others) and broke them down for us into a compendium of "what not to do" and "do this instead". Now, he did this by scouring through Bach's music, as well as playing it, studying it, and teaching it for decades. This is what you need to do if you want to write like this. You need to sit down and listen to all of the Fugues, Inventions, Imitative Counterpoint, and Counterpoint you can. You need to learn to play it. You need to immerse yourself into that culture until it becomes part of your DNA. And you can try to improve your ability to write it as you go. I wouldn't recommend just using a book, but as Percy G's book basically categorizes all of these things for you and gives you a way to sit down and play or sing them to hear the things that are common in the style. So all that said, good attempt, but I think you've got a little more background. Look at this site to start: http://www2.nau.edu/tas3/wtc/index.html http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/tas3/bachindex.html I think you'll find that most Bach Fugues have a subject that's about 2 measures long. Not 8. 3-4 is considered a "longer" subject. HTH.

  2859. musictheory 2018-09-16 06:01:56 65TwinReverbRI
    Who cares. You've got to get away from this or else you'll never write anything, because you'll always be second guessing yourself. **I've** never heard that before. So, it may be "over-used" to you - but you may also listen to a ton of 7/8 prog metal or something. Most of the populace doesn't. I was showing my son some licks the other day, citing "Freebird" as a great repository of patterns you can steal and put elsewhere, which were themselves stolen from elsewhere. Then I pointed to "Green Grass and High Tides Forever" by The Outlaws, where one of those riffs is used repeatedly to show him that if you learn it once, it's applicable in other places. Then he was working on Mr. Crowley (Ozzy Osbourne) and goes, "hey, there's that lick you're talking about". And I said, "told you so..." There are 10 million or more Blues songs that use the same stinking chord progression. Rather than see that as "unoriginal" consider it a "given". You're not writing your music for Kazoo, Piece of Paper, and Ink Pen Top whistle are you? No, you might be writing it for the *extremely original* combination of Orchestra, or String Section, or String Quartet. But, one of the things you're doing is writing a "lick" when you should be writing *melody* or other more identifiable thing that gives your piece identity. People write scales and arpeggios as "filler" all the time - so no need to worry about that being original or not. Someone has already written a run somewhere similar - no way to get around that. But you need to be looking at bigger picture - is there an individualistic identity to your piece - something that makes it not just simply a collection of ideas taken from elsewhere? It's OK if you use a chord progression, or scalar line, or whatever, in places. But at some point you do need to have something identifiable about it - not every measure has to be like that - I mean, no novelist goes, "oh shit, I can't use "the dog" because this other dude used it". They don't go "I can't say "a penny saved is a penny earned" because it's such a common thing". Because there's a STORY or PLOT - that itself may be an old story, but it's about HOW IT'S PRESENTED that makes it stand apart.

  2860. musictheory 2018-09-16 06:59:28 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, the traditional definition is that it simply comes from a different KEY. That's why we use that name - it's the "five chord from the key of the five chord" - I know that always sounds confusing, so: A D chord in C Major that resolves to a G chord is a V/V. That's a Dominant chord from some Secondary key (the primary key being C) so it's a "Secondary Dominant". It is acting like the V to G, thus making G temporarily seem like a I chord. So since it's making G like a tonic, we call it a "Tonicization". A Secondary Dominant Tonicizes the chord which it is the Dominant to. Just so you know, some people call it an Applied Dominant ( as in, the dominant of some key is being applied to the chord that would the tonic in that some key). Also many people say it "intensifies" the V chord, so you'll hear those words as well sometimes. Most of the time now though you hear Secondary, which I think is nice because it also describes kind of "where it's from". _________ If we see a D chord in C Major, it *could* "come from" C Lydian. We would just call it "II" in that case. So from a strict perspective, our calling it a V/V means it has to be from another key, rather than another mode. However, I would say that if there's no other indication of modality, there's no real reason to invoke modal thinking. ______ Back to V/V Tonicizing the V chord - so that's "temporary" because right after, we usually just go back to the primary key (C in this example). A Modulation traditionally is defined as being confirmed by a cadence. This is part of the definition that many people don't know. I like to think of it as a bit different from a "Key Change" which is more like what happens in modern pop songs where, you're in C, then all of the sudden, you'r in Bb (which is considered a direct modulation). Historically, what we'd see is a string of chords in one key that couldn't be in any other key, then a chord or two that could be in the first key, but also could be in another key: C - F - D7/F# - G - so up to this point, it was in C, and it looks like the D7/C is tonicizing the G as V7/V - but if the music went on: C - F - D7/F# - G - D7 - G/D - D7 - G we'd probably reconsider that tonicization as being a "pivot chord" where the G could be V in C, but it could be I in G (this is not the best example, but just to use the same chords). So the D7 is acting BOTH as V/V in C, and V in G at the same time - and once we get the cadence as a confirmation, it's the key of G. This is why I say a modulation is more "permanent" in that it usually finishes off an cadences in the new key. There are some grey areas in between where you might have keys hinted at but never confirmed, or extended tonicizations of 3 or 4 chords, but those kind of have to be dealt with in context. _____ Now, understand that Jazz musicians did too much dope, oops, did I say that out loud? Seriously though, Jazz is really a different style of music. It borrowed heavily from Common Practice ideas, but it also modified a lot of them for its own purpose. For example, we call what Miles Davis was doing "Modal Jazz", but that kind of "Modality" is quite different from what British Isle or Applachian Folk music does, and it's quite different from what Debussy was doing, and quite different from what music in the 1300s was doing - which are all "modal" (it's even different from rock/pop usage in many respects). And one of the things that seems to stem from Modal Jazz became a fascination with applying modal concepts to everything whether it warranted it or not! (which is why D is V/V, not necessarily Lydian, but you may hear it is from a person steeped in this kind of thinking). So now we have this thing called "Chord-Scale" theory (or approach) where each chord is "assigned" a particular scale (which could be mode) and certain chords "call for" certain scales. If you look at a modal vamp, you can see where this kind of thinking starts - you're on Dm7, so you keep playing D Dorian. It moves up a half step to Ebm7 - so, did it "modulate", well, not in the way we think of it traditionally, but using the notes of D Dorian won't work so well over this chord. So it's really "just a chord progression" but because it's so extended over time, it feels more like a "tonal center" based on that harmony - so we do have to "change scales/modes" (or change keys) to deal with that harmony. So maybe it's Eb Dorian there. When you have chord progressions with chords outside of the key, this happens all the time - now in a more compressed format where it's happening every chord and you have to play a new scale/mode for every chord - or you look for some unusual scale that gets as many chords as you can without changing. And sometimes, chord progressions are built from a scale so there is a scale that goes with them all. _______ Therefore, the strategy to adopt when you see a chord that's out of the key is to first determine how it's working. If it's part of a modulation, it could be possible you should be switching to the new key. If it's just a tonicization, you might need to switch just for that chord. If it doesn't seem to be anything else but Lydian in provenance, then you probably want to go Lydian (which ultimately, is the same scale as the key of the V ;-). Otherwise, you might have to just take the chord in isolation, and play what seems to fit. So you see why we all said, we really need a musical example because it's really the context that determines all this - and when you're improvising, sometimes it won't matter which approach you take because the results can be the same!

  2861. musictheory 2018-09-17 10:10:37 shibbyhornet28
    If you haven't tried a metronome, that'd be the first thing. It's also possible you'll be able to memorize common patterns. A dotted quarter note followed by an eighth or a dotted eighth followed by a sixteenth are the likeliest cases of dotted notes (or of course dotted half and quarter for more lyrical music). Subdivision is your friend. Any rhythm that can be broken down into a sixteenth note subdivision can be broken down into hitting or not hitting on check patterns like "1e&a2e&a3e&a4e&a" (Googling that string or its phonetics will likely turn up a lot on this). There are also mnemonics for most n-tuplets like "tri-pa-let" for triplets and "un-i-vers-i-ty" for 5-tuplets.

  2862. musictheory 2018-09-17 15:13:17 FwLineberry
    I don't know what answer your homework is looking for, but that string of notes is probably going to sound like F major just by virtue of the last three notes outlining an F major triad. If it were a looping phrase it might start sounding like G Dorian with G Bb D E spelling out a Gm6 chord.

  2863. musictheory 2018-09-17 16:18:15 IdiotII
    The good news is that what you think music theory is is literally what music theory is. So you've got a leg up on many of the folks that post here. Education is time-sensitive. We have a certain amount of time to teach so many things, and then we get tested on whether students are "up to standard." I COMPLETELY FEEL FOR YOU when you get frustrated with being told that concepts of theory are the way they are "because that's just the way Western music evolved." That was always infuriating for me. There was always an answer, but I wouldn't be able to understand the answer if I didn't master some other things first. But the fact of the matter is that if you want a working music theory knowledge in a reasonable amount of time, you've got to let things go. I could write a book about why string players love sharps and brass players love flats. Hell, I could spend an hour trying to describe why flats seem more "readable" to me than sharps. There is an explanation for every single one of the grievances that you've just brought up, but they'd require a working theory knowledge for the explanation to make sense. It's kind of like how when you're 13, your parents will finally give up on the stork and admit that babies come from sex and not a magical bird, but they're not ready to get graphic with you and go into detail. This may be a bad analogy. But there are some things in ANY theory that require a set of knowledge to be explained in a meaningful way. There is a reason that people prefer F# over Gb. There is a reason that, while enharmonics sound exactly the same, it would be incorrect to write an F# instead of a Gb. You learn at some point or another WHY these things are the way they are (in the case of the above mentioned, it's fingering and musical "grammar"). But if a teacher throws this at you in Theory I, they're just wasting your time, and their time.

  2864. musictheory 2018-09-18 01:07:50 ttd_76
    They are specific kinds of chord voicings. A drop 2 is taking the second-to-top note in a close voicing and dropping it down an octave. So if you had a seventh chord of some kind, the close voicing (from low to high) would be R, 3, 5, 7. All played in the same octave. If you "drop 2" you take the second-to-top note (in this case the 5) and drop it an octave. So your drop 2 voicing would be 5, R, 3, 7. You can do this with all inversions. So a first inversion 3, 5, 7, R in close position yields 7, 3, 5, R. Second inversion 5, 7, R, 3 becomes R, 5, 7, 3. And so on. A drop 3 is the same thing, only you are using the third-to-top note. So instead of R-3-5-7, you would have 3-R-5-7. They're useful in unaccompanied/small band settings because you get a more open, more full sound. You're not playing four notes all crammed together which can get muddy and may lack overall dynamic range. They're especially useful on guitar because you cannot play two notes on the same string. This makes close position chords extremely difficult to finger, and playing a whole series of them pretty much impossible. So drop 2 and drop 3 on guitar are less of a voicing choice and more of a playing necessity.

  2865. musictheory 2018-09-18 04:17:58 D-roc0079
    I’m sure string players would likely see it as G#, but I’ve played bassoon for many years. I generally only see 2 #’s at most, obviously with exception

  2866. musictheory 2018-09-18 15:31:01 jthanson
    It could be due to the minor variations in tuning systems. Such differences in scales were much more pronounced before about 1750 because equal temperament hadn't become dominant yet. There were still various systems of tuning that produced some interesting variations in scales. That's why Bach wrote the Well-Tempered Clavier; it was a way of showing off the characteristics of the different scales in well-tempered tuning. Nowadays we have the theory of equal temperament where pitches move up by the twelfth root of two from one half-step to the next. However, in practice, it's rare to have a perfectly equally-tempered instrument. Pianos stretch notes higher up on the keyboard and make other tuning compromises. String instruments tend to adjust intonation on the fly to get sweeter, more just intonation in whatever key they're playing in. Wind instruments have certain compromises that give close approximations of equal temperament. That's why there are various fingerings for certain notes on valved brass instruments and also trigger slides. They allow for the adjustment of intonation to get into a more "correct" harmonic series. Besides all of that, some people perceive a different feel or intensity from various keys. Some like Db because they say it's romantic. Others like the brightness of E or A. Some instruments, like string instruments, tend to sound brighter and/or richer in sharp keys because they use more open strings in those keys. It can really depend on a number of factors, some of which are internal to the listener and some of which are external.

  2867. musictheory 2018-09-18 21:43:54 60_Icebolt
    Thank you so much for the response! Very informative and it makes a lot of sense to me now. I even see why I was a bit confused by this at first because I’m a string person, and as you said stringed instruments tend to adjust intonation well when shifting keys. I also happen to play in C# minor a lot

  2868. musictheory 2018-09-18 22:31:44 _SoySauce
    >The notes and intervals of music speak directly to the chakra centers and causes them to vibrate in harmony to the vibration of a string or vocal chords, speakers moving through the air, or the sound of someone’s lips making a farting noise through a metal tube. Umm

  2869. musictheory 2018-09-19 06:33:26 beaumega1
    It sounds like what you're wanting to do is "ear training". A perfect fifth will sound like a perfect fifth on any instrument, so I imagine the main benefit of playing a fifth (or whatever interval) all over the fretboard is to learn how to play a fifth from any fret and string. Check out the 'Help with ear training' bar on the side of this sub. I am quite fond of interval recognition exercises. Some of these tools will play two notes (either one after the other, or both at once), and will prompt you to identify the interval type. Learning to identify intervals will help you know what going to a different fret/string will sound like before you get there. Also, doing the same identification exercises with chords is invaluable.

  2870. musictheory 2018-09-19 11:12:55 jakethesnakebooboo
    Playability doesn't necessarily help you discover typos, though-- this is much less likely to be the case for Villa-Lobos (he played the guitar) than for Rodrigo, but sometimes the composer just doesn't understand the instrument. Look at the last two measures of the Rodrigo "Fantasia para un Gentilhombre". There's a C# written for the 6th string which is tuned a m2 higher at D. That example is absolutely not a typo because Rodrigo definitely actually wants those notes. Too bad he can't have 'em without a 7th string/some crazy crap.

  2871. musictheory 2018-09-19 15:06:35 iammyowndoctor
    I would say with guitar, realize there are almost always multiple ways to play things, intervals included. Focus on being able to see what movements are equivalent (ie play the same notes). That should help you get a sense of where all the notes are on the neck. I would also say, just start using 2 or 3 strings only, and gradually incorporate more of them. Between the 2nd and 3rd string is where it gets confusing, because the interval between them is a major 3rd, not a perfect 4th.

  2872. musictheory 2018-09-20 05:11:21 Musician-Moo
    Many pieces of music have chromatic lines (ascending or descending). They are called "line clichés". A really famous example of this is the [James Bond theme song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9FzgsF2T-s). Listen to the string section! Both bVI and bVII can be used in major and minor keys. In major, this would be called modal interchange. Line clichés are all about voice leading. You can see for yourself what your chord options are by placing each each note in your cliché as the root, third, or fifth of the chord.

  2873. musictheory 2018-09-20 06:01:07 cubistguitar
    I think my first answer was really just a quick thought about memorizing the sound of intervals, not exactly what you were asking about. You wanna know how to make intervals more of a tool for your guitar playing. I think one way to approach this is look at what you already know but thru the lens of intervals. Try this- take a chord progression you already like to play and do this, revoice the chords to move as smooth as possible with 3 or 4 notes only. Start with an root position open voicing and for each successive chord change move the voices the minimum, possible to spell next chord. I’ll make a quick 3 chord example. C, D 7, G The open position C major root position can be played with first finger on 3rd fret, 5th string( C) 3rd finger on 5th fret, 4th string (G) and skip the 3rd string and place the 4th finger on the 5th fret 2nd string (E), That stack is a Perfect5th and a major 6th, that always makes an open voice root position major chord. Now let’s voice lead this to D7. So keep the C as the low note, lower G on the 4th string to F# ( 4th fret) and lower the E on the 2nd string to D ( 3rd fret). Ok that stack is a Tritone and a minor 6th, or third inversion D7 (no fifth). Then next move to G major can be the C lowered to B on the 5th string , F# up to G on the 4th string and the D stays put at the 2nd string. That stack is a minor 6th and a Perfect 5th or first inversion major chord. Ok, let’s make an adjustment, let’s raise each bass note up one octave, or close voicing. So play the 5th fret on the 4th, 3rd, and 2nd string. G, C, and E. That stack is a fourth and a major 3rd ( 2inv major chord)Now, lower G to F# and E to D, ( a tritone and a major 2nd) then keep the D and move F# to G and C to B. ( major 3rd and minor 3rd) Nice simple close position stuff. Now for homework flip up the middle note another octave for the next open voicings of the same chords. If you apply this to progressions you really use, you will be playing all your chords in new positions and new voicings that voice lead nicely. Just think about what each interval of the chords are and you will be an interval master in no time. For melodic study. I like the commenter that said pick a scale and play the simple sequences up and down the scale in each interval, it’s useful for learning how scales and intervals interact. That way you study 3rds, major and minor ones and 4ths, perfect and augmented, etc etc. the highlights are usually 3rds 4ths 5ths 6ths and 7ths. There are melodic goodies in there, just listen and develop an ear for each type of interval and you will naturally learn to put some cool leaps in your lines.

  2874. musictheory 2018-09-20 16:23:25 Jongtr
    Yes, essentially an Em triad, with a couple of added notes increasing in volume and then pulling back. F# first, then A, then G returning. I don't hear D, C# or D# (and I'm listening on good equipment, all the way up to 2:30). The "eerieness" is due to the subtle dynamic changes in the string arrangement, bringing those added tones in and then taking them down, while the triad tones are voiced in different ways (eg the way that G creeps back in front). I don't get "curiosity" myself, but that kind of more precise association is always subjective. (I don't even find it particularly eerie, although the variously swelling dynamic - on a minor chord - suggests something dark, while not being dissonant or scary.)

  2875. musictheory 2018-09-20 16:27:47 mrclay
    You’re kind of adding some arbitrary limitations on what we can do here but here’s an idea. Let’s say key is G. [Em7](http://mrclay.org/chord/52,62,67,71) [A9 (no 3)](http://mrclay.org/chord/45,59,64,67) [Cmaj7/G](http://mrclay.org/chord/55,60,64,67,71) [F9](http://mrclay.org/chord/53,60,63,67,69). On top these are mostly basic triads that resemble the I vi IV you requested: DGB, BEG, CEGB, CEbGA. The last one is the backdoor V substitution. I’d play that bass all on the A string: 7 0 10 8.

  2876. musictheory 2018-09-21 01:59:29 Hsnbrg501
    That's weird, because I had never touched an instrument til I was about 14 or 15 and eventually learned that I had PP by recognizing the sounds of each string on my guitar and not needing my tuner after a while. So, perhaps I already had the skill, but didn't discover it til later?

  2877. musictheory 2018-09-21 06:46:51 SomeEntrance
    That's not true. Highly inspiring music very often has unusual instrumentation/orchestral effects. Beethoveen Violin concerto opening with Timpani. Firebird string glissandi. Unusual instrumentation of Stravinsky's small chamber works (L'histoire de Soldat). Bach Brandenberg 6 for all viols. A go-to for having a good musical idea is to not use a stock effect. The connotation of 'stock effect' IS bland, boring, and clunky; it connotes a device used without thinking, just taken off the shelf, which a good composer usually will not do. Different understanding of the word, perhaps, p The term "Standard orchestral device" would be better, but those have been around so long (more than a century) that it's practically always innovated in good music. Rene Leibowitz wrote a great orchestration book, Thinking for Orchestra, which encourages this approach.

  2878. musictheory 2018-09-22 03:40:19 Scatcycle
    They don't sound bad because they fit the context of tension. If you had a nice graceful string piece and in the middle of your theme played that chord it would sound god awful. Although there are inherent effects in dissonance (beating for example), whether it sounds good or bad depends completely on the context. If I go on the piano and bash a bunch of random intervals that don't seem to have any tonal center or direction, it's going to sound pretty bad. Add harmony under it that support the tones, thus giving them direction? Can sound great.

  2879. musictheory 2018-09-22 04:15:15 65TwinReverbRI
    I would say that your varied interests are actually a great thing. To just highlight one case here - Universities tend to be the places where the "best current information available" in terms of "cutting edge" research and performance practice are available. For something like Lute, a school that has a strong Early Music program and resources would undeniably give you an experience that you'd be unlikely to get "on the street" so to speak - at least without serious resources possibly available outside a university (like local experts who aren't affiliated, etc.). You strike me as someone who would really benefit from a solid BM in Performance or Education (or Pedagogy) or possibly a BA in History with an emphasis on String Instruments or similar, who would then go on to specialize in Ethnomusicology or Ethnic String instruments or Plucked String instruments in general, etc. The first step though is finding a school that promotes this kind of growth and a path to achieve it. Ideally, you want to be able to attend the "best" school so you can start experiencing these things soon, and they have the resources for you. One of the issues with going to a "lesser" school is not that you can't get a great education, but they often lack the resources to offer you more specifically what you're interested in - for example, many schools have music programs with theory, sight singing, etc. But not all of them have any kind of Early Music program. You might want to look for a "Music Technology", "Sound Recording Technology", "Music Production" or similar type degree at an accredited institution that offers a BM where you would study Guitar (or Percussion) as your primary instrument, work towards a "Production/Audio Engineering/Recording" degree, where the institution also has strong Ethnomusicology/Early music opportunities. Most degrees like this not only require proficiency on an instrument for admittance, but the ability to read music well enough to pass an audition. So that is your primary hurdle after identifying an institution. There may be other options in other places in the world. - I have had students who've gone to Scotland to study for a year and come back and all of their credits transferred right over because they had a very similar program where she went. Had another student transfer from Brazil and similar results. So there are great universities with programs like this out there, and it sounds like you are the type of person who would really flourish in a program like this because of your interests. Now, that's not to say you couldn't do this on your own - but it really IMHO boils down to resources - if you live in an area bereft of interest in these kinds of fields, no instructors, etc. it's going to be more difficult to go it on your own. Online collaboration is more possible than ever now but still it's not exactly a substitute for first hand experience. For example, our Percussion Ensemble would give someone the opportunity to not only learn about and research ethinic instruments, but actually perform in ensembles with people who know about this stuff - that experience is hard to replicate at the local drum circle. Likewise, finding qualified lutenists or others who would perform with you would be difficult with most regions - we have professional chamber music societies around town that sometimes perform early music, but no lute specialist in town (they'll usually be a guest artist). It would be different in NYC. But we do have early music ensembles and own a lute so we have had student guitarists able to work with that ensemble playing lute and learning more about it with the help of the instructor. And since it's a vocal ensemble there's part of your vocal pedgaogy there. So, IOW, a solid institution with great resources can really offer you the extra experiences *beyond* your core studies of theory, sight singing, and so on. Some programs with Ethnomusicology also include Jazz, and that's where the transcription stuff is heavy, though if you're interested in transcriptions say for Classical Guitar, from Lute or Oud, etc. and learning about older forms of tabluture and transcriptions/arrangements made from them, you might want to research a more plucked strings school. Be aware that some of these studies aren't really available as a degree until you "specialize" more at the master's level, but, a school that offers such programs at the master's level will also have the faculty and resources available to you while pursuing a bachelor's as well. Research well, and make sure you get your money's worth! HTH

  2880. musictheory 2018-09-22 12:47:09 akimbocorndogs
    I've just discovered Stand! by Sly and the Family Stone. Pretty great song, I *love* the F chord it goes to from the F#. Try A Little Tenderness by Otis Redding has a cool ascending chord progression, check out some live versions where the band uses it to pump the song full of energy. Actually, there are a lot of great Otis songs with interesting chord progressions, Dock of the Bay has another great one throughout, nothing fancy but the fact that it's entirely comprised of major chords gives it some flavor in the right areas while still making it feel relaxing and comfortable. Also check out For Once In My Life by Stevie Wonder, which is becoming one of my all time favorites. Not only is the bass legendary, but it has a really dynamic chord progression that uses voice leading to keep the flow going without ever being in your face about it. In fact that's something Stevie excels at with a ton of his songs, if you haven't already, listen to his string of albums from Talking Book to Songs in the Key of Life, so many great examples of complex chord changes done the right way. Many R&B, Soul, Funk, etc. songs make do with simple chord changes, though, instead relying on a good groove to make the song work, and focusing on the rhythm can be just as interesting as listening to the harmony.

  2881. musictheory 2018-09-22 21:48:13 alwayshotdogs
    In Bruckner's 8th Symphony there's a string section that I find so gorgeous. Here's a recording (https://youtu.be/asJf3KmAg08?t=35m55s) by Karajan with the start time. If you want to find it on the score, it starts on m.11 of the Adagio. [score link](https://youtu.be/asJf3KmAg08?t=35m55s) The section comes back later in the Adagio (section W, about 53:15). i could have sworn it makes an appearance in the Finale but I can't seem to find it. Bruckner knew it was the bomb, though!

  2882. musictheory 2018-09-23 00:34:31 victotronics
    Listen to some famous quartets. Here are the Mills Brothers: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2m8VZBfRYo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2m8VZBfRYo) You'll see any number of these techniques: * solo voice with humming or aah-ing * multiple voices singing in the same rhythm but otherwise using chords * occasional unison * sometimes the bass voice acts like a string bass

  2883. musictheory 2018-09-23 02:06:11 ToastedKielbasa
    To build on what u/karmalizedtaco said, to get that exact voicing also play the 3rd fret of the low E string. So 3rd fret low E string, 3rd fret A string, and 2nd fret D string. Then strum all the strings! That's one of my favorite Maj7 voicings on guitar. You can move the shape all around the fretboard if you toss on your pinky two frets down, from your index, on the G string as well. Edit: I see you play keyboard so forget what I said. I frequent r/guitar too often I think. Hahaha

  2884. musictheory 2018-09-23 23:50:48 65TwinReverbRI
    > And I agree, practice will help, but what I'm trying to convey with this thread is that I don't know how to practice, I'm trying to figure out what goes on in a musician's head when they read a piece of sheet music, in this case one with a key signature and chords. As in, how does a guitarist process a series of 7th chords moving around while keeping the key signature in mind? OK, I'm not sure what you're asking. If you give me a piece of Classical Guitar music, which will have standard notation, no chord symbols or anything, and will have a key signature and any combination of single notes and chords, either stacked or as arpeggios, what I do is read the notes. If the key signature is 3# - F#, C#, and G#, any time I see an F, C or G note, I play them as F#, C#, and G# respectively, and the rest of the notes I play as "plain". When I see a chord stacked up, I'm familiar enough with chords to go "that's an A chord" but actually it's **totally irrelevant** because really, I'm just playing the notes - it's got an A on the 5th string, and E on the 1st string, and a C# on the 2nd string. I don't really care that it's an A chord, because I'm playing the notes. I don't care that it's a I chord, or a Major triad, or anything like that because it's unimportant. It's just like, when I'm reading text out, I'm not sitting here worrying which letters are consonants and which letters are vowels, or whether the sentence I'm reading is in past tense or future tense, or which words are verbs and which are nouns. I know that stuff, and I can think about it if I want to, but it's really unimportant in terms of reading the sentences. The same is largely true for a "Lead Sheet", which would have chord symbols. You play the chord symbols. - Am9 - Fmaj7 - E7b9 - I don't even care what the key is. If it has a key signature, great, but those chords are those chords - has nothing to do with the key signature. If the key signature is Bb Major, and I see those chord symbols, it doesn't matter becuase they over-ride the key signature at that point. Again, I know that these are i - bVI - V in the key of Am, but that's not important if I'm playing the chords - I'm playing what's written. If you see - E7 - A7 - D7 - G7 it doesn't really matter what the key is. Those are the chords you play. >"D# is the iii in the key of B major" once I think about it for a minute, but I guess applying that to written music isn't easy as that for me. You totally do not need to know that when reading written music. B - D#m - E - B - ok, the D#m is iii. Big fucking deal. It means NOTHING. You play D#m and you're done. Again it doesn't even matter that these chords are in B. The piece could be in A Major and you get this string of chords - OK, you've modulated, who cares. Just play the stupid chords. That's it. Walk away. You don't need to "know" anything more about them. What I'm not so clear about, because you keep talking about "written" music, is IMPROVISATION - THAT is where knowing these things becomes more important. But for reading written music, you can just simply read what's on the page - just like I was saying with written language - hell, I don't even know what a plusperfect tense is, or I'd have to look up something like a dangling participle (I don't even really know what a participle is) if that's a thing - but I can read what's written on the page. Now, *more deeply understanding* what's on the page - would I be able to speak the language better if I had a deeper understanding of it? Probably. Would I be able to make up my own sentences in my own style rather than just copying existing things if I understood grammar better? Most likely. Music is the same. You don't need to know these things you're talking about to simply "read" music - you read it and you play it - it's instructions for making sounds. Period. But, things like, "it's the iii chord" are used for other purposes - analytical, practical, theoretical, improvisatory, and so on. We convert chords to numbers simply to transpose them in one application. That's a little like Cryptography where you might take the word "attack" and add 3 letters to each letter, so it reads "cvvcem" and it's important to know that "A=1 and C=#" etc. so you can add the same amount to each one and then "convert" them to a "new" alphabet (there are cypher things called "transposition" as well). Simply using "iii" and knowing that "iii" is part of the diatonic set tells us from an analytical standpoint that this chord is still in the key. How we use that information depends - but if we were improvising already in the key of B Major, knowing that D#m is part of the key simply tells you you can still stay in the key without changing anything if you want and be OK. If you saw I - iii - IV - I it would tell you the same thing (but written music uses letters, not numerals typically). Now, if you see C - E7 - F - G - you would need to understand that E7 is not in the key of C. The numeral would tell you this as it's V7/vi or even just "III7" for some people - but we know either of those is not in the key since it should be "iii". If you don't know that Em is in C and E7 isn't, that's a separate issue that you have to learn. But again, I don't generally go, "let's see, C - E7 - F - G is I - V7/vi - IV - V in the key of C so the E7 is from some other key" while I'm reading music - I just literally play C - E7 - F - G and I'm done with it. Does that help?

  2885. musictheory 2018-09-24 04:30:27 tjbassoon
    The nice thing about those etudes is that you can musically play them very slowly. Steady and even tempo is your main concern, speed comes later. Seriously, go very slowly. Set a metronome to a show 8th note speed. Most of them are just scale and arpeggio patterns in progressively more difficult keys. Edit: I should point out these are written for double bass, so there are some fingering and string suggests for passages.

  2886. musictheory 2018-09-24 07:38:04 tjbassoon
    Yeah that's the one. The numbers over the notes are the left hand finger you should use (figure out the proper string and shape from there). It's for double bass initially, so if you're playing bass guitar like a guitar player, one finger per fret, you'll have a slight paradigm shift but it'll be good in the long run. Not a lot of 3rd finger action except when you get really high.

  2887. musictheory 2018-09-24 16:33:20 pelasace
    Yes, that does, help, it's just the first time I've ever heard of someone reading sheet music for guitar so literally. I had assumed that guitarists wouldn't read, say, a stack of four notes making a regular uninverted 7th chord literally, because on guitar when you play a chord, the notes you play aren't in the same order as the one written. So if, on sheet music, You see the notes A, C#, E, and G all evenly stacked on each other and uninverted, playing that literally on guitar would be different than just playing an Am7, because an Am7 chord on guitar doesn't go in that order. I think this is why I assumed sheet music wasn't read literally for guitar, and that there was some other way to interpret it. > I'm just playing the notes - it's got an A on the 5th string, and E on the 1st string, and a C# on the 2nd string. I don't really care that it's an A chord, because I'm playing the notes. Like this for example, sheet music doesn't tell you what strings notes are on, unless you're talking about tablature. Are sheet music guitar chords written differently if the composer knows they're writing for guitar? Because I assumed that guitarists would just read a regular uninverted chord and have to play it as the guitar equivalent.

  2888. musictheory 2018-09-25 00:21:24 65TwinReverbRI
    >because on guitar when you play a chord, the notes you play aren't in the same order as the one written. Not true. When there are notes written on the page, you play those notes. >So if, on sheet music, You see the notes A, C#, E, and G all evenly stacked on each other and uninverted, playing that literally on guitar would be different than just playing an Am7, because an Am7 chord on guitar doesn't go in that order. Also not correct. You should play A C# E and G in that order as they are written (though that would be unplayable in some positions). That by the way is A7 and you put Am7. But also wrong that an "Am7 doesn't go that order". An Am7 chord contains the notes A, C, E and G. If I play A, C, E, and G, in any order, I'm playing an Am7 chord. If i see "Am7" on a lead sheet (as letters/numerals, not notes) I play it whichever way is convenient or for what sound I want. But if I see the NOTES A-E-G-C-E - I'm literally playing it as it's written. >Like this for example, sheet music doesn't tell you what strings notes are on, No, not always, but you can figure it out based on process of elimination. Simply put, if you see the note E in the top space, you could play that as an Open E string, 2nd string 5th fret, 3rd string 9th fret, and so on. But, sometimes the editor does include indications of either or both position and string (Roman Numerals indicate Position, Arabic numerals in a circle represent string - and you can also figure things out with finger numbers, which also include "0" for open strings). >Are sheet music guitar chords written differently if the composer knows they're writing for guitar? Because I assumed that guitarists would just read a regular uninverted chord and have to play it as the guitar equivalent. Guitar music comes in a couple of forms. There is "traditional" notation, which is simply notes on the staff just like for any other instrument. You play what is written. The composer would know they are writing for guitar and use notes and chords specifically playable on guitar. There is also "sheet music" usually for "Piano/Vocal/Guitar" that is generally a Piano Arrangement with a Vocal melody (sometimes also doubled as the upper part of the piano part) and guitar chords are added - these come as "Chord Diagrams" or "Chord Boxes" now, usually accompanied by a letter like C/E or G7 - or you may just get the letters. The guitarist either plays the chord in the diagram, or plays some C/E, or G7 chord as they feel like it. They can ignore the piano and melody, unless they want to also try to incorporate that into their playing. There are "lead sheets" for Jazz, which contain a vocal melody (or just melody) and chord letter only - C7, Gmaj7, etc. Again, the guitarist just plays those chords in whatever voicing they feel is appropriate to the song. HTH

  2889. musictheory 2018-09-25 03:46:19 65TwinReverbRI
    Learn to play their songs! Also, not sure what you already know, but you need to know your scales, keys, and chords. For example, you need to be able to look at a string of chords and determine if they're in a key or not, and if so, what the scale is for that key that will work with the chords. Likewise, each chord will have notes in it that you would typically focus on while soloing, so while those may be part of the scale, they may not be, so you need to know how chords are built and what notes are in them so you can pick those out. I'd say spend half your time learning to play their songs, and the other half learning whatever scales and keys, and chords you don't know.

  2890. musictheory 2018-09-25 05:02:22 gopher9
    > How do you calculate pure perfect fifth? Like any just interval: `1200 * log2(r)`, where `r` is the corresponding ratio. > Do we calculate intonation with Meantone Tuning? You get meantone tunings (yes, there're many of them) by chaining slighly flattered fifths. For example, 31 tone equal temperament is a meantone tuning with the perfect fifth 696.77 cents wide. > Are ratios instable for calculating frequencies? What do you mean? [Monochord](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochord). You divide the string at half, you get tone an octave higher. You divide the string by three, you get tone a 12th higher. A string divided by three is a perfect fifth higher than the same string divided by two, so the ratio of the perfect fifth is 3:2.

  2891. musictheory 2018-09-25 06:09:48 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, you're pre-supposing that technology was necessary to compose music - obviously, since they didn't have it, it wasn't. And isn't. And that's why people who get a DAW thinking it will magically make them compose, can't. Also, perfect pitch is not a pre-requisite. They would have had very good relative pitch, as do most musicians (pros) today. The ones we really laud were geniuses, but the fact of the matter is that actually quite a great deal of the populace could compose and composed well as it was just something everyone learned to do as it was all around them and considered a useful skill (cultured). Michael Haydn (the more famous Joseph Haydn's younger brother) wrote a Symphony that for many years was thought to be Mozart's - it was at least good enough to be mistaken for one! So there are actually tons of really solid composers you just never hear of unfortunately - and that tends to make the "mystique" of the others stand out that much more. Actually, the Piano as we know it wasn't invented until later in Beethoven's life. Mozart would have played the Fortepiano and Harpsichord. Haydn's "Piano Sonatas" are considered to be written for "random keyboard instrument" (whatever was available) until about the 1770s IIRC when it became more specific to the Fortepiano. Bach was primarily Organ and Harpsichord. Here's something though: These people were TRAINED. They STUDIED MUSIC. They learned to play music first, and were good at it, and trained by professionals. They either worked in school or church (choirs) or in Mozart's case, had a parent (and older sibling) who were musicians. Leopold Mozart was a composer in his own right. These people didn't come out of a vacuum - they are products of a well-established musical system (we have unfortunately lost today) that was not unlike an Apprenticeship in other fields, and these particular composers (the ones we consider famous now) were exceptional students who learned a lot, early, and quickly, and honed their skills over time. Also, you have to understand that they grew up around music. There was no radio, TV, internet. Music was everywhere. Families would sit around in the evenings and play music - make music. Fathers would teach sons. It was in church, it was in concerts, it was in the street. They were around violins and trumpets and so on all the time. Vivaldi taught at a girls school where he conducted the orchestra - he was a violinist himself and could work with them. Mozart played Viola well. Furthermore, especially in the Baroque period (Bach's time) music for Bassoons or Flutes was written just like the string parts - it was understood that those instruments could pretty much do most of what the strings (at that time) were called on to do. You also have to understand that the Symphony itself has a long evolution - the first ones are little more than String Orchestra (Haydn is really considered the "Father of the Classical Symphony" as he wrote over 100 and really developed the form). This idea of a Symphony (the piece) having all these instruments actually doesn't start until mid Beethoven - the earliest Haydn symphonies have 2nd movements that are Strings alone, and the other movements might have a pair of Oboes, or a pair of Bassoons and Horns or something. There is "so much to learn" and you do have to be "musically minded" to make such music. But, there is definitely craftsmanship. Mozart's first Symphony is pretty lackluster. His very earliest compositions (which we have) are pretty simple (but still show sparks of what is to come). Haydn's earliest music is also somewhat basic compared to his later stuff. People like Beethoven, and then Brahms, Wagner, etc. had this rich tradition to draw on and learn from. But think about Mozart - the one who people think might have been the most naturally gifted of all - he STILL took lessons - first with his Father, later with Haydn. And you also have to understand that not all of this music is as complex as others - Mozart could have whipped off something like some of his Divirtementi as fast as someone today could create a pop song backing track. Because people learn the TOOLS and TECHNIQUES - and not everything they write is a "hit". Some of it is just OK - and likely, anything that's not never got published or performed. Look at a famous composer today like John Williams - he started as a player in Henry Mancini's band - (he's playing Piano on the Peter Gunn Theme) and basically apprenticed copying out parts and then arranging and orchestrating for Mancini and others. Basically, he got his break when Mancini was too busy to do some gig and said "Johnny can probably do it for you". Another currently famous film composer is Michael Giocchino. Look him up on wikipedia and see where he studied. Most composers of the past were great musicians and players first, and learned to compose along the way (though most had a knack for it and started in their youth). A month of piano isn't going to do it for you :-) Think years - decades - and it has to be all you do, all the time. And you have to study with a great teacher (look at all the 20th century composers who studied with Nadia Boulanger). So there is "talent", but, there's also a lot of hard work and those with a little less natural talent can still write quite well.

  2892. musictheory 2018-09-25 06:12:32 george_sand_
    I'm not sure if you're trolling, but I'll assume you are being serious. You don't need to hear a whole orchestra play a piece to be able to imagine it. If you know what, say french horn sounds like, then you can easily imagine how the instrument would sound playing a certain string of notes.

  2893. musictheory 2018-09-25 07:30:37 The_Original_Gronkie
    I'm a music historian by training, and by profession for a long time, so I know the backgrounds of all these composers and their general working styles. The first thing to remember is that these people had nothing else going on. All they did was music. There was no TV, radio, movies, video games, or any other form of entertainment other than literature, art, and poetry, which is why those things often figure heavily in classical music. From a very early age, all these people focused on was music. They were intimately involved with the piano of course, but also other instruments. Many composers also played the violin or flute or some other instrument. They went to lots of concerts, which were everywhere. If nothing else, they and their musician friends would gather at a friend's house and take turns playing their own compositions or playing someone else's. A well-rounded composer was also expected to improvise a work on the spot, based a tune he was given. There is a famous scene in Amadeus in which Mozart inadvertantly humiliates Salieri by improvising on one of Salieri's compositions, improving it. The scene is certainly apocryphal, but it nicely illustrates the concept of improvisation. These improvisations were often the source for new compositions. If a composer was blocked, he could simply noodle around for a while, and often the dam would burst and he'd find inspiration. He'd play with it for a while, until it started to coalesce into a coherent musical statement, and then they'd write it down. As for the instruments, that's easy. As the music was being played, they could hear certain instruments playing certain melodies and harmonies in their head. At the early stages, when they were writing down the music in piano form, they might make a note here and there for a tune or a section to be played in the brass, the strings, etc. Perfect pitch is an interesting thing, and many of the greatest composers had it, and the rest also had highly developed relative pitch that was nearly as good. Nearly all composers were also conductors, and a good conductor (including those today) can open a score and hear it in their heads. They can turn the pages and hear the melodies move from one instrument to another, hear the harmonies in one section of another, hear the textures. I've sat next to composers and watched them do it, humming along, conducting with one hand, while pointing with the other hand to the melody line as it moves. So once they had the music down on paper as a piano work, they would go to work orchestrating it, assigning the various melodies, countermelodies, and harmonies to the instruments of whatever ensemble they are composing for - orchestra, string quartet, brass quintet, wind nonet, etc. Some composers were better at one stage than the other, writing good music with great orchestration or great music with only decent orchestration, while some could create thrilling music that went to another level altogether once it was orchestrated (Beethoven, anyone?). Some of these guys could bang it out fairly quick, sometimes almost supernaturally so (Mozart, Bach). Others struggled with obvious difficulty. Beethoven's manuscripts are covered with scratchouts sometimes to the point of violence, and he worked on sketches for his Ninth symphony for decades. We could get into what makes up an orchestra, from the orchestra of Bach's time with viola da gambas, or Mozart's orchestra with split violins, or Beethoven's giant (for their time) orchestra with (can you believe it?!) a chorus with vocal quartet soists, to Wagner's enormous orchestras with colorful full brass and wind sections sections to the insane orchestra that Mahler imagined for his Eight Symphony - "The Symphony of a Thousand." However they defined their orchestra, they could hear it playing their music in their heads. So yeah, those guys were that good, and professional composers, conductors, and musicians today are still that good.

  2894. musictheory 2018-09-25 08:50:11 johnfrance
    Listen to these; [Beethoven - Symphony 5 (Piano)](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LOVSMpDxuas&t=29s) [Brahms - Symphony 4 (Piano Four-Hands)](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xNLhY1uXNQk&t=74s) When I listen to both of those it’s very easy for me to imagine these being written at the piano and orchestrated afterwards. Like harmony and counterpoint, orchestration is something you can learn. At the most basic level you are thinking about what the range of each of the instruments are so you can be sure to only assign each musician something they could actually play. If you are assigning your bass line to the flutes and a soprano melody to the cellos nobody is going to be able to play anything at all. The symphony was created by the composer Haydn (let’s say for simplicity’s sake). When he was a young composer he had a contract which required him to write a new orchestral piece something like every month for most months of the year, for many years. Because of this he was able to figure out how things sounded together basically by trial and error, he had a court orchestra at his disposal so he would just get them to try it out to see what worked and what didn’t. And because he left 104 symphonies when all was said and done all composers after that were able to see his work in concert and study his scores to see exactly how he orchestrated his works. Haydn also started simple and got more complicated as things went on. His 45th Symphony is written for strings, two horn, two oboe, and bassoon, not exactly a massive modern orchestra. Every composer back then is educated in the art of counterpoint, basically how to write up to four part vocal or keyboard compositions. While you only have two hands standard advanced piano technique has you learn how to play four individual lines at the same time. [Here](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xd7pgPDsNZs) is a four voice piece played by a person with only two hands. In terms of orchestration at least early symphonies where not so different from writing string quartets, it’s just that a whole group of cellists play the cello part and a whole group of violinists play the violin part, rather than just one per part. In a lot of this early symphonies the wind instruments are used largely to add colour or for flourishes and effects, rather than carrying substantial melody. But as the Symphony developed composers learned more integrated orchestration and later composers imitated or resisted the techniques which the older composers pioneered. [Here](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uHd7Gxwjyo8) is a video which talks about some basic things relating to balancing out different kinds of instruments, it gives a good sense of the sort of thing composers think about when orchestrating a piece.

  2895. musictheory 2018-09-25 14:59:05 Jongtr
    The standard dots are at string fractions: 3 = 5/6 5 = 3/4 7 = 2/3 9 = 3/5 12 = 1/2 Because of the fractions, harmonics over those frets produce the following notes on the E string: 3 = 5/6 = B 5 = 3/4 = E 7 = 2/3 = B 9 = 3/5 = G# 12 = 1/2 = E Interesting, yes? Significant? Probably not. After all, as a navigational aid it's fretted notes that matter, and G A B C# E (A9 chord on the E string?) seem less significant. Also, additional markers at frets 15 and 17 are just an octave above 3 and 5, not at simple string fractions (no harmonics there, at least not easy ones). Only fret 19 (1/3) produces a harmonic (same note as at 7).

  2896. musictheory 2018-09-25 16:42:46 Jongtr
    > Then those ratios are not valid in Modern Western Music (Equal Temperament, Divisional System)? Right. That's what "temperament" means. The simple ratios are adjusted, in order to give us 12 equal semitones. >How do we calculate the the P5 in Equal Temperament System then? The tempered P5 is 2 cents flat of an exact 3:2 ratio. It's calculated by multiplying a reference frequency by the 12th root of 2 (1.06 approximately) 7 times. When piano tuners tune pianos, however, they do it by ear, listening for beats between the overtones. Pianos are stretch-tuned, which means the octaves are set very slightly wide. Stretched strings don't behave quite as neatly as harmonic theory would suggest, and their "inharmoncity" is best dealt with by ear. The old way of setting frets on guitars (without using fancy maths) was the so-called [rule of 18] (https://www.liutaiomottola.com/formulae/fret.htm). Fret 1 is 1/18 of the distance between the nut and the bridge and the nut; fret 2 is 1/18 of the distance between fret 1 and the bridge; and so on. The exact figure - 17.817 - is related to the 12th root of 2, but 18 gets you close enough. It ends up with a 12th fret a few mm short of 1/2 way - flat of the octave - but that would often be compensated by the fact that fret pressure sharpens the string. What with string inharmonicity and fretting pressure, the guitar fretboard is always an optimistic stab at theoretical precision.

  2897. musictheory 2018-09-25 21:54:58 falllol
    It's their job. And they were *very* talented to boot. They know how things sound like in combination because they heard it many, many times in that arrangement. Experience. Of course there is an element of surprise, and experimentation going on, but it is not like they are going into it blind. Even as a student of composition, I could just imagine how things were supposed to sound like in an orchestra in combinations that I am experienced at (listening and writing) - you just know how it is supposed to sound like. You are used to it. You know how a piano sounds like right? How a clarinet sounds like? Because you heard them before. You heard them a lot. You know how a string quartet is supposed to sound like, because you listened to many pieces in that exact combination. Add a clarinet to a string quartet. You can't be sure but I'm sure you can *imagine* how it is supposed to sound like, even if you don't have experience with that particular combination. Think about it, it would take you a year (if not more) to write a proper fugue - but J. S. Bach could just improvise a fugue on the fly. It is experience. He spent all his waking hours with music (it was his job after all) and making children. For years, and years and years. After some time things stick, become second nature.

  2898. musictheory 2018-09-25 23:03:07 mikefan
    The pizzicato bass line is very similar to the bass line in [Air from Bach's Suite No. 3 in D Major. ](https://youtu.be/JU2P3aRk8ko) Better known as "Air on the G String."

  2899. musictheory 2018-09-26 00:14:58 Disney_Jazzcore
    u/tjbassoon So a note that has 2 means my middle finger left hand 4 means my pinky finger left hand O means open string 1 means my first finger left hand and 3 would mean my ring finger left hand. **Right?!**

  2900. musictheory 2018-09-26 02:01:53 tjbassoon
    Yes, that's correct. Up to you to determine which string it's played on, but the fingering choices, when taken into the context of the passage, should help you find comfortable and natural places to shift up and down the neck as needed.

  2901. musictheory 2018-09-26 02:05:02 Disney_Jazzcore
    I also have a choice to play where I see fit right? Ofcourse, the fret I place my finger on should be the same pitch as the note on the stave. Say the fifth fret on the A string gives me the same D as the open D string. Could I maneuver like this? I have never had to look at finger positions for Electric Bass Guitar. So..., this is new. u/tjbassoon

  2902. musictheory 2018-09-26 07:48:00 JoelNesv
    I knew a violist who said in her undergrad, she was in a string quartet where everyone had “perfect pitch.” They could never play in tune because they could only play their perception of what the note *should* be and couldn’t adjust to each other. String quartets should not play in equal temperament, but this was too much for them ...and I think these were either Eastman or Juilliard students.

  2903. musictheory 2018-09-26 08:02:01 AD1AD
    That's not really a problem with pythagorean tuning as much as it's an issue of limiting yourself to a 12 note tuning. The diminished sixth G# to Eb isn't really "out of tune", as much as it is *not* a perfect fifth, but it's relatively close in size to one, and so can sound like an out of tune version of it. That's only remotely necessary, however, when you don't have the perfect fifth actually available, like when you use a string of fifths from Eb up to G# and want the fifth above G#. But if you just include more notes from the pythagorean circle of fifths, in this case D#, you don't ever run into the situation where you have to use a diminished sixth in place of a perfect fifth. Arguably a much bigger problem with pythagorean tuning is that the major thirds are so sharp, ~8 cents sharper than standard western tuning, and ~22 cents sharper than one purely tuned to the frequency ratio 5:4. You can get much purer thirds by flatting your fifths slightly so that when they stack on top of each other you get to a lower third. (Or you can think of it as tuning a pure third, and then spreading out the mistuning of the fifths in between in the circle of fifths so that none of them is too bad.) That's how historical meantone temperaments worked, more or less. How did you listen to the G# to Eb interval? Did you try to play it yourself or use an audio example? As far as why certain intervals sound the way they do to us, that's an enourmous unsolved question. There are plenty of good ideas out there about it, but it's not the sort of thing that's getting tons of money for research, given my impression. You may want to check out "Tuning Timbre Spectrum Scale" by Sethares, which shows how the overtone spectra of different vibrating bodies can affect the tunings we use when playing them musically. There's also the melodic side of things that also affects how an interval "sounds", or "functions", or whatever. (For example, think of how the perfect fourth is harmonically very "consonant", or pure, or whatever, but is referred to as a dissonance in western theory. That may be more due to melodic context in our scales than harmonic content.)

  2904. musictheory 2018-09-26 08:38:47 swiggajuice
    Yes, thanks... that helps a lot! I'm a life-long piano player (well, not professional), and have been working on transforming a piano piece into a string quartet (a virtual one, using MuseScore and soundfonts -- so, no actual live players). Your final comment is spot-on with what the experience has taught me thus far, which is that I'm finding myself approaching many harmonies in "non-pianistic"(?) ways. Still, I had a few places where I wanted double stops (didn't know that term!), and wasn't sure. Anyway, yes, thanks!

  2905. musictheory 2018-09-26 10:28:06 627534
    A problem with this approach, which may lead to confusion, is that a particular note on the piano keyboard may be playable in multiple places on the guitar fretboard. For instance, middle C on the piano can be played in five places on the guitar neck. So there's not a direct one-to-one translation between the two in all cases. That's one reason TAB exists, it describes the exact string and fret on the neck to play a note. Guitar Pro software lets you input the TAB for a piece and displays the standard musical notation right above it, which would allow you to play it on the piano, but that's essentially the opposite of your system. By and large, you're better off focusing on the instrument you're learning. There are a number of shortcuts to learning the notes on the fretboard. And it will save you time going back and forth. Don't get me wrong, I think learning piano is excellent for learning musical theory. But if your primary focus is learning guitar, it has some quirks (like that one string with the odd jump) that you'll pick up faster if you learn things on it as you go. Good luck!

  2906. musictheory 2018-09-26 11:54:49 MusicalPolymath
    Hi John, It sounds like you don't read music, which is okay. It's the next step in your journey! I might start with looking at standard notation, since it's the way most music is displayed when used for theory and is universal between instruments with only very small tweaks. you can start with just picking some vocal lines out on guitar, or go down the classical guitar study path, or even just look at it as a totally unrelated undertaking. Personally I recommend learning to read it on your instrument, guitar, so would recommend picking up something geared towards teaching guitarists to read music. I don't really have any recommendations for a non-classical player, but they're likely out there. Once you understand what you're looking at on the paper you can start to understand the functions of it. Music theory is really just an understanding of the grammar of music, so I recommend learning the alphabet first :) Even skipping that you can learn the difference between major and minor scales and practice them on guitar to get the sound in your ear. Plot twist: Once you know how they sound you can play in any key by mucking about to make it sound right based on the starting note! It's an insidious and sneaky way to start understanding the basics of theory. For example, major scales are made up of a repeating pattern: Tone, Tone, Semi Tone - TONE - Tone, Tone, Semi Tone. C D E F G A B C for C major. On the guitar, each fret is a semi tone so you can work it out from there. It's why with the strings the names seem to be a little 'weird' - the E string goes E and then the first fret is F, but the first fret on the G string is G#. Weird right? It's that pattern. In the unaltered scale we have C (tone)-> D (tone)-> E (semi tone)-> F (tone) -> G (tone) -> A (tone) -> B (semi tone) -> C. Just as an example. See if the strings make more sense now!

  2907. musictheory 2018-09-26 12:38:36 detroit_dickdawes
    You're vastly over complicating the process. If you're interested in learning the notes on bass/guitar, etc., you need to take the time to learn the notes. Practice your scales (ALL OF THEM) in different positions, in multiple octaves, across different strings, ascending and descending. Practice arpeggiating chords, by name, again, in different positions, on different sets of strings. Learning to read music can help with this - any good publisher worth its salt will have numbers relaying which string and which finger to use if it's not obvious from context. I'm not suggesting you need to be able to sight read an orchestral score, but getting a solid foundation of standard notation can be really helpful and is always a good skill to have. There's not really a shortcut. All of these things will help you become a better musician overall even if it seems like busy work. Creating a new system just seems like a diversion from the actual things you wish to accomplish. ETA: I don't think your idea overall is a bad one. If it helps you to visualize a note in your head, then it will probably be good in the long run. But I do think it would need to be used in conjunction with other techniques and approaches.

  2908. musictheory 2018-09-27 03:05:44 jtizzle12
    Something I learned when studying film scoring is to keep an "emotion notebook". All you do in film scoring is capture the emotion of a scene, but the thing is emotions are very personal and subjective, and no two people will interpret one thing exactly the same way. We all obviously hear a major chord as happy, and a minor chord as sad, but movie scenes are a lot more complex than that. What if the character got into a crazy car accident and came out with a concussion, broken bones, and major blood loss, but is happy that he/she is alive at least? It's happy, but you probably wouldn't go straight for the major triad here. So it depends on how you interpret that feeling. You might need more than one chord in order to give it context, similarly how you need the context of the car accident and injury to know what kind of happy the character is feeling. A major chord by itself isn't the same as playing a ii-bVI chord progression (the bVI being major). So I can't really tell you how to be "mysterious". I have a few notebooks with sounds I've felt describe *to me* something like an alien arrival, a mysterious lady at a bar, discovery of damning evidence, all descriptive of mystery, but definitely differing contexts. What I can tell you is to sit down, watch a lot of movies and see what the composer does for these scenes. Sit down and listen to music, and see if any big or little sounds jump out to you as being of an emotion. Or sit down at a piano (or another instrument!) and see what sounds you can come up with. Keep in mind, in film scoring, you might also get a lot more out of extended techniques than just *chords*. Harmony is cool and all, but you would be limiting yourself a ton by just trying to create moods and atmospheres with chords and chord progressions. Think about the timbral difference of plucking a piano string vs pressing down on the key. Or think of a harmonics gliss on a bowed string instrument. Maybe even a synthesizer with a weird filter envelope. Keep all these things in your notebook so when you need them, you can come back to them.

  2909. musictheory 2018-09-27 04:29:32 65TwinReverbRI
    u/Mocacofe, I started to reply to this thread earlier but was hoping some responses might speak to where you are coming from, what your goals are, etc. All of the responses so far really are accurate. Firstly, you need to PLAY sonatas and sonata form music. If you aren't, you need to be. Secondly, you should be ANALYZING what is happening in the form and how composers deal with it. For example, Haydn is often mentioned in conjunction with "Monothematic Expositions" in which there is no secondary theme, only the first theme in the new key in the Exposition. What this points to is that the form is not "fixed" per se, and composers did modify it to their own needs. Likewise, there is a difference between the early, Classical SAF, and the later, Romantic SAF with slow introduction. So you need to be able to understand all of these available options and make decisions as to what approach will best serve your musical goals. Thirdly, you should be trying your hand at Sonatas, or, even better, stand-alone Sonata Form movements, or even better - and especially if you haven't been doing this, smaller scale works like Sonatinas, or other single movements in Binary and Ternary form. But you need to understand that a "Sonata" with the traditional trappings/baggage is a monumental work that is not something you should approach lightly. You shouldn't write your "first sonata". You should try about 10 sonatas first, and then once you've honed your craft (assuming you haven't already done so), then write your "First" Sonata. Too many people decide to become classical composers and their first piece they try to write a "Symphony" or "String Quartet" or sometimes, a "Sonata" or "Concerto". There's a great video from Orchestration Online that really discusses this well - people who are relative unknowns who don't work in the musical community really shouldn't be sitting in their room writing Symphonies or Sonatas that will never see the light of day, and in most cases, aren't very good. That's not to say you can't learn from trying to write them, but the point is that the expectation that you're going to "write a sonata" and it's going to be some great piece of music that's going to get performed and recorded is a bit naive. You may very well be beyond that level, but if you're a "beginner" and you're not getting pieces constantly performed, you're probably more likely at the stage where you need to be working on honing your skills on smaller, more basic works before attempting larger ones. It's OK to write music "for yourself" but really, it's really difficult to improve as you don't have any barometer for what you're doing and essentially working in the dark. Fourthly, while "Sonata" as a type of piece could certainly use an older meaning ("sounded piece", as opposed to Cantata - a "sung piece") or a newer one as a general term for otherwise un-named pieces that are similar to Sonatas of the Classical period, or even Trio Sonatas of the Baroque Period, usually a "beginning composer" will be one to write a piece in the classical mold, and since you asked about Sonata Form, that seems to be the case. It's great to learn about these things, but realistically, I'm not sure if the world needs yet another Sonata in the Classical Style. It's exceptional as a learning tool, but hopefully, if you're aiming for performances and growth as a musician, you might consider some "less ancient" forms or non-traditional implementation of traditional forms. IOW, maybe don't even use Sonata Form, or don't even write a Sonata. Take your ideas and form them into a "sonata-like movement" without necessarily trying to force yourself to write a more specific 3 movement FSF form with a SAF first movement, etc. I mean, if you want to try that, great, and it could be a valuable experience for getting into the form first hand, but, again, at this stage, it may be more valuable just to get your ideas down into some kind of coherent structure - any kind of coherent structure that makes the ideas come to life - without the "pre-conditions" that something like a Sonata and Sonata Form (in the classical defintion) force on you. Finally, google searches and reading can go over the form itself. It is as Vornska said, a complex subject. And that's why it's not really "for the beginner" so to speak. It's not only like an action movie, it's like saying "hey, I've got some ideas for a movie, so I'm going to go make an action movie" - oh yeah, so who's writing the script, who's doing the blocking, where are you getting the props, what kind of insurance are you going to need for explosions, and so on. There's a lot more to it than just turning on the camera and reading some lines. And while the Sonata is not exactly the same, still, there's more to it than just following the textbook explanation of the form. Experience with it, is a lot better than "Primary Theme in the Tonic, Secondary Theme in the Dominant (or Relative Major), Development Section, Recapitulation with both Primary and Secondary themes in the Tonic." The re-transition alone has textbooks written on it. It's something you have to understand more deeply than just "there is one" if you get my meaning. HTH

  2910. musictheory 2018-09-27 09:21:54 Scartxx
    I think it shows well like this. first image in our tried and true minor pentatonic box - we all know how great this shape is to solo and improvise. It is a little limiting in that its only one position and the shape doesn't translate well across the strings. Image two: a small module of notes that come from our same basic scale box. I call this the original offset pattern because it's the first one and its not a square. The next pattern up the string pair is the reverse offset pattern obvious right? Next image shows the reverse offset pattern on a different string pair but could also continue up the E+A strings where we started. This just shows it more clearly. After the reverse offset pattern there is a square shape followed by a rectangle shape and then another square before we're back at the original offset. Thse patterns are consistant across EVERY pair of strings except the G & B. I've found it very freeing to recognize the shape under my hand and know precisely how to ladder up the strings into another area of the neck - Suddenly your pentatonic playing can spread out and cover some new ground with a bit of a roadmap https://imgur.com/a/312FFiH

  2911. musictheory 2018-09-27 21:37:23 LiamGaughan
    >Why do they need to speak out the letter name? / you're assigning them that gets in the way of just playing the music. Because a lot of people start to just remember what the music sounds like, rather than reading the notation. They are different tasks and I like to separate them when one needs work. Especially because 'playing music' is easy compared to 'reading notation' for most guitar players especially ones who are late to the game. > I have my students speak out the direction the notes move and by what intervals. Five year old kids won't do this. But they will eat E, F and G on the E string for breakfast. They don't need to tell me that G is a third up from E, or F is a tone lower than G. Not at that age. >They just need to identify the note they start on and then they're set. I have used this technique as well, but it simply isn't the best for everyone, and only works with students past a certain age. If they learn it as an interval on the neck, what happens when they are on the G string, they might get a 4th wrong due to the B string. Then they have to stop and think what note they actually need, which requires looking at the staff and deciding what the note actually is before correcting it. What if it's an augmented 2nd from harmonic minor? They might think 'oh one note up in x scale' but that's not right especially if the aug 2nd isn't on degree 7 (dorian #4 for instance). I'm not doubting your teaching methods or what works for you, but I am doubting to say 'never' to... well anything really. It works for some people, especially young kids. Finally, processing 'the sound' of music for me is distinctly different skill, comes from the ear, but which sure may overlap with sight reading, but not for beginners learning to read on their very first instrument.

  2912. musictheory 2018-09-27 23:16:29 flashtastic
    The thing that helped me was this. 1. Learn the major and minor scale patterns (I learned 3 notes per string patterns). 2. Learn the order of chords in those scales. (uppercase means major, lowercase minor, lowercase+circle diminished) I ii iii IV V vi vii° for major and i ii° III iv v VI VII for minor 3. So for example chords in the key of C major would be Cmaj Dm Em Fmaj Gmaj Amin Bdim 4. Realize that the the scale patterns are also chord patterns following the above formula. What I mean here is that the chords are in the same place as the notes. So if C major scale was on frets 8 10 12 on the low E string, frets 8 10 12 on the A string, and frets 9-10 on the D string, You can play a barre chord (E-shaped) at 8 with a major shape for C maj, a barre at 10 with an e-minor shape for Dm, a barre at 12 with a minor shape for Em, moving up the scale following the pattern. 5. From there learn a few chord progressions (e.g. I-IV-V is easy and prevalent everywhere in pop/rock). Experiment with these and find some chord progressions you like. 6. After you have done that for a bit, learn the mode patterns and watch a few vids on playing modally. I had watched a video that finally made it click when it was one featuring the modes over a drone note.

  2913. musictheory 2018-09-28 01:23:12 parsiology
    I used to play the same piece over and over again and most of the time I was able to play without the sheet. Then I realized what I eventually gained was mostly muscle memory. If you were to play in a gig, it's fine but this won't help sight reading. If I play the same piece several times, I start to memorize *finger positions* instead of notes. I would think like index finger on 4th string and 6th fret, instead of a G#. This is specially true if I need to play on 7th position and beyond. You definitely can play several more times if you like, just try to focus on the notes instead of finger positions.

  2914. musictheory 2018-09-28 03:18:46 geetarzrkool
    The fret markers on a guitar don't have any particular "purpose" aside from the dots/shape at the 12th fret which signifies the octave of each string. The dots are placed where they are out of tradition and convention, but some guitars, like those used by Classical/Flamenco players don't have any dots at all, while others liek Gypsy Jazz (Selmer-style) guitar have dots, but on different frets than other guitars. Of course, when/if you change the tuning of the guitar, these fret markers will also take on different values, as well. It's best to simply use the dot as sign posts to help you remember where you are on the neck, but the more you play, the less you'll need to use them at all.

  2915. musictheory 2018-09-29 01:58:15 beaumega1
    I'd say it depends on the string players for which you are writing this piece. If it's meant for less-experienced players, keep it simple. If it's for more seasoned players, write down what you'd like, and more often than not they can find a means by which to play non-standard double stops.

  2916. musictheory 2018-09-29 02:17:18 desvlas
    [Here’s](http://www.timusic.net/debreved/double-trouble/) a helpful link. It’s not really a matter of interval range; it has to do with whether or not your fingers are free to reach both notes at once, keeping in mind the material surrounding the double stop. I can try to enumerate what makes a double stop feasible or not if you’d like, but when in doubt, show it to a string player and ask them. If you want a general rule of thumb for intervals, keep double stops less than or equal to an octave—unless the bottom note is an open string. Violinists can manage tenths, but please don’t give them to violas or below.

  2917. musictheory 2018-09-29 02:25:17 65TwinReverbRI
    Pick up Samuel Adler's "Orchestration" which includes a chart of all possible double (and IIRC, triple and quadruple) stop on all the strings. I'd also like to caution you: You may be biting off more than you can chew here. I agree that it depends on what level you're writing for. You would make your piece unattractive to certain groups if it were fairly easy and then had one or two really difficult double stops in it. Thus it would severely limit the chances of it ever getting performed. Additionally, double stops are context-based - it really depends on a number of factors beyond the double stop itself, such as how it is approached or how it's left, and how much time you have to get there and so on. To answer those questions, there's no better resource than actual players (we have a subreddit for violinists and probably other strings as well). FWIW, the "basic" and "common" double stops are the intervals of a 3rd or 6th. The strings (on an instrument) are tuned a 5th apart so a perfect 5th means laying the finger across the fingerboard perpendicular to the strings, which is not a super comfortable thing for the non-professional or semi-professional player. 4ths are a little better. There are also combinations with the open string that are possible - for example, G-D, G-Eb, G-E, etc. chromatically up to as far as you can go on the D string (G-G octave and beyond) are all possible. But, from the note A you're suddenly limited to how far the fingers can reach, which is more like just an 8ve. All this is well described in Adler's text but despite it being so thorough, it only includes what is possible, not what is practical. For that, working with players and being intimately acquainted with the literature are where the information comes from.

  2918. musictheory 2018-09-29 02:42:28 mikefan
    Violinist here. Double-stops where the lower finger is on the lower string and the higher finger is on the higher string are the easiest: sixths, sevenths, and the octave. Intonation got octave is trickier. Since it is a perfect imperfections are more audible. Seconds, thirds, and fourths are a bit harder. The tritone requires a bit of finger contortion to get right. As in octaves, the perfect fourth is harder to get perfectly in tune. Theoretically, you would thing that perfect fifths would be easy, but since one finger is responsible for the tuning of different strings, it is fact, trickier to tune. It's also a perfect interval. Double-stops, especially tritones and perfect fourths get harder the higher you go up the fingerboard. Tenths require a stretch beyond the normal range and can be very difficult in lower positions with people with smaller hands.

  2919. musictheory 2018-09-29 03:07:49 DRL47
    It is also very usual in string parts.

  2920. musictheory 2018-09-29 04:07:27 DRL47
    These are used in string and percussion parts all of the time to show repeated notes, especially in older orchestral music. It hardly ever means double strokes unless it is used for intermittent 16ths in the middle of running 8th notes. It is just shorthand for 16ths, to save space, ink, and clutter.

  2921. musictheory 2018-09-29 04:41:56 banjalien
    I need to save a copy of my response to this question, it comes up a lot. First and foremost, start with smaller ensembles. For example, if you can't orchestrate for a string quartet then orchestra is just going to be harder. Learn to orchestrate for a woodwind quartet. Do you know how to spread chord voicings out between instruments? What can double? After that I would say get as many scores as you can of pieces that you enjoy the orchestration to. Orchestration books come in handy for ranges and telling you what is difficult for each instrument. However, for me, it simply became a bunch of memorized facts. I always felt like the books I read weren't telling me much about orchestration in a way that seeped into my pores so to speak. I got much more out of getting the score and listening to the recording a bazillion times following along. You can take the scores and do the following: 1)Write out instrument combinations you like in a chart, I have a big piece of paper with instrument combinations I enjoy with name of referenced recording. 2)Make a MIDI mockup of the bars you like. I don't really enjoy this and it's time consuming but it can be interesting. More ways you do something, the more you are likely to remember it. 3)Write short 8 bars using the orchestrations you find. I had a Ravel piece whose orchestration I liked, so I took all of his rhythms, changed the pitches and wrote 12 bars orchestrated identical to what he did as an EXERCISE. &#x200B;

  2922. musictheory 2018-09-29 06:18:58 RSC128
    In Ravel’s string quartet (first movement) it’s used like a hammer-on like on a guitar . I think it holds a slightly different meaning than just saving space. Idk

  2923. musictheory 2018-09-29 12:50:44 ttd_76
    Sometimes if you get stuck on a note you just have to move on. If you feel like you cannot get the first note correct, then get as close as you can and move on to the second note. Hear that second note in relation to the first, and then the third note. It’s probably not the optimal way to do it. And I think if you try to do a whole song this way, you will run into problems at some point. But I think for most people it’s more natural to hear things as melodic lines, as opposed to hearing a harmony and each note against the key. That’s why the first note can be difficult. There’s no reference for it. But you can hear the second in relation to the first and the third in relation to the second and so on as a melodic sequence and tell if one note is out of whack in that line of notes. So until you train yourself to pick out song keys and here scale degrees against the tonic, you have to use workarounds. Just get the melody (or part of it) right and then transpose it later. If you can get just four or five notes in a sequence correct then sometimes one of those notes will pop out to your ears against the original better than the first one does, and you can sync up that one and the rest will fall into place. And sometimes it is hard to hear if just one note is high or low, but if you compare two sequences it is easier to tell if the whole sequence is off. The other thing you can do is try starting somewhere else in the song. Maybe you can find an easier note to work with. And again, if you can put together a little string of correct notes in one part of the song, usually it sort of sets your ear and you can hear the other parts better as well. Plus you might get enough notes to where you can use theory to figure out why key the song is in, and that helps you narrow down the possible note choices everywhere in the song.

  2924. musictheory 2018-09-29 13:25:27 ttd_76
    Here is a simple D Dorian vamp: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x1b4b4aIRvM You know you have the “white notes”/C major pool of notes to work with. So just jam over this vamp using those notes. Start off just using one string. For whatever reason, playing horizontally seems to help cement things better. And just go from there and see where it takes you. You already have two pieces of the puzzle which is that you want to try and always come back to D and not C, and that the 6 going to a flatted 7th is one thing that sets it apart from C major. Plus hopefully, you know the 3 is flat to give it a minor rather than major sound. If you get a melody you like, you can come up with a more interesting chord progression later. But the point of this isn’t really to come up with a song. It’s just a backing track with a neutral but distinctively Dorian canvas for you to experiment freely over, until you get the feel of it. FYI: that person on YouTube also has vamps for E Phrygian, etc. so you can work on all your modes using the same C major note pool. And the vamps as well as the exercise of playing various modes/scales all on one string (using each of the six strings in turn) is from Mick Goodrick’s Advancing Guitarist, which is a great book that you will see recommended in lots of places.

  2925. musictheory 2018-09-29 13:26:13 Diadrite
    Violist here. For violins and violas, generally don't go further apart than tenths. I can stretch an eleventh, but it's not something I can do easily or right away. Also, it should be noted that tenths are very, very far from beginner material. They're usually something you learn only in advanced repertoire. Ninths are as well, although you probably wouldn't be using _too_ many of those in a fugue. For cellos, do not go further than octaves- even those are a stretch. Everything else should be fine. Also, quick side note- runs of five notes are easy on the piano because you have five fingers, but strings only have four. So I would suggest playing the chords on piano with only four fingers. Five is allowed on a C3, G3, D4, or A4 for viola, or G3, D4, A4, and E5 for violin. I'm not familiar enough with cello as it has larger spacing, but the open strings are the same as viola. Five fingers is technically possible, but will require some awkward string crossings that might not always sound the best.

  2926. musictheory 2018-09-30 12:23:34 thetiredpianist
    As far as ease of playing goes? Sure, G major is much easier to play than E major on guitar. But the bulk of your question seems to be referring to what key the instrument is tuned in, which I don't think really makes sense for string or percussion instruments. Like stated before, calling a clarinet a Bb clarinet specifically refers to its tuning in relation to concert pitch, not to preferred keys to play in. I've never heard of anyone calling the guitar as an E instrument, and I would be really confused if someone were to refer to one that way. It's simply not what the term means. If you want to call a guitar a G instrument, by all means go ahead, just be prepared to get weird looks and have to explain yourself a lot.

  2927. musictheory 2018-09-30 14:52:32 aotus_trivirgatus
    >I wrote and notated a round that I think demonstrates that feature of 22: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xONo-1OxSAw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xONo-1OxSAw) &#x200B; OK, this sounds very cool! It's kind of like barbershop with a modern twist. But can I hear the 22-tone equal temperament? Let's be honest, can anyone sing microtones to a level of accuracy that would allow you to say? How exactly did you tune your voice? I took a course in Middle-Eastern music theory and practice in college. I was introduced to the idea of "3/4 tones" and "neutral thirds" in Arabic music. I would play those tones and intervals, of course, with the correct instruments in my hands. But only our teacher, who was born in Israel and had extensive exposure to Arabic music through personal experience and study, could actually *sing* those intervals in a way where you could tell that he wasn't singing a minor third or a major third. The rest of us struggled to unlearn our Western 12-tone habits. One semester was not enough time. Notice also that I didn't say that we students struggled to unlearn our Western 12-tone *equal temperament* habits, because we don't sing in 12-equal. We also don't sing in perfect, 12-tone just intonation either. We will alter the pitch of a note when we sing it, to try to get more "in-tune" with the accompaniment -- probably, attempting to cancel beats, and approaching some kind of just intonation *suitable for that moment*. A secondary dominant, or a key change, would cause us to change intonation. Like string players in a quartet, vocalists continually make small enharmonic substitutions, usually unconsciously. But even that adjustment is limited by such variables as the unavoidable presence of vibrato in vocals, and human inaccuracy. Going back to Arabic music, the class I took introduced us to multiple versions of Arabic music theory. The oldest version was somehow inherited from Greek tetrachord theory via the Hellenistic empire, and mapped all the scales in use onto a division of 17 notes per octave. The scales (*maqāmāt*) of Arabic and Persian music are heptatonic subsets of the full set of 17 notes. The Classical Arab scholar al-Farabi, who lived around 900 AD, used 25 divisions of the octave, nominally to describe *the same scales*. In the 1700's, Western music notation began to appear in the Arab world and some Arabic musicologists decided that quarter-tones were a nice mapping, adopting 24 divisions of the octave instead of 25. There are even standard notations for the half-sharp and half-flat notes. But again, the underlying music did not change. I think that the fact that three *different* theoretical intonation systems were used to describe the *same* extant microtonal music underscores the point that producing, and hearing, these small changes in pitch is quite hard. If you are interested in exploring alternate intonations, you might want to listen to the [Wendy Carlos album, Beauty in the Beast](http://www.wendycarlos.com/+bitb.html). It's all synthesizers, which may or may not appeal to you. But if you don't work with some sort of fixed-pitch instrument, it's pretty hard to say exactly what pitches you're getting. &#x200B;

  2928. musictheory 2018-10-01 02:40:08 AD1AD
    >OK, this sounds very cool! It's kind of like barbershop with a modern twist. Thanks! It's got some pretty accurately tuned "4:5:6:7" chords, like they sing in barbershop, so that may have something to do with your impression =) >But can I hear the 22-tone equal temperament? Listen to the pitches on "-vu you've had" and "like the last". Each is two steps of 22 right next to each other. I don't always nail it, but that's going from Fa to Mi to Di, or P4 to M3 to A2, where the A2 is your purer approximation of the interval we usually notate using the major third. Can you tell that the steps are quite small? Can you tell that the outer interval is about the usual size for fa-mi, when it takes two intervals to cover that same distance? Also, listen to the bar before, and the then pitch of, "it just didn't stick". It's 3 steps of 22 instead of 4, which is not easy to sing, but I think I got the hang of it well enough to demonstrate. Of course, it's not actually important to me whether a casual listener can hear the tuning nuances, the same way it would not be important to me whether a casual listener noticed a tritone substitution, or that I was using Lydian Dominant. What's important is that I found it musically inspiring. >Let's be honest, can anyone sing microtones to a level of accuracy that would allow you to say? Definitely. >How exactly did you tune your voice? Mostly with my ear ;-) I did sing along with a taxi for the first take though, and there were a couple spots where I made tuning mistakes (like singing "vu you've had" too large and ending up closer to an 11:9 "neutral third", or "it just didn't stick" about a step too high) that I fixed by hand in post production, but most of the recording didn't need any editing. I just used my ear to lock into two things. The first was the harmonic purity I was aiming for at certain points, like the very accurate 5:4 and 7:4 in this tuning or its decent 3:2 (which I probably tune purer than it is in 22 naturally), and the other was the melodic categories of the major and minor seconds, so that I could emphasize the melodic nuances of 22 as I maneuvered around the scale before hitting those harmonic sweet spots. Some places, of course, involved both, like the "it just didn't stick" pitch, for which I had to develop the "3 steps of 22" category to get where I wanted, and then could tune it to a pure 5:4 compared to the root. >I took a course in Middle-Eastern music theory and practice in college. I was introduced to the idea of "3/4 tones" and "neutral thirds" in Arabic music. I would play those tones and intervals, of course, with the correct instruments in my hands. But only our teacher, who was born in Israel and had extensive exposure to Arabic music through personal experience and study, could actually sing those intervals in a way where you could tell that he wasn't singing a minor third or a major third. The rest of us struggled to unlearn our Western 12-tone habits. One semester was not enough time. Definitely true that one semester is not enough time to break down and rebuild your "categorical perception". But it does happen and, at least in my experience, the more you do it, the easier it is to open your ear up to new categories. >Notice also that I didn't say that we students struggled to unlearn our Western 12-tone equal temperament habits, because we don't sing in 12-equal. We also don't sing in perfect, 12-tone just intonation either. We will alter the pitch of a note when we sing it, to try to get more "in-tune" with the accompaniment -- probably, attempting to cancel beats, and approaching some kind of just intonation suitable for that moment. Actually, whether we singing more or less "in tune" (harmonically) has a lot more to do with melody than you might think. Barbershop quartets sing their chords in nearly pure adaptive Just Intonation, but the *lead* singer will actually sing his *melodic* sections closer to pythagorean tuning, with a relatively sharp third, because the melodic contrasts are more stark, with larger major seconds and smaller minor seconds. (Sorry I don't have a link for this. If I find it, I'll post it.) >A secondary dominant, or a key change, would cause us to change intonation. Like string players in a quartet, vocalists continually make small enharmonic substitutions, usually unconsciously. But even that adjustment is limited by such variables as the unavoidable presence of vibrato in vocals, and human inaccuracy. My understanding is that it's not so much that a key change causes us to "change intonation", so much as different notes are simply tuned differently (if you're tuning for harmonic purity) when surrounded by different notes. For instance, Re tends to be a tough cookie for people trying to write in Just intonation, because depending on whether it's a fifth below La (which is 6:5 beneath the tonic) or a fifth above So (which is 3:2 over the tonic), it'll be tuned to either 10/9 or 9/8 above the tonic, respectively. >If you are interested in exploring alternate intonations, you might want to listen to the Wendy Carlos album, Beauty in the Beast. It's all synthesizers, which may or may not appeal to you. But if you don't work with some sort of fixed-pitch instrument, it's pretty hard to say exactly what pitches you're getting. I've listened to it before, thank you for the recommendation though. I'm pretty sure i can say exactly what pitches I'm getting =)

  2929. musictheory 2018-10-01 06:15:03 beaumega1
    For shiggles, here's a goody in 11/16. [MarioKart 64 - music after the race](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVdxrERxQo8) Edit: Here's a real answer (from Wikipedia) * [*The Phantom of the Opera*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_of_the_Opera_(1986_musical)) (1986) by [Andrew Lloyd Webber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lloyd_Webber): "Notes" and "Notes II" each contain multiple sections of **15 16** * *Robert Browning Overture*, by [Charles Ives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ives) includes measures in **15 16** time. * *De Staat* by [Louis Andriessen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Andriessen). Bars 501 and 535–36 are in **15 16** time, divided **4+4+4+3** (in b. 501 some layers are in **3+3+3+3+3** and **3+4+4+3**) * [String Quartet No. 1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_Quartet_No._1_(Carter)) (1950–51), by [Elliott Carter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Carter) includes measures in **15 16** time. * String Quartet No. 1 (1949), by [Leon Kirchner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Kirchner) includes measures in **15 16** time. * [String Quartet No. 2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_Quartet_No._2_(Carter)) (1959), by [Elliott Carter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Carter) includes measures in **15 16** time

  2930. musictheory 2018-10-01 06:20:58 beaumega1
    From [this post on mosriteforum.com](http://www.mosriteforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3048): "Rock Lobster: CFXXFF (where X represents no string)"

  2931. musictheory 2018-10-01 08:59:53 TheCoolSquare
    So here's a potentially hot take. Barre chords are not hard. Anyone who thinks they are is a beginner. So with that knowledge all keys are pretty much equally easy from a chord standpoint. Some keys still might not be great options though. For example. Eb on a guitar tuned to standard E. The lowest pitched tonic note you can play is Eb3. In many cases playing an Eb chord with that as the lowest note just sounds too high relative to the other chords you're playing, at least in my opinion. Of course playing in a full band with a bass or something could change this but I'm just talking about the guitar by itself. &#x200B; From another standpoint, open strings tend to provide good tonal centers in riff based music. being able to riff around up the neck and then easily hit your open E string to return to tonal center makes E a strong choice for a key choice.

  2932. musictheory 2018-10-01 16:44:33 Jongtr
    I agree pretty much with all your five points and how they're argued. You seem to come down largely in favour of it, while pointing out that in certain spheres it's not essential. Hard to dispute that! But I think you could make a clearer distinction in reason #2: the "many great musicians" you've named are all pop/rock musicians, who one might regard as supremely talented, or at least had/have many other things going for them that rendered reading skills less important. (You do go on to say that for professional musicians in other spheres it's much more important - if not essential.) In reason #3 it's not clear why you mention the Suzuki method. The "learning method of first approaching music through the sound different notes make" is the way all non-reading musicians learn music who have never heard of Suzuki (or think it's a brand of motorbike). I.e., your "ear training" point is crucial of course, but there is no need to cite a "method". It makes it seem as if one needs to study the Suzuki method as the only way to train your ears. You don't have to mention it at all (it's irrelevant to the point you're making), but if you do it should be something like "the Suzuki method is a system of music teaching based on learning by ear". Personally, I learned to read music along with everyone else I was at school with, before I was interested in being a musician myself. I didn't choose it, I learned it the same way I learned stuff about chemistry or geography. But when I did get interested in teaching myself guitar, I found it immensely useful, because I could learn melodies from songbooks, and work out guitar parts from piano reductions - there were no books of guitar tab back then, no transcriptions of blues or rock songs, and pop songbooks rarely contained guitar parts. Of course I was forced to learn that stuff by ear. So my point would be that - even if your dream is to be a rock guitar god like Jimi or SRV, or a global singing superstar - having notation skills is an extra string to your bow. You might find you're not really a genius after all, and an extra edge would be handy. Musical literacy gives you that.

  2933. musictheory 2018-10-02 05:26:43 LPSlinga
    Yeah the piano is honestly a “perfect” instrument insofar as it is a scale laid out for the visualization of music concepts. I am a political science major but I took a class for fun on basic music theory in which we used pianos and I would experiment before class on stuff I already knew on guitar + what I learned in class and it helped so much. I now see guitar strings as 6 piano keyboards and guitar chords as weirdly ordered piano chords in inversions, repeating notes, etc. and everything just opened up from there. I learned guitar from Youtube starting in 2012ish and every guy talks about boxes, “5th string on 7th fret”, etc. which doesn’t allow you to be creative with it or actually learn MUSIC. Your last comment is hardly an exaggeration XD

  2934. musictheory 2018-10-02 06:44:09 65TwinReverbRI
    Not really. There is "old fashioned" beaming of grouping 4 8th notes over two beats in 4/4 meter, but with more rhythmically complex music today (plus people not learning to notate based on tradition, as well as software that doesn't do it by default) but with mixed values like this, it's less clear than your first example (it's not "wrong", but it is a bit old fashioned and not really necessary). That first 8th note is part of beat 1, and the beam break there shows that the next group - the next 8th and the following 16th are on beat 2 together. Furthemore, I disagree with the Tenuto. Tenuto is generally used to show that a note should be held for its full value, especially if the context has otherwise been staccato - IOW, part of its function is as a "reminder" that, "no we didn't accidentally leave a staccato dot off this note, so here's a tenuto line to show it's not a misprint and to remind you to hold it for its full value". But it also implies a bit of a stressed note (not an accent as some people believe, but more of just a "push through" the note, while also holding it its full value, and maybe a touch more in some contexts). If you want that stress, fine, but your original example was perfect and very typical in string writing.

  2935. musictheory 2018-10-02 06:55:01 Skylord_a52
    If you're worried about the upper strings being able to understand what's going on, you could add a tiny note representing what the lower voices are playing, and mark it "cello, bass" or something. I've seen this before in string music, I'll see if I can find an example.

  2936. musictheory 2018-10-02 07:43:27 dlvega_0030
    Thanks for such a thorough comment. In reason 2, I would have loved to find more musicians not related to pop / rock music that didn't need to read sheet music. I hope to do more research, and find some examples in other musical spheres. I am gona change the 3rd reason content, in order to make it clear that the Suzuki method is one of the many systems of music teaching. I also liked the "extra string to your bow" expression... very simple, understandable, and effective. Thanks so much :D

  2937. musictheory 2018-10-02 08:22:51 assword_69420420
    Lesson 2: six string sweep picking

  2938. musictheory 2018-10-02 08:59:11 omegacluster
    Simple answer: no. Long answer: technically no, but in reality, yes. This all has to do with how we hear notes. The human ear can hear from around 20 Hz to around 20 kHz. Notes below or above that wouldn't add to the chord and can therefore be omitted. If you take only dodecaphonic notes from our musical system E^0 is a little over 20 Hz and Eb^10 a little under 20 kHz; those would essentially be the first and last discernible note in our hearing spectrum. Between those two notes are 131 chromatic notes, if my calculations are correct. This is perhaps the densest and biggest chord you can make and would sound basically like white noise. But then again not really. There are more notes in the world of music than there are in our Western music system. Since the frequency range is one that is continuous, there really is an infinity of notes between two points. Even between two adjacent notes on a piano hides an infinite number of pitches. So, even between 20 Hz and 20 kHz, there would be an infinite number of pitches, therefore a chord containing an incalculable number of notes. This is real white noise. However, we can narrow this down a little. The threshold for distinguishing between two pitches is around 5 ¢ but it can vary depending on pitch, environment, timbre, and so on (a ¢ (cent) is 1/1200 of an octave, e.g. there are always 100 ¢ between two chromatic notes on a piano). But this is only when those are two non-overlapping pitches, played one after the other. It's much more easy to tell two pitches apart when they are played together, because of their interference with one another. That's how a lot of people check if their guitar strings are tuned (playing one note in case 5 and the next string open). Two notes that are really close to one another in terms of pitch will give a sort of flanger effect, but the closer the pitches get, the less you notice this effect. Since you would need to remember the exact "sound" of the flanger effect and compare it at one moment with itself at another moment to know if it's changing, you need to rely on short-term memory. Short-term memory duration is around 18 seconds without any form of mnemonic repetition (for example repeating the phone number to yourself out loud so as to not forget it; essentially, this is like resetting the short-term memory clock at every repetition). I'm going to say as a hypothesis that if the period of the flanging is 4 times the memory duration, the change in its sound should be minor enough to be unnoticeable. So we're looking at a period of 72 seconds, which means that the two notes must be at least 0.014 Hz apart for anyone to be able to tell that two notes are being played. And unlike pitch differentiation, where we would use the logarithmic cents scale, this is a linear value because we have to deal with time perception. With that in mind, in we could divide our whole 20 Hz - 20 kHz range in bites of 0.014 Hz, to get what is the highest number of differentiable notes we can have in one chord. SO! (20,000 - 20) / 0.014 = 1,427,142.8571 (let's round it down to 1,427,142) notes. That's a lot! I've only used binary differentiation (being able to tell between two different notes played at once) for this approximation, but the actual value might be different when we include ternary, quaternary, and so on (which means being able to tell between three and four different pitches played at once). I just don't know. So, as far as I know, the practical limit to how many notes can be in a chord is 1,427,142.

  2939. musictheory 2018-10-02 10:06:18 [deleted]
    ABE is not an A major triad. A-C#-E is. Also, for the A minor triad A-C-E, that 5 is not flat: it's a perfect 5th between A and E. As a guitar player you have an advantage in understanding intervals: except for the odd-ball B string which is tuned to the 4th fret instead of the 5th like every other string, a minor 3rd is up one string, down 2 frets. Major 3rd is up one string, down 1 fret (like the first to strings in an open G chord). A perfect 5th is the power chord: up one string, up 2 frets.

  2940. musictheory 2018-10-02 10:14:54 BlueFreedom420
    Thanks! I understand intervals for creating Major and Minor scales from the Chromatic scale, and how intervals translate in a simple way to the fretboard ( half step = 1 fret Full step = 2 frets) But what I don't understand is going up or down the string EADGBE What is guiding you to know to go up or down the strings?

  2941. musictheory 2018-10-02 10:23:14 [deleted]
    It's the same concept, just easier to visualize on the fret-board. I usually picture them on the lowest 4 strings (EADG) to avoid the odd-ball B string. Looking at it your way, in terms of the chromatic scale, you have: m2 = 1 fret / 1 half step M2 = 2 frets / 2 half steps (aka 1 whole step) m3 = 3 frets / 3 frets M3 = 4 frets P4 = 5 frets A4/d5 = 6 frets P5 = 7 frets Jumping up one string without changing the fret, for example from the 3rd fret on the low E string to the 3rd fret on the A string, is the same as going up 5 frets. So to visualize a minor 3rd above C for example, you can either picture the C as the 3rd fret of the A string and going up 3 frets to the 6th fret of the A string, or by going up one *string* to the 3rd fret of the D string (5 half steps) then going back down 2 frets to get to 3 half steps. With some practice you'll stop going up to the same fret of the next highest string and then back down, but just learn to remember the intervals by the "shape"

  2942. musictheory 2018-10-02 10:52:13 Auntie_Beeb
    You should research Vocal Pitch Monitor. I believe there are some online versions and ones for [mobile devices](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tadaoyamaoka.vocalpitchmonitor&hl=en_US) too. Sing into your mic and the app tells you what note it is, and how flat/sharp!! Also, as you're already using the guitar - you can try muting the guitar strings and then letting them free when you sing your note. The corresponding string should sound in sympathy.

  2943. musictheory 2018-10-02 17:05:52 Heimcrabs
    Ah man, Thanks alot for this awesome illustration, effort and time you put to write this detailed comment, its one of the comments that I would read more than once. Thank you! > Why not? Are all the songs you've tried to learn that boring? Actually no, most of the time I pick something that is way above my level, which something I love so much too, I say to myself no matter how hard it is, if I give it time and effort I will strengthen my technique, I get excited and decide to go for it, things for dream theater for example, I divide it into small parts, take each part and practice it with metronome on a slower tempo, and since its way above my level, it takes wayy too long to get one small part that is no longer than 20 seconds acceptable, not even perfect. I spend like a week learning that small part, and half way I listen to another song and feel like I wanna try that one too. That's basically the reason why i keep switching between songs. > Improvisation and composition both required a fund of *vocabulary* \- that comes from learning other people's music: copying what good composers and improvisers produce. That's how *they* learned. Learning songs, learning solos. Understanding how melody fits chords, how song structures work. That's an absolutely good point there, I do play alot of free style solo, but i usually stick to one string and keep sliding up and down, cuz im afraid moving around with strings as i might hit the wrong note while soloing. Again, this is due to lack of vocabulary and understanding of the neck. > NEVER compare yourself to anyone else. I can't help man haha, its actually more to admiring them, i never wished to be exactly like them tho, i only wish to have the good techniques with understanding of music they have, so i can apply my own taste. > Hell, some people can't even play guitar at all!! You're five years ahead of them! :-D Haha thanks for the good vibe and motivation, but you have to agree that all of us guitarists no matter how good we are, we never satisfied with out level, John Petrucci said so. > The only person you should compare yourself with is you - are you better than you used to be? Very well said, this is very true. > You just need more self-discipline - which, to be honest, you need anyway even if you have a teacher. *if* you can learn to focus, and organise the process yourself. Pick a couple of songs you really like, that you would love to be able to play in their entirety, Sure thing man, i will definitely follow these tips, im sure it will help. >As I guess you're not in band, and don't know other musicians No, actually during my university time which exactly where i started playing guitar, i was surrounded by many musicians, and most of them were much better than I, and i can tell its one of the best and fastest way to learn, as they can see what i don't on my playing, pointing out wrong habits and techniques, sharing good methods of practicing, I also used to be part of the official band of the university, we got to perform on events and stuff. Also, I had my own band back then, I played rhythm, and we used to join a yearly music band competitions, we even secured second runner up once out of 17 bands. But it has been almost a year since I have graduated, I went to my home country and I'm now missing to all of these. I have no friends to jam with, I no bands, no performance no nothing.

  2944. musictheory 2018-10-02 17:28:09 Jongtr
    > as long as it sounds good, everything is allowed Yes, that's rule #1. In fact, it's really the only "rule", in the sense of a "law that must be followed". (Remembering that sometimes really dissonant or nasty sounds "sound good" if we want something dramatic or surprising.) The other "rules" of music are just "common practices": what people do "as a rule", most of the time. I.e., there is general agreement about what kinds of things sound good to most people, on average, so those become the common practices, which is what "music theory" is built from. It becomes self-perpetuating, of course, because once those "rules" are written down, new learners follow them, and the common practices become even more common, and therefore even more familiar, and consequently even more *popular*. (We like what we know, what we *recognise* in music.) It then takes the occasional genius - or rebellious, uneducated (self-taught) musician - to say "hang on a minute, I'm bored with all the same old same old - let's try something off the wall for a change...." Naturally most of those kind of experiments fail - because they sound bad even to the person trying them - but with enough self-confidence (and good ears) those kind of people can push boundaries just enough to take music forward. They're still following rule #1, but they have (through education or accident) more open ears than most, and with luck they can persuade listeners to open their ears a little more too. After all, we all like a bit of *freshness* in music: we like to hear the same old stuff recycled in new ways, which all competent hack composers and improvisers can do. So we do find ourselves open to more surprising innovations, especially if delivered with panache and charisma. Anyway... > can someone maybe explain the progression of this song? maybe its in a different scale that i'm missing? what's the scale of this song? That's the kind of assumption common from anyone who's studied just a little bit of music theory, with the view point that it's about "rules" and "formulas". ;-) Music is based on scales, but only in the same way that our language is based on the alphabet. That doesn't really explain anything! Music is really based on *melody, rhythm, keys and harmony* - i.e., higher level organisation of that underlying level of scales. In the same way that when we speak we organise our thoughts in words and phrases, not in strings of letters. So the useful question is not "what scale (or scales) do these chords come from?" but "how does this sequence work?" Why did the composer choose these chords and string them together in this order? All the chords work in sequence because of *voice-leading*. That's the way that each note in each chord connects in a smooth, usually scale-wise line with the nearest note in the next chord (this is more the case when the chords have 7ths or extensions, but works with triads too). E.g., with F - F/A - Bb, you obviously have a rising bass line, while the F note is shared with Bb and the C rises to D. Moving to Bbm, F and Bb are shared while the D descends to Db. Normally the next chord would be F, so the Db would go on down to C (and the Bb returns to A). In this case, the Db would go back up to D on the Gm chord. Minor iv chords are such a "common practice" that there are a couple of terms to describe it: "modal interchange" or "borrowing from the parallel minor". I.e., if you want a "rule" for this, it's "you can use chords from both the maajor and minor scales with the same keynote". The most unusual chord in this sequence is the Abm - it doesn't come from any parallel F-root mode, and doesn't have a clear function in this key - so much so that I'd like to make sure that really is the chord at that point. It's not that the voice-leading can't be made to work, it can (presumably the Abm returns to F?), just that it is such an unusual chord in this context. So - what's the song?

  2945. musictheory 2018-10-02 20:40:00 Jongtr
    Ah! As he can't read notation, you either need to get more acquainted with guitar (notes on each fret on each string) so you can tab it for him ; or you could use notation software, which - assuming it supports guitar - will allow you to enter staff notation and copy/paste to a tab staff. But the tab staff is dumb - it will give the right notes, but not necessarily the best place on the fretboard to play them; it often produces impossible fingerings. Remember that even if you can identify the chords, there are many ways to play a specific chord, and not all may sound right. Still, that may not matter too much, as one voicing/shape may work as well as another if it's just about accompanying the clarinet. Failing that - give the video to him and let him do it! :-)

  2946. musictheory 2018-10-02 22:51:34 lasercruster
    Don't rely on technology to tell you answers to this stuff. Rely on your ear. Play the song and keep hitting Bb on your instrument (or, make a string of Bb 8th notes in your DAW). Now do the same for F. Which sounds more at "home"? To my ear, it's the F. The harmony is a little ambiguous in this track, but I think the best case would be for either F Major or D Minor.

  2947. musictheory 2018-10-03 03:20:41 aotus_trivirgatus
    >Thanks! It's got some pretty accurately tuned "4:5:6:7" chords, like they sing in barbershop, so that may have something to do with your impression =) Ah, well, you're sort of making my point for me then. Barbershop quartet singers adjust their pitches, to approximate just-intonation ratios centered around a note that is important at that moment. Barbershop quartet singers are not conceptualizing music using 22 pitch categories, though, they're thinking in 12. You are attempting to convey an "augmented second" in your piece. But you say that you're getting that augmented second by going far up the circle of fifths, discovering that you have a superior approximation to 5:4 if you fold it back down several octaves, and then actually trying to sing 5:4 when you perform. What was the original purpose of equal-temperament tuning? It is to provide reasonable, and equally good-sounding approximations to JI intervals **in any key**, on instruments with **fixed pitches**. That's exactly why Bach wrote *The Well-Tempered Clavier*, to showcase this point. He didn't write The Well-Tempered Barbershop Quartet (or String Quartet), because vocalists and string players listen to each other when performing in ensembles, and adjust their pitches. Once again, I like the sound of your piece. But I feel a need for a clearer presentation of *22-equal* in order to learn its unique harmonic qualities. I'm convinced that you would not sing what you sung if you were thinking in 12-equal, that much is obvious. But if you had "rounded off" starting from a thought process in 24-equal (the current conceptual framework for Arabic music) or 31-equal (which has been kicked around for centuries, and which is known to provide very good approximations to small integer ratios), would your performance have sounded any different? Referring back to Wendy Carlos' *Beauty in the Beast*, I read an interview article which came out when the album was released. Carlos says that one of the compositions (I believe it's track 4, "Just Imaginings") is based on a monstrous 144-pitch collection she calls the "super-just" scale. It starts with 12-equal. To get the rest of the notes, 11 small-ratio intervals are constructed above each of the 12 starting pitches. It seems like overkill, but listening to "Just Imaginings" you can hear very long progressions through "the circle of fifths" with deeply-resonant chords at each step. There's something obviously different happening there. I'm not advocating for the Super-Just scale. I'm just suggesting that, if you really want a single system which is both well-tempered and just, it's a possible solution.

  2948. musictheory 2018-10-03 22:12:28 theredwoodcurtain
    Guitar has a certain sound when playing E minor in an open position. The “Spanish-ness” is more about that position than the key itself. He’s playing open string harmonics,which only works right if you’re using an open position on guitar. You’re correct in that you could slap a capo on a guitar and get the same effect in other keys, but guitarists will know you’re playing out of an open E minor position.

  2949. musictheory 2018-10-03 22:32:54 DRL47
    The stick excites the bowl in the same way that the bow excites a violin string. It catches and slips as it is drawn against the material. The same as a finger around a wine glass rim. You can bow the end of a vibraphone bar for the same effect.

  2950. musictheory 2018-10-03 22:55:19 janxoutfits
    https://open.spotify.com/track/6i4lpbJn9cFDgM7m22bpqs?si=kXIQ9261T7-S2Si59_z7Tg This one for example. There are different types of string instruments, some drums maybe some Glockenspiel I'm not really sure.

  2951. musictheory 2018-10-03 23:09:57 DRL47
    The thing about a cappella singing and string orchestras is they tune each chord independently. They "un-temper" their intervals. It isn't necessarily "just intonation", as the tuning may fluctuate throughout a piece. All of the D#s may not be the same, for instance, especially in a highly chromatic piece.

  2952. musictheory 2018-10-04 04:34:43 65TwinReverbRI
    er... Well, any Major or Minor triad can be Tonicized. Every chord in your first progression can be Tonicized (heck, they're all major) except the "i" chord, because it is the tonic and is "tonicized" by the native dominant already. It doesn't "function better". V/bVI is bIII, so it's just bIII. We don't call every I chord we see "V/IV" just because we can, even if it leads to IV or is between to IV chords. Forget this "bIII/IV" business. While you can have secondary chords of any type, really, you begin with secondary DOMINANT chords - V (V7, etc.) and vii^o of "X". You could have a "IV/IV" or something like that, and sometimes that's used when a bVII chord is *clearly* acting in a "IV-like" chord to the IV, and not a Mixolydian bVII or other borrowed chord. What you have is: i - bVI - bIII - bVI and that's pretty much it. Since the bIII is native to the key, using it as a triad dominant is not very obvious, so if someone truly wanted it to be a Secondary Dominant and Tonicize the bVI, it would end up - in the key of Cm: Cm - Ab - Eb7 - Ab That Eb7 is Tonicizing the last Ab. You could have: Cm - Eb7 - Ab - Eb - Ab and the first Eb7 would be tonicizing the Ab, and the 2nd should then probably sound like a V in that relation and potentially a key change - which is why people tend to avoid such progressions if they want to maintain the key center. You could tonicize the Eb: Cm - Ab - Bb7 - Eb - Ab or Cm - Bb7 - Eb - Ab, or a string of tonicizations: Cm - Bb7 - Eb7 - Ab Here's something fun: Cm - Bb7 - Eb7 - Ab7 - Cm/G - G7 - Cm. The Ab7 works like a Ger+6, But that last one doesn't sound like Cm - Ab - Eb - Ab. If that's what you want, that's what you write. There's no "function better". There's only "achieve the effect you want".

  2953. musictheory 2018-10-04 14:08:52 redwalljds
    First, a string quartet normally does not include double bass: the traditional ensemble is Violin 1, Violin 2, Viola, Cello. Second, string instruments blend well enough naturally that you can assume for orchestrational purposes that all dynamics will be equal. The players work out the details of balance among themselves in rehearsal

  2954. musictheory 2018-10-05 05:36:58 HideousRabbit
    Jongtr's approach would work if you're familiar with guitar. You could also just draw up a grid to represent the complete fretboard (or use a spreadsheet program), write in the notes on each string for each fret, and look for comfortably playable chords on the grid. That's what I do whenever I try a new guitar tuning.

  2955. musictheory 2018-10-05 06:54:41 Jongtr
    OK. Just to give you a couple of extra chords to go with the above: D chord (easy one!): A 0 (A) E 2 (F#) D 0 (D) F chord: A 3 (C) E 5 (A) D 3 (F) Did you think about tuning the pondar to match banjo tuning? If the strings will take it, you could put the E up to G and the A up to B. It would then be the same as strings 4-3-2 on banjo (DGB). Alternatively, tune the D string down to C, the E up to F and leave the A as is. That's then CFA, like banjo but down a whole step - so the shapes will be the same (although the chord sounds will obviously be a whole step down). EDIT: jazzadelic's post reminded me: there are guitar sites where you can choose a tuning and then find chord shapes in that tuning. I tried [this one] (https://jguitar.com/chordsearch?tuning=4D%2C4E%2C5A%2C5G%2C5B%2C6E) - which seems to work. I selected D-E-A for the bottom two strings, and obviously you need to ignore the other strings (the right hand three in the box diagrams). Some of the diagrams mute a lower string or two, often unnecessarily, but there are plenty of choices. Or [this site] (http://www.chorderator.com//cgi-bin/designer.py?frets=+++++&tuning=DEA) lets you select a 3-string tuning only (I just did it), but it's a reverse chord finder: you select the notes, it tells you the chord, which is the opposite of what you want!

  2956. musictheory 2018-10-06 05:17:58 Oriamus
    In college I wrote a little string quartet piece that had a "Sequential" pattern to its key changes. It started on E, played for like 10 seconds, instantly went to F for about 10 seconds, then F# 10 seconds, G... and so on. It gave the sound of the music rising like a tide, so that's what I named the piece: Ocean Tides. But I don't have a name for that sequence of half-step key changes. I just think the effect you get out of a half-step key change sounds really cool.

  2957. musictheory 2018-10-06 17:15:12 iammyowndoctor
    Is there 12? The twelfth isn't the octave? Goddammit here I go counting my frets. Aaaaaand, you are right there are 12. I guess I forgot to count the open string as a note. I just did the number of frets minus 1 for the octave. You would have thought I would have known the right answer here unequivocally by now. Lol. Wait a sec, but, but. Or am I wrong about this too... one sec, there are *11* intervals though right anyway? Well, if you don't consider the octave to be different from the unison correct? Ok, maybe that's what I was thinking of idk.

  2958. musictheory 2018-10-07 00:53:31 65TwinReverbRI
    >Hi, I found this list about the emotional qualities of keys in classical music, and is pretty neat. it may be neat, but totally untrue and unfounded (edit, I'm not saying the list is on this site, because it comes from a source, but even that source is not using any objective measure for any of this). >But I wanna know if there's a similar list about chords, No, there's not. Especially given the other doesn't exist either. Now, just to be somewhat more thorough, there was a time when tunings were different from what we use now so in some tunings, some keys sounded DIFFERENT. However, they didn't necessarily evoke any certain emotion, just were more noticeably different than a modern 12tet tuning would produce. Likewise, you have to remember that the String Orchestra was the core of most large instrumental ensembles and because of the range of the string instruments, certain keys (and thus even chords) are going to again sound "different". For example, the lowest note on Cello is C, and a piece in C Major or C Minor is going to have a different sound than one in say, F Major or Minor, assuming that more use of the C is made than the F (but musically speaking, the distribution of the notes could be relatively even because of other chords and inversions). So we can say that there are factors that make keys - or chords - sound "different" but then again, those factors are a *specific context* - a different tuning system, specific instrumentation, etc. But if you're talking Piano and 12tet, most people are not going to hear any inherent emotion in the KEY specifically - in fact, most listeners are not even going to know what key they're in. Any emotion in the music is IN THE MUSIC itself (and that which we associate with it)

  2959. musictheory 2018-10-07 05:09:46 65TwinReverbRI
    Let's correct a few things. The Outro in Stairway is in Am, not C, so it's i - bVII - bVI - (bVII). There's no name for that. The thing that happens at the beginning, with the descending chromatic line is called the Line Cliche in jazz, but more frequently it's just a chromatic line within a static harmony context like String of Pearls. But in pop music, especially if it's descending and starts on the tonic note and is a bass part (like Stairway) you'll also hear it called the "Chim Chim Cheree" progression, after the Mary Poppins song. There is an Andalusian Cadence, which is i (or I) - bVII - bVI - V - so Stairway and Watchtower can be seen as truncated versions of that. The full version is in Hit the Road Jack, Sixteen Tons, Stray Cat Strut, Walk Don't Run, etc. The whole "4 chord rotation" thing has started to become called the "Axis" progression from the Axis of Awesome videos years back that started calling attention to them. It could apply to any of the rotations, but usually i - bVI - bIII - bVII or from the major standpoint, I - V - vi - IV. BTW, you should use Roman Numerals for chord numbers outside of Nashville :-) beaumega's post pretty much covers the rest of the "named" progressions.

  2960. musictheory 2018-10-07 14:24:18 banjalien
    I will give you a few ways to study/analyze music. A lot of theory talk is about the very small details or is overly focused on harmony/chords. What I currently do is go through a piece with a color pencil and find the structure of the song. What are the sections, what are the motifs/themes? How many measures are each section? Are there variations on the primary melody? How did they move from one section to another? I have my own ways of marking this all out but it involves an outline. I of course do a harmonic analysis but I think in order to properly understand the harmonies you need to know why they were use and how they create structure. For example, a modulation is a great tool to outline form for your audience. Spotting a V of V in there, doesn't tell you much by itself. That harmony moves you towards a goal. If composing and improvising are your goals then I would also find melodies in the songs you pick and transpose them to a couple of keys. You basically want to get to the point that you know the keys inside and out so you aren't sitting there struggling to play something because you don't know the key. The more you can take a melodic or harmonic idea and play it in a number of keys, the more freedom you will have with your writing/instrument. Speeds up the process. This is something all jazz players work on but it shouldn't be limited to jazz or jazz vocabulary. For example, I took a bunch of "licks" out of Ravel's string quartet and transposed them to a bunch of chords and keys. In order to improvise you have to practice it. You can have all the knowledge and licks in the world but you have to practice putting them in. You like russian composers, go take some Tchaikovsky/Rimsky-Korsakov melodies and transpose them. Something else you could do is even write variations on those melodies. Lastly, take some small piece of music you enjoy and use that as a model to create your own improvisation or composition. &#x200B; &#x200B;

  2961. musictheory 2018-10-07 23:00:15 beaumega1
    The instruments playing the piece have the biggest influence for me. Wind players like keys with flats, as when they sustain a note then press a key/valve down, the pitch lowers. String players like keys with sharps, as when they sustain a note then press a string down, the pitch raises. Piano players prefer keys with few accidentals, as it makes it simpler to play mainly white keys. Guitar players are versatile. They can take the 4 or 5 chords they learn in the first lesson, then barre/capo to whatever key area they need. Some musicians will say they find some keys more specifically emotional than others, but imo that can be attributed to association with literature with which they're familiar.

  2962. musictheory 2018-10-08 01:59:04 Pasha_Dingus
    Oops. That should be 002331, or E-B-A-F-C-F from thin to thick. I find that confusing for some reason, so I always flip things around when I'm working. And yes, that's exactly what it is except for the F on the top string. edit: may be obvious, but that makes the B the #11. The natural 11th here would be Bb, yes?

  2963. musictheory 2018-10-08 11:15:01 MiskyWilkshake
    As a rule of thumb, just avoid close-voiced extended chords. Most of the time in a jazz setting, guitarists tend to play 4-note voicings on either the adjacent middle strings, highest 4 strings, or either highest or second-highest 3 adjacent strings with a bass note on the A or E string respectively. This bears out in drop2, drop4, or drop2/4 voicings fairly often. Another thing to bear in mind is that anywhere multiple chord-tones can be reached with a barred finger, they generally should be (which is why you also see a lot of quartal voicings as well).

  2964. musictheory 2018-10-08 11:46:29 65TwinReverbRI
    We don't usually use the term staccato for this. At about 2:53 the guitar solo starts and he's playing muted notes which produce a staccato effect and could even be notated as such. But the part you linked to, the lead guitar is doing a couple of things we can "name". It's playing "unison notes" which is possible on guitar by playing one note on, in this instance, the open E string, and then a fretted E note on the next adjacent string which gives it sort of that "jangly" sound. That also creates something we call a "drone" or "pedal point" (drone is the more typical word in pop music, especially which it's a high pitch). The backing chords, we don't really say anything about. Sometimes we might use a word like "hit" or "stab" for "sharp" rhythms, but usually they are just a one off, or, for example, like the part where all the backing stops and he goes "I'm hot sticky sweet..." right before he starts that there's this "double hit" in the guitars - but most people wouldn't call it that unless trying to describe it to someone who's not hear the song. They're sometimes called things like "stop time" or "stops" or "breaks" and so on. Mama also has the "drone" idea going on in it too - in that one inner synth line. But there's so much other stuff going on that it's more a backing feature. We don't ave any terms for what every one else is doing (aside from melody, rhythm, etc.) nor the texture as a whole, just "drone" for that one part. The sound being used is "short" and seems to have a break between notes, so we could say it's "staccato" but we don't typically use that term in that way in this kind of context. The "drone" aspect of it is more important and again, that's not even the main part of the texture. If you like, they add a "pulsating rhythmic figure droning a single pitch or chord"

  2965. musictheory 2018-10-08 13:03:47 caravanblue
    I don't know why, but I just tried C6/9 on a guitar and it made me giggle... It's just one finger on the 1st fret of the B string!

  2966. musictheory 2018-10-08 19:28:58 Jongtr
    There's various ways of describing it: E major with borrowed chords (bVI bIII bVII IV I), mixed mode, a string of plagal cadences, etc. But "how it works" is probably best explained by the voice-leading: C G D A E G = G > F#> E = E E > D = D > C#> B C > B > A = A > G# Scalewise descents and shared tones. Bound to sound good. Key relationships are less significant, although each set of three chords shares a key, and they overlap: C G D = G major G D A = D major D A E = A major A E = E major

  2967. musictheory 2018-10-08 22:01:17 DRL47
    To expand: "plagal cadences" means a string of secondary subdominants. C is the subdominant of G, which is the subdominant of D, which is the subdominant of A, which IS the subdominant in E.

  2968. musictheory 2018-10-09 02:52:50 BiscottiePippen
    Alright I got it, so one thing I’ve learned is to look up live performances and see exactly what the musicians are playing and I knew they had some good live shots on YouTube, notably the NPR Tiny Desk one. The song starts on a F major chord played in A barre shape at the 7 fret. Then it moves down to D minor, barred again. Then the chord in question is Bb minor which is acting sort of like the IV-iv cadence (think Creep by Radiohead) but without the major sound. Pretty interesting. And then the last chord is G minor. The chorus is just two chords, G minor and A minor. On that Bb minor chord however, there is a high pitched C to Bb pull off on the high E string.

  2969. musictheory 2018-10-09 05:36:15 mediasavage
    bass is nice cuz the way the notes are laid out is very "symmetrical" (not sure of a better term for it, but I think you know what I mean), so in general its very easy to transpose. one thing i can think of practicing in regards to this though is not just moving up/down the fretboard but instead start the pattern on a different string. e.g. say your song was originally in A minor and the pattern is based around the root note being on the fifth fret of the low E string. now say you want to transpose it to D minor. you could move the whole pattern up to the 10th fret, but you could also move the pattern so that it is based around the 5th fret, with the root note being on the 5th fret of the A string. you could take this example even further by putting the bass in drop D tuning and then starting your pattern on the low D string. this tuning might make things a bit more challenging in general since it removes a bit of the fretboard's nice symmetrical properties (since the interval between the 2 lowest strings is now a different interval than the ones between all the others) for some patterns of course this is impractical because it might make it unnecessarily hard to play, but in general it's a good thing to try and do, if not just for the sake of learning the fretboard better

  2970. musictheory 2018-10-09 08:26:18 livin4donuts
    For what it's worth I prefer to play bass in drop D all the time. I'm used to it, since I play mostly punk/hard rock which has a lot of it, so for me it's basically a second standard tuning. You do get used to the interval being different and now I hardly notice it. Similarly, on a guitar, the interval between the 3rd string and 2nd string is 4 steps instead of 5. If it was tuned "symmetrically" it would look like this: E (lowest) A D G C F (highest) Where in standard tuning, the C (2nd) string is tuned down to the 4th fret of the G (3rd) string instead of the 5th fret. I believe the tuning is standardized this way to be more efficient as far as your hand shape goes when playing chords, since your fingers would be crammed on top of each other for some chords otherwise, and they have more room this way. For a bassist this might be difficult to adjust to at first, since like you said the bass is symmetrical.

  2971. musictheory 2018-10-09 11:02:00 HideousRabbit
    Playing from sheet music requires being competent at several different things at once. Learning to do it is easier if you focus on getting better at those things individually. Here are some suggestions: Learn to play the major scale fluently in all keys and all positions (3-notes per string or CAGED) if you haven't already. Learning arpeggios and simple scale patterns and can be helpful too. Do you know the notes on your fretboard? I recently found Exercise 3 ('Learning the Notes') on [this page](https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/27763-what-the-ell-how-to-keep-your-chops-up-on-the-road) useful when learning a new tuning. Work on your rhythm sight-reading. Find sheet music that you haven't heard before, and clap the rhythm of the melody to a metronome. (I used to use the Charlie Parker Omnibook.) Practice with swing and straight-8ths feels. This can be quite difficult for beginners. Practice sight-reading rhythmically boring melodies. One thing you can do is write a semi-random series of whole notes on a stave, staying in one key and using stepwise movement for the most part. Then sight-read the 'melody', staying in one position (or playing along one string). Using a metronome is a good idea. When you're done, you can turn the page upside-down and use it again! When you want to start sight-reading actual music, use easy material to begin with. Flute and clarinet instruction books can be good sources of practice material.

  2972. musictheory 2018-10-09 13:39:12 vornska
    Get used to it. In real music, whether it's for piano, string quartet, symphony, or chorus, a triad is rarely just two stacked thirds. Most music doubles notes and spaces them widely. SATB choral music is just the simplest possible way of notating stuff that happens all the time. The stuff you're complaining about is way more widely applicable than just choir pieces.

  2973. musictheory 2018-10-09 14:01:34 beaumega1
    The tools alone are \~$67 dollars on amazon. I do insist that you consider finding a professional though. This is not as simple as tuning a guitar. If you were to start at one end, and tune each note's string(s), then by the time you get to the other end, the tension applied by the strings you tuned first will have been offset by the additional tension applied to the rest of the strings, and your original tunings will be badly altered. It's a balancing act. In other words, tuning a piano is an art. Some keys on the piano will even have two strings, and there are conventions by which you tune the strings ever-so-slightly out of tune with one another in order to achieve a rich, classical sound. Once you have it in tune, it should last for more than a few months. Even a few years. And if done correctly, it will not need regular touch-ups. If you aspire to learn how to do this, there appeared to be some online certification for \~$725.

  2974. musictheory 2018-10-09 15:08:27 O1_O1
    Damn right I’ll learn this, even tuning a guitar is an art although is just 6 strings. Sure a tuner from an app or one you nought yourself can do the job but those who know their guitars know the right tone. I imagine it’s the same with this, just a lot more string. I have the patience to learn and tune it as perfect as possible.

  2975. musictheory 2018-10-09 18:03:30 Jongtr
    OK, this is the deal breaker: If you (a) *really* can't sing the song high enough, and (b) you *really* need those open strings (so transposing to other shapes wouldn't work), but (c) can't tune the guitars low enough (without fitting new strings) - and (d) you (or he) don't want to fit new strings... then you can't do that song. Simple as that. Find another song. (BTW: changing gauges won't "affect" the guitar - in any bad way - if you choose the right gauge for the tuning. Lower tuning + heavier strings = same tension. The wrong gauge - too much or too little tension - won't damage the guitar in any case - the truss rod might need adjusting, that's all. But if he fits the requisite heavier strings, the poor guy might have to keep his guitar in that tuning, if he doesn't want the increased tension - or the danger of string breakage - if tuning back up. This music stuff is a tough business ain't it?.... :-)) There honestly can't be many songs where all those conditions apply. If there are - well you're just choosing the wrong material for your band (for your singers at least). There's another solution: find a singer who *can* sing that high! ;-)

  2976. musictheory 2018-10-09 18:52:55 Murzinio
    >If you were to start at one end, and tune each note's string(s), then by the time you get to the other end, the tension applied by the strings you tuned first will have been offset by the additional tension applied to the rest of the strings, and your original tunings will be badly altered. But the same applies to guitar... You just have less trings.

  2977. musictheory 2018-10-09 22:05:58 O1_O1
    Tightening and loosening a string? I’d say it’s the same lol. They’re both string instruments. Of course for one you need tools and training but the idea is the same.

  2978. musictheory 2018-10-09 23:27:42 65TwinReverbRI
    As others have said, it depends on the sound you want. But, to add something they haven't really said, staccato playing - that is a break between notes where one sounds, then there's a bit of silence - even a slight bit - before the next note sounds, is typically more of a "special effect". While staccato playing (disconnected, detached) playing is quite common, comparatively speaking it is not the primary way most people play which is instead legato, or "connected" (legato has the same root as ligature, which is "a tie" or "tied", so not literally tied notes as in written notation but notes that keep sounding all the way up until the next note sounds, with no silence or break between them). To play legato, one must play a note, and then keep that finger down so the note keeps sounding, then play a new note by putting the next finger down and plucking at the exact same time, so there's no break in the sound, and one note "butts up against the next". Think of notes like bricks in a wall, where all the bricks on a row would be right up against the next brick in the row - that's legato. But if you chopped of 1/4 of each brick and left a gap between each where you could see through, that would be staccato. And playing things that are typically played legato in a staccato manner will sound "choppy". Now, as JonGtr mentioned, there is a vast misuse of the word "legato" in the online guitar community so you're not going to be able to google "legato guitar" and get REAL examples of legato playing. Guitarists also do something called "slurs" (which other instrumentalists do as well, and is the proper term for it) which are "hammer ons" and "pull offs" where one note is played, and a 2nd note is sounding either by hammering the fretting finger down, or pulling it off in such a way as to "pluck" the next note. In both cases, this automatically creates legato playing, so someone misunderstood this and called it "legato" playing (it is, but, it's also a special technique that creates legato, and just one way to do it, not the only way to do it as is implied) and you'll also hear it called legato technique. But, I suppose the good part of this is if you do watch some of those videos, that smooth, connected sound is what you're going for not only as happens naturally when you slur, but to do that when you pick as well - which again means the pluck has to happen at the exact same time as a finger comes down for a note or lifts for a note, without deadening the already-sounding note. So the video is right - "most of the time" you shouldn't be playing staccato. On guitar, you can do staccato either by releasing pressure on a note but keeping your finger there to deaden it, or you can mute the string after you play it with a free finger of the fretting hand, or use the picking hand to mute it. There's also "muting" on guitar or what is often called "Palm muting" (but oddly, not "staccato technique"!) where part of the palm of the hand is placed on the strings near the bridge to mute the strings as you play, which because it causes the notes to be greatly shortened, is a similar effect to staccato. While we're on the subject, there's another thing beginners run into that is like these problems, and that is one of "overlap". If you play 2 notes on the same string, you can play the first note, and either have a break (staccato) or have it connected to (legato) the next note on the same string. But, an additional problem that comes up is when the first note is on one string and the next note is on an adjacent string. You SHOULD try to play them legato as well, having the note on one string stop at the exact same time the new note is sounded on the next string. But, because they're on different strings (and this is especially true if one of the strings is open) it's easy to accidentally leave the first note sounding while you play the second note, creating an "overlap" in sound. Like staccato, this *can* be something you actually want - like when you're playing basic chord arpeggio patterns (not like sweep arpeggios though). But if it's a melody line, it would sound bad. This is kind of like two rows of bricks, where the lower row is offset half a brick from the upper row and one overlaps the other. Makes for a strong Lego wall, but not so great for melody lines! So two bad things you can do - notes too short that they don't connect to the next note, and notes too long that they overlap into the next note. For legato, you want notes that sound exactly the right length, with no breaks or overlaps in sound (note, some players on instruments like piano, which have very noticeable attacks and a different key for each note do slightly overlap one note into the next (very slightly) so the legato is "better" and synthesizers actually use this to not re-attack a note as it would if you have a slight break between them, so these techniques can vary for specific purposes on specific instruments. But our goal here is to emulate an instrument like Flute or something, which can only play one note at a time, so overlaps are impossible, and breaks sound really choppy (like they're gasping for breath between each note) and legato playing is "smoothest" with articulations, and even smoother seeming when slurred).

  2979. musictheory 2018-10-10 00:27:30 victotronics
    >lots of people think Ha! Yeah, having more primitive sounding instruments helps. String instruments with a thin sound, reed instruments such as crumhorn, recorder instead of flute. No vibrato anywhere! Droning and open fifths also help.

  2980. musictheory 2018-10-10 01:47:50 eastsideeric24
    Okay thanks. I knew they were an octave apart when open but I just wanted to make sure they had the same notes. So if a riff uses that low d string only couldn't you play it in standard tuning on the d string but it will just sound like a different octave?

  2981. musictheory 2018-10-10 02:03:13 gravescd
    Eh, sometimes. If you’re transposing a composed part, yes, but if you’re comping a chart you’d likely just use different voicings. The thing with Guitar is that timbre changes dramatically across the neck, so sometimes it’s best to find the same voicings on a different set of strings or just re-voice the chords. For example if you need to transpose from E to D, you’d want to maintain the open string timbre rather than playing in 10th position.

  2982. musictheory 2018-10-10 02:56:08 eastsideeric24
    This seems obvious but don't you have to play staccato if two notes are on the same string and the second one is higher up the neck? If you play 5 on the low e and then have to play 3 on the low e you would have to play staccato for those notes wouldn't you?

  2983. musictheory 2018-10-10 05:24:53 ScribbleBliss
    I was equally astounded when I learned that Brahms had tossed away 10-20 string quartets before he published his 'String Quartet no. 1' (which is an astounding work)...and don't even get me started about some of the twentieth-century composers who've written huge numbers of excellent and inventive works in that time period's jazzier musical language (e.g. Milhaud, Martinu, Holmboe, Villa Lobos, etc...).

  2984. musictheory 2018-10-10 05:29:03 rodthedrigo
    The reason Beethoven is so important to music isn't just because he was very talented and knowledgeable, it's also about his motivation for composing. I'm on mobile and I don't have time to cite sources, but this is just such a cool subject. If anyone wants to add detail (or correct anything!) feel free to do so! Think back to the Baroque period (1600-1750). Composers of what we now call "classical music" were generally (not exclusively, but generally) composing for two reasons: to enhance worship in church, or because someone was paying them to write something specific. Many famous composers had patrons (Haydn, for example) who paid them to write. They were almost never writing to express what they felt, they were expressing other emotions (whatever the characters in the opera were feeling, whatever their patron told them they wanted to hear, etc). In our modern time we have this notion of the artist, a person who feels things and expresses those emotions that pour out of them. In the 1700s and prior, this wasn't much of a thing. Music served a purpose, but that purpose wasn't to express one's own emotions. Beethoven's early music reflects what came before it. His early piano sonatas are very "vanilla" in terms of creativity, though they are excellent in technical terms of form, harmonic structure, etc. However, when he started to go deaf, he was consumed with anger and bitterness at the world (and at God) for cursing him with the worst possible affliction. He even considered suicide, saying something like "I considered ending it all, but it is unthinkable for me to leave the world without saying all that I have to say" (I'm paraphrasing from a letter he wrote). He began writing music that he would never hear with his ears, but would hear in his head through audiation. This music (some of the string quartets, especially) reflects his own emotions, rather than something he was commissioned to write for whatever reason. Beethoven was not the very first person to express their own self through their music, but he was undeniably the most famous and arguably the first "significant" composer to do so. Either way, he helped kick-start the Romantic period of music, which was a self-expression free-for-all. The idea of "I'm going to write this piece for no reason other than I want to express how I feel" became mainstream, in large part because Beethoven did it, and he did it incredibly well. He was one of the first "tortured artists." His technical skills and knowledge of theory/form/structure were fantastic, but he used them to express what was inside him, and that's why I think he's one of the most important figures in the history of music. What an interesting human being.

  2985. musictheory 2018-10-10 05:45:54 65TwinReverbRI
    I'd ask a good percussionist :-) I too have seen some concert level performers - Symphony players - I've done recordings for them and they give me the score, and there's definitely some fudging going on :-) I think one thing to remember though is some players are just used to those things that are essentially "written out glissandi" and they just basically cram in all the notes of a septuplet or nonuplet into a beat and it's not expected to be perfect - and done in an orchestra or string section, meant to be more of an effect than precise. So many of them in their defense are coming from that approach. However, in Eliot Carter, you should be playing them exact ;-) What I tried to practice myself was just siting with a metronome and having it click, and starting with 1 note per click, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on. I also would practice an individual value, from a 4 count off. However, I can't really go from 8ths to a quintuplet unless I've really prepared before hand how the divisions "feel" to me. So all I can do is go up or down one value at a time, and certainly can't do anything crazy like play 16ht notes in one hand and quituplets in the other at the piano (4 against 5). The "proper" way to do it would be to mathematically divide it and find the least common denominator like you you can use sextuplets to find either triplets or duplets. What value you need to make quintuplets is beyond my immediate math skills but hopefully another kind poster will help us out!

  2986. musictheory 2018-10-10 07:21:24 rodthedrigo
    u/DoctorWalnut said it all, Beethoven was certainly a man of comfortable wealth and would've had access to high quality instruments. I'm glad I could help! Beethoven isn't my favorite composer (not even close), but he's definitely my favorite figure in music history. I'll try to find some links to his letters when I get home, they're fascinating. He kept his deafness secret from the public as long as he could, only confiding in family and close friends, so he really lays it all out there in these letters. The string quartet in C# minor (Op. 131) is one of the best examples of the whole "expressing emotions" thing, especially the first movement. He wrote it very late in his life, and if I remember right, just hearing it in his head brought him to tears. He considered it the best string quartet ever written. Check out the first movement (first 8 minutes or so), you'd never guess that it was written by the same guy that wrote Für Elise and Moonlight Sonata. https://youtu.be/WlFYC1U5viw

  2987. musictheory 2018-10-10 07:45:35 AlyoshaKaz
    Just been working this out on guitar, googled it and this came up. &#x200B; Sounds pretty clearly like the first opening chords are Bbm and Gb with maybe a Db in between (hard to say because it's obscured by the production). This sounds kind of Gb to me, especially if take into account the Db before the Gb giving you a V - I cadence. But it's all on a spectrum. &#x200B; Then you get the riff centered around Bb, Db, Gb following the chords. &#x200B; Then it drops into what could be Bb or Eb minor as it sounds to be moving between a Bbm and Ebm chord. The fact the Bb isn't altered into a major chord gives it a bit of ambiguity, but the guitarist seems to be jamming in an Ebm pentatonic. &#x200B; Then the guitarist is playing a voicing on the top three string of Db, Eb, Bb from the G string up. The voicing is moved up 2 and 1/2 steps and then dropped a step and then back to the original position. Then the voicing is moved up, maybe through a new voicing that I haven't worked out yet. &#x200B; Then the Db, Eb, Bb voicing is arpeggiated over what sounds like a sustained Bb minor chord. &#x200B; So it doesn't sound (to me) like the harmony is all that complex, it's just chosen well to give you that open, ambiguous other world feeling. But it is, of course, the combination of the insanely beautiful production, the stunningly, subtle and tasteful guitar work and jesus those drums... &#x200B;

  2988. musictheory 2018-10-10 10:08:12 65TwinReverbRI
    5th fret on the low E is an A note, and 3rd fret is a G. ("higher" is the other way - higher in pitch, which means from fret 3 UP to fret 5 - see - higher number) What you do is either pre-position your first finger (for example) on the G note and put your ring finger on the A note. When you play the A, you then simply lift your ring finger *while plucking the string almost at exactly the same time* so the G note sounds - and you finger is already there. You don't have to pre-position your finger but obviously, it needs to be on the G note at least by the time you're plucking the string to go to it. However, since placing a finger *behind* a played note isn't going to affect the sounding note, you can place it back there whenever it's convenient. In the reverse, playing the G first then moving to the A, you just have to wait to put down your ring finger right as you play the note. So here are all kinds of "bad technique" things that can happen: 1. You play the G, then pluck slightly before you put your finger down on the A, then it sounds the G TWICE (once for when you first play it, but a second time right before you put your finger down) and often you'll get the A note just from the force coming down. So you get G-----GA. 2. Opposite issue - you put the finger down from the A *before* you pluck the note, so you get a sound from the A note after you play the G, but before you intended to play the A, then you strike the A again, so you end up with G-----AA. 3. If you either let the sound of the first note die off before you pluck the next note, or, you lift the finger that's on the first note, or your finger doesn't come down with enough force to sound the second note, you'll get "unintentional staccato" - somewhere the G note you're sounding gets deadened by your finger touching the string for the new note before you press it down all the way and pluck it, or, the existing finger release pressure first, silencing the sounding note. 4. It can happen backwards too, from A to G - you play the A, lift the finger before you're ready to pluck, making the G lightly sound, then you pick the G, getting the doubled G - A----GG. Same issues as above can happen in this direction as well. 5. It's easy to do all these things wrong, and that's why it's so important to work on playing Legato, because it's actually much harder to do! And the way to do it is to play the G, keep holding it down so it sounds, and when you are ready to play the A, your fretting hand finger must fall on to the A note fast enough not to deaden the string (deaden the sounding G note) and so it's pressing the fret at the exact same time you pluck the note sou you don't get any of those doublings or any break. Works the same way if you're going from A to G, except ideally you're just lifting the A note finger, with the G note already pressed behind it. If not, the finger for the G has to fall as soon as you lift up the finger for the A, and again, the string has to be plucked at exactly the same time. HTH

  2989. musictheory 2018-10-10 10:43:39 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, a good place to start is with the "named" pieces of most composers, as they tend to be the more famous ones. If you like the more "plaintive" or "longing" types of pieces, you can look for names like that - Pathetique for example. But you know, I wouldn't pass up any of the other ones just because they're "happy" names or something :-) It was part of "Romantic Pathos" to write these "brooding" pieces that kind of got associated with Beethoven. But there are some great stories - Haydn has a work called the "Farewell Symphony". The story goes that he and his musicians were at the summer estate of the Prince and were tired of being there and wanted to go home and see their families. So Haydn writes this Symphony where at the end, each of the players gets up one by one and leaves the stage - until only one final player is left - and the music just kind of trails off. Apparently the Prince got the message but you now, in those days that's the kind of revolt that could lose you a head! Beethoven: Symphony 3 - Eroica ("heroic" - where he pronounces he's deaf but will overcome it in the "Heilegenstadt Testament", dedicates it to Napoleon, but famously scratches that off after Napoleon invades). Symphony 5 - just because it's the most famous. Symphony 6 - Pastoral (was in the original Disney Fantasia 1941) Symphony 9 - has the famous "ode to joy" at the end. Pathatique Sonata. Moonlight Sonata Waldstein Sonata Tempest Sonata Les Adiuex Appasionata Sonata Spring Sonata Emperor Concerto Archduke Trio Beethoven's String Quartets start with a style not unlike mature Mozart and Haydn but over the course become incredibly complex and even so adventurous and forward-looking that many have said they either thought he was on the verge of a new musical style much more like the 20th century, or that his deafness was by then so profound that he was just going somewhat crazy with what he was asking of players. The truth is, the Quartet was a vehicle for composers to really push boundaries with, and Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven all did it. But by the end, Beethoven was pushing it pretty extremely. So you kind of need to follow the evolution to get the whole gist of it. If you're interested in Haydn, there was this period in music called "Sturm und Drang" which translates roughly to "Storm and stress" and was maybe like a little Romantic period before the romantic period! But Haydn lived a long life and composed a lot of great stuff, and his later works are on the same level as Mozart and early Beethoven. He did 3 early Symphonies that are "Morning, noon and night". Lamentation Symphony Farewell Symphony Surprise Symphony La Passione Symphony The Military Symphony The Clock Symphony (some of these are collected as the "London" symphonies and are the last ones he wrote and all good). The Joke Quartet The Lark Quartet The 5ths Quartet The Emperor Quartet The Sunrise Quartet Haydn is considered "the Father of Classical Music" and really created most of the genres we know - so he is the father of - the String Quartet, the Classical Concerto, the Piano Trio, the Symphony, and the Piano Sonata! (at least, as we know them in their classical forms, some of which were new at the time). Mozart is worth listening to as well: Prague Symphony. Haffner Symphony Jupiter Symphony The G Minor Symphony (40) Many of Mozart's Piano Concertos are well known, but the numbers in the high teens and twenties are very often heard, especially 21 The "Haydn" Quartets - dedicated to his teacher Haydn, and probably the works he spent the most time making worthy of that honor. The Dissonant Quartet Mozart wrote Operas, and a lot of them. But some, like the Magic Flute, and Don Giovanni, are the top.m The Marriage of Figaro and Cosi Fan Tutte are worth it. Also, due to the mythology of Mozart's Requiem, it's worth checking it out. ____ After Beethoven it became more and more common to put names on things - a fad - and even some of them were done by publishers to help sell music (many of the names were added well after the pieces were written by either scholars or publishers, other composers etc. but some composers started naming their own works in attempts at getting them more attention). But following the pathos vein, Tchaikovsky's "Pathatique" Symphony is not to be missed. Composers like Mahler are also surrounded in this whole Romantic thing - illnesses, dying young, and so on, so Schubert, Schumann, Mahler, and other composers like that have all this stuff associated with them. Honestly, I'm not crazy about their music but other people are all about it. The Germans get pretty morose and you get "songs of dead children" or "isle of the dead" and stuff like that - some occult influences - some of these were just 20 year olds or younger just getting into the same kinds of rebellious stuff kids today to. Belioz's Symphony Fantastique with the "March to the Scaffold" is not to be missed :-) But still the "named" pieces are pretty good rule of thumb - Rhennish Symphony, "Death and the Maiden" Quartet, but when you get to Wagner and Strauss (Richard) new forms (Tone Poems) start to pop up and while big Symphonies are still being written, by the later 1800s the Romantic period is waning and Impressionism and ultimately Expressionism come in - so Debussy, Ravel, and new forms of music (for example, Ravel and Debussy didn't write any symphonies, and only 1 quartet each - they concentrated on newer forms). But that should get you started :-) If you're interested in why some of this stuff is so well regarded, this guy has some excellent videos highlighting some of the "advanced" stuff that not everyone was doing (or capable of doing): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTxYykhQZbI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vZ1I122JNo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnY3U2Mtt-w

  2990. musictheory 2018-10-10 11:34:39 Cello789
    How about inversions? Are you using good voice leading within your chords? Try arranging those chord progressions for barbershop quartet or string quartet or something and see if you can find a “melody” for each voice. That’s a start - and then break those rules as they get in the way of the song being a *song*

  2991. musictheory 2018-10-10 15:16:08 MiskyWilkshake
    I see what you mean about the guitar, but in what other contexts does this hold true? For the guitar, the answer is simple; it's not. You also can't play a full 6-stringed Bb, Db, Gb, Cm, Cdim, Daug, F#aug, A#aug, Ddim, Fm, Faug, Aaug, G#aug, Fdim, Gdim, Adim, Gaug, Dbaug (and arguably F) without barring. The reason for this is simply the tuning of a guitar: unless a chord contains an E, both the top and bottom strings will need to be fretted; this can be done without barring (as is done is the standard first-position G chord), but that requires very specific hand-placement, and limits what your other fingers are able to do (eg: no frets above that which the E strings are played on can be played other than perhaps 1 fret higher on the A string with the ring finger, only two other strings can be fretted, so the chord must contain two other open strings; the ring finger cannot play any fret lower than the one on which the E strings are fretted; etc). Now, you can certainly play a B major chord without barring, just so long as you're not using all 6 strings (eg: [X X X 4 4 2], [X X 9 8 7 X], [X 14 13 11 X X], [7 6 4 X X X], [X 14 13 11 0 X], [7 6 4 X 0 X], [X 14 13 11 12 X], [7 6 4 4 X X], [7 6 4 X 4 X], [7 6 4 8 X X], [X 14 13 11 X 11], [7 6 4 X 7 X], etc. Besides, you kind of can do a six-stringed and unbarred B major chord, if you wrap your thumb around: [2 2 1 4 0 2]. B minor even more so: [2 2 0 4 0 2].

  2992. musictheory 2018-10-10 22:36:51 65TwinReverbRI
    This is just totally an erroneous assumption. >On a guitar, the only major chord you can't play without barring it is B. You can actually play a B Major chord on guitar without barring, however, it's not going to be in root position, or, it's not going to have all of the notes or you may have to skip strings. But that has to do with the tuning of the guitar, not anything to do with the B chord itself. You also can't play Cm without barring, you're you're not having a fit about that! Now, as for Piano, let's take this another way. Rather than looking at the sharps, just consider the white keys. They will give you 3 Major chords, C, F, and G, and 3 minor chords, Am, Dm, and Em, but only ONE diminished chord, B^o . Now, by plying only white keys we've kind of removed the "pattern" aspect of the white and black notes. But what we haven't removed is the fact that there are 2 pairs of keys that don't have a black key between them. The notes E to F, and B to C, do not have a black key between them. This means they are a half step apart. All other white note pairs (D to E, G to A, etc.) do have a black key between them, which means they are a whole step apart. So this means that, the distance between any two consecutive letters (notes) is different in two places. Since Major chords are always made with the same distance between the Root and the 3rd, and the 3rd and the 5th, it depends on where those intervals fall. So in the case of C, F, and G, the intervals fall in a way that there are the number of half steps necessary so they end up on all white keys. But with D, E, and A, one ends up being a black key. Now, because the E-F pair and B-C pair aren't equidistant - it's 4 notes from F to B (F G A B) but only THREE notes from C to E (C D E) that means the spot without the black note "moves" in comparison to each note. So if you start on the note B, it starts off like E, D, and A - where you get a black key for the 2nd note of the chord, but the distance from the 3rd to the 5th of the chord also happens to cross that point where the black key isn't. IOW, if you go back and play 5 white keys in a row, the only way you can get ALL of the notes B-C and E-F is to start on B (B C D E F). Since that order has TWO of the half steps in it, and all the other orders only have ONE of the half steps in it (the rest being whole steps) that pattern is "one half step smaller" than the rest. Which means we have to compensate by raising the top note - turning the F into F#. So it gets a 2nd sharp to sort of make up for additional half step that makes the whole pattern a bit smaller (this is a simplified example, because this isn't going to happen on an F# Major chord for example, which has 3 sharps but for Major chords starting on a white key, this is the pattern). In fact, this is why our entire musical system works the way it does - because there are half steps between two pairs of adjacent notes - E and F, and B and C -this is what allows us to play in 12 different keys, and why no two major Scales have exactly the same notes in them, and so on. But, because we use TWELVE notes, and only 7 letter names, and the 7 letter names don't *evenly divide* the 12 notes, you get an asymmetrical pattern that when building scales, or chords, etc. has to raise or lower some notes to compensate, to keep the same relative distance between notes - because for example in a chord, it's not as important as what the notes in the chord are, but that the relative distance between the notes of ALL major chords are the same - that's what makes them major in the first place. So on a Piano, where this asymmetry is obvious (sets of 3 black keys alternating with sets of 2, with some white keys with no black keys between them) these kinds of patterns emerge. But it has more to do with the layout of the notes on the keyboard. If you were to take guitar, and play a Major chord starting on fret 1, playing the notes up the string one at a time, you'd always get 0,4,7 plus whatever fret you're on - because 0,4,7 is the number of semitones (starting from open) that produce the correct intervals for a major triad. So you could play a D Major chord on 10,14, 17, and a B Major on 7,11,14 and they're going to be the same "pattern" just on a different place on the neck. Likewise, if you play strings 3, 2, and 1, on frets 4 4 2, you have a B major triad. Move that up 3 frets to 7 7 5 and you have a D major triad - SAME EXACT SHAPE. So they actually DO "look" the same on guitar - it's just when you play a B "cowboy chord" it's a different shape than what you use for D, or E, or C, etc. and there's no way to go past the nut to get the notes you need, so you have to use something more like an A chord shape, but moved up 2 frets to get it. But again, this has to do with the tuning, and the shape you're trying to use to make that chord. If you use the 3 string shape or 1 string shape I just gave, B is not different from the rest, except starting on different fret. The only thing that might look different is where any position markers are in relation to your fingers!

  2993. musictheory 2018-10-11 00:15:49 65TwinReverbRI
    It's not in a mode. There might be one primary mode the piece or progression is in, but, whenever you used chords outside of the Key (or mode) then you're no longer in the primary mode, and pulling from some secondary key/mode. Let's say that the piece is in Eb Mixolydian for argument's sake. The Eb9 chord can be produced with notes diatonic to Eb Mix. Bb9 is Bb-D-F-Ab-C - whoops, problem, the D is not in Eb Mix. F9 is F A C Eb G. Uh oh, the A is note in Eb Mix. C9 - you guessed it not in Eb Mix - it even has an E instead. E, and D are not in Eb Mix! So it's not "in any one mode (or key)". Or, what we can say is, if it IS in some primary mode, in order to create the chords you have, or to play melody notes that go with those chords, you will have to go outside of the mode to get them. This may not be so many notes that it upsets the center of Eb Mixolydian (depending on how you play it) but you still well need to adjust any notes you play to accommodate those harmonies. There are a number of different approaches to this. One is to basically keep your Eb Mixolydian and simply alter any notes as necessary for each of the chords that aren't wholly in the mode, if you play those notes. So, for example, if you were playing an E over the C chord to go with the C chord, you're going to have to change it to Eb for the F9 chord. But, if you were playing a G on the C chord, it would also be in the F9 chord, and it's in the main mode of Eb Mix. Another approach is to simply change the mode as necessary per chord, or string of chords (when they're all from the same mode). Since each of your chords here really creates its own Key, you'd have to play C Mix then F Mix, then Bb Mix, then Eb Mix or something like that. Now, there's a compounding factor here in that this is Jazz, and Jazz is heavily influenced by Blues. So it's possibly to play an Eb over the C chord as a "blue note", and a Db over the Bb chord as a blue note also. This means, you could potentially use F Mixolydian over BOTH the C9 and F9 - and even though one note, the Eb, doesn't "go with" the C9 chord, when used in a "bluesy" manner, it will sound OK. Since the relationship between Bb9 to Eb9 is the same as C9 to F9 just down a step, this means you can do the same thing with Eb Mix over the next two chords. You can also get into crazier stuff like, if you play C Mixolydian over the Bb chord, you'd have all of the chord notes: **C D** E **F** G A **Bb** but the E and A could act like chromatic approach tones (or the E could give you a Lydian vibe) to the F and Bb if you used them that way. But this gets into stuff you probably don't want to mess with at this point (or ever... :-) _____ Your given melody is simply avoiding the notes that it would have to change. Since C is in a C chord, it's OK. Your first run in fact is all chord tones (assuming one note per chord). The 2nd one, the G over the Bb is not a chord tone, but it's the 6th, which would be present in a Bb13 chord, or is part of the Bb Mixolydian scale you'd typically use over a Dominant 9th chord, so all is well. It won't sound "bad". Now remember, i was taking this from the perspective of Eb, but if you look at your notes, you have what is essentially C Minor Pentatonic, or C Blues - C - Eb - F -G - Bb - and that's a very familiar sound that "works" even when it doesn't work. But yours works here because even though it's a different scale/mode, you're only playing one note at a time per chord, so calling it a "scale" or "mode" isn't really relevant. Essentially, you're playing chord tones that just happen to be able to be collected into either Cm Pent, or Eb Pent, or Cm or Eb Major. But that's not really what they "are". They're essentially chord tones. Playing 4 or 5 etc. notes per chord is where you'd need to find either notes that work with ALL of the chords (which you have to map out the notes content) or constantly adjust as it changes. C, F, G, and Bb are really the only notes that "go with" all 4 of the chords, and that doesn't make a scale! But one note, Eb, "goes with" the last 3 chords and is a blue note on the first, so you can get away with Cm pentatonic probably. Of course all of this will also depend on how you play. HTH

  2994. musictheory 2018-10-11 02:40:04 Dan_j_i
    If I removed the idea of musical improvisation totally and changed it to talking to someone about why I love cats I wouldn’t be thinking of all the words and sentences that would make up the conversation. Instead, I’d be thinking about the end goal of the subject, and use sentences and phrases that I intuitively know would work to get my point across. This is how I think it works, at least for me. I’ll be honest, I don’t think that I would be able to string two notes together in time otherwise. If the subject is Blue Bossa, I’d know when the chords change and amend my thoughts appropriately to fit.

  2995. musictheory 2018-10-11 15:47:18 kymdillon
    What I like to do is first submerge myself in good writing for that instrument -- when I was working on my first work for string quartet I spent a while listening to many Beethoven and bartok string quartets. This helped me think to in string (and string quartet) language when I was imagining my ideas. Not just listening, also looking at the score in terms of how the writing is presented. Add to this the consulting of some orchestration books, and then all importantly making friends with a player of that instrument and picking their brains -- more often than not they love the attention and curiosity! Harp especially requires you to chat to a harpist as it's pretty darn unique and tricky. These things in combo should give you a good start I'd say :) I

  2996. musictheory 2018-10-11 21:42:15 Jongtr
    Not sure of the history myself, but altered dominants have been around since bebop (at least), while modal chords like maj7#11s are probably more recent. (Modal jazz began in 1959.) Bear in mind these kinds of harmonies would have all have been well known to classical, romantic and impressionist composers before jazz musicians discovered them. Make sure you distinguish these chords clearly. A **maj7#11** is a lydian modal chord, and Black Narcissus is a post-modal tune (non-functional harmony). There are no altered dominants in the tune, AFAIK. (The chart I have shows none.) The opening is in Ab dorian mode (Abm7 and Bbm7 chords with Ab pedal bass); the next section switches to F# dorian; and the final 8 bars is a string of maj7#11s on different roots. Maj7#11s can sometime be used as tonic chords in major keys, but I suspect that would post-date the modal movement. An **altered dominant**, or alt chord for short - 7alt, 7b5b9, 7#5#9, 7b5#9, 7#5b9 - is a V7 chord in pre-modal jazz (functional harmony in major and minor keys). It retains the diatonic root-3rd-7th (the essential notes), and adds an altered 5th and an altered 9th - which can each be altered in either direction. (The #5 is sometimes called a b13.) The idea is to maximise the semitone voice-leading on to the tonic (including its consonant 6 and 9 extensions). IOW, such chords would have come into being (in jazz) as jazz composers and arrangers sought increasing levels of chromaticism, at least on V7 chords and secondary dominants. In a minor key - where altered dominants are most common - it's worth observing that if you take the R-3-7 of the harmonic minor V7 chord (E G# D in A minor) and add a few notes from the *natural* minor scale (F G C) you get six notes of the E altered scale - the remaining one being Bb. Bb7 is the tritone sub of E7, and could feature any of those same notes as extensions (Bb9#11, Bb13#11). (Jazz theorists like to point to the resemblance of this scale to F melodic minor - a useful resemblance, but not a musically meaningful one. The altered scale - and its tritone sub "lydian dominant" - don't *derive* from melodic minor.) Again, I don't know the first instance of such harmonies in jazz, but I suspect it goes back to Duke Ellington or maybe Tadd Dameron. I.e., 1930s if not before. I'd be as interested as you in specific examples.

  2997. musictheory 2018-10-11 22:24:46 Jongtr
    Tip (tech free): try singing into the corner of a room. Your voice bounces back to you, and you hear your voice as others hear it. Sounds terrible, right? :-D (weird anyway). But that's a starting point for fixing it. If you can play an instrument at the same time, it should be easier to hear when you're getting the notes wrong. Of course, given some hardware, you can record yourself, or at least use headphones to monitor what the mic is picking up - so you can correct yourself in real time, instead of listening back and holding your head in your hands... :-D Feed an instrument in too, and practice copying single notes. If you're an adult male, don't start too high! Middle C may be a stretch. For piano the octave and half below middle C is a good ballpark for the untrained guy. On guitar, you should find your range somewhere in the low frets on strings 6-5-4-3 (middle C is fret 1 on the B string). That's bass-baritone range (ish). In comparison, a lot of rock singers go way higher than that, into tenor range - that's because rock vocal is all about intensity and passion, and raised voices communicate that. So don't be concerned that you can't seem to sing your favourite songs in the right key.

  2998. musictheory 2018-10-12 02:22:46 beaumega1
    >Am (EAEACE on the guitar) can be called different from C6 (ECEACE on the guitar) IIRC, it is common to not play the E on the 6th string during Am on guitar, leaving you with XAEACE. This voices the notes in a way that reinforces A as the strongest note in the chord. In looking at the intervals, we get a P5 from A to E, a P4 from E to A, a m3 from A to C, and M3 from C to E. This is a strong voicing of A minor. If the E is added on the 6th string, A is still the obvious chord root, but the overall strength of the chord is weakened, as it is not in its second inversion (E voiced as the lowest note). In my experience, C6 would actually have a G in it is as well. But if you were to intentionally leave out a note of C6, G would make sense as the first one to eliminate, as is common in eliminating pitches from chords. Unfortunately, we're left with a chord which is still like the first one, an Am in second inversion. We could eliminate the low E again, but now we have Am in first inversion (C on the bottom). If I were playing these chords back to back, I would want to include a G in the C6 to help pronounce the distinction. Otherwise, context more or less will tell if you ECEACE should be interpreted as Am or C6.

  2999. musictheory 2018-10-12 02:44:10 TheCoolSquare
    First of all, E is the fifth of an Am chord and as such you probably shouldn't be playing the low E string for a normal Am chord, as this would place it in second inversion. Not that you can't do that, it's just probably not what you want. I personally usually mute the low E with my thumb. Now, once you do that, the difference between Am and C6 become a bit more clear, out of context at least. The fact remains that Am and C6 contain the same notes. In that particular voicing you've provided, (minus the low e string) it's the same as an Am chord in first inversion. Because of this it can be tricky to definitively say it's C6 and not Am without a good reason. &#x200B; It's likely that since you just looked the chords up online you find just one person's interpretation. They may have just simply named the chord incorrectly, for example if they just used an online tool to get a chord name it would probably say C6. On the other hand, the chord could actually be named correctly depending on the context of the song. &#x200B; Tl;dr: Am and C6 are extremely similar chords, sharing all the same notes and differing only in voicing and function.

  3000. musictheory 2018-10-13 08:08:42 CyclingMaestro
    Yes, avoiding the octave duplication over range can be really fulfilling! I've noticed there are modal rubs and clashes in Flamenco music in all the modes, I've heard lydian gestures in Sabicas, and some of the folk-tradition examples have some amazing open string pedal clashes of varying degrees of success! It can be really freeing to explore this, Hovhaness, Villa-Lobos, and so many Asian traditions are great examples of these practices.

  3001. musictheory 2018-10-13 10:34:10 Dr_Strang3l0v3
    Yep, and you can't acquire it either. You can only acquire relative pitch, or the ability to discern approximately what pitch the note you're hearing is (made easier by hearing it in relation to other notes, but not impossible in isolation) and to tune accurately by ear. Perfect pitch is the ability to determine how out of tune a note is by hearing it relative to other notes around it within about a 1 to 3 cent degree of accuracy-- and for reference the average person can only tell the difference between notes anywhere from 15 to 35 cents apart (IIRC, haven't looked at the numbers for the normal population in a while), and your average musician can tell about a 5 to 10 cent difference (sometimes a little better if it's just the two notes in isolation). Perfect pitch makes listening to most music almost painful in a lot of cases because everything isn't ever 100% in tune, even in the studio (especially guitars and other fretted string instruments and acoustic pianos, believe it or not), which means most music sounds dissonant to at least some degree. Source: getting a PhD in neuroscience studying the perception of sound

  3002. musictheory 2018-10-13 21:52:44 jaykzo
    Excellent video! Really great work, once again- I learned a ton. Those open-string chord voicings you used are also very common in progressive rock as well. F#7add11 is sometimes called "the Rush chord" by guitar players because of it's usage in Xanadu and other Rush tracks. It's also heavily used by Dream Theater, as well as the F alternative you showed with the maj7 and the #11. I call these "unleashed barre chords" when teaching my beginner students. Just by undoing the barre you create pretty pedally chords with B+E on top of everything.

  3003. musictheory 2018-10-14 11:13:02 akimbocorndogs
    I'm 99% sure I have it, I can say that I notice a difference if it's a few Hz away from A=440, but I've heard that's normal for most people. I can tell my guitar is not at concert pitch if a string considerably out of tune, but I'm not at the point where I could tune it completely by ear with no reference to concert pitch, and I don't know if I or anyone else could be. I can say, though, that it's developed over time; one time as a kid my lowest string was basically halfway between E and Eb and I thought it was fine to have that as my low string and tune my guitar accordingly, only to be surprised when I then played with other musicians. I'm currently much more accurate with "free-tuning". I guess it all depends on how much experience and practice you have with your ear.

  3004. musictheory 2018-10-15 02:46:00 Jongtr
    > if we evenly divide the octave into 12 tones We don't. Or rather, the equal 12ths is a relatively recent decision, centuries after sharps and flats were introduced. As you're a guitar player, you can get some insight into how our scale system came into being by dividing the string into simple fractions. 1/2 string length = fret 12 = "perfect octave" 1/3 string length = frets 7 and 19. Fret 7 = "perfect 5th" 1/4 string length = frets 5 and 24. Fret 5 = "perfect 4th" So you can see that these simple fractions produce the "perfect" intervals (most consonant), while at the same time dividing the octave 5-2-5. Not exactly in half, or in 6ths (or even 12ths, yet....they're just implied...). The point here is that scale structure comes from dividing a *string* (or some other musical object like a pipe or metal bar), *not* the octave. The octave is just the first division we make. This goes way back to Pythagoras (and maybe earlier). He spotted that those string fractions (not on guitar, obviously, and not on fretted instruments either) produced very harmonious notes, intervals that sounded good together. The Greek modal system was based on "tetrachords", equivalent to those fret distances 0-5 and 7-12. They added two additional notes in each of those spaces, in variable positions which produced all their modes. We inherited a similar system, although it was adjusted somewhat in the middle ages. Still today, our most popular scales and modes retain those "perfect" intervals as the main scale divisions. (Only lydian has an altered 4th, but retains the P5.) While the 5-2-5 pattern makes it look like it implies 12 equal octave divisions, a little mathematical knowledge ought to tell you that in fact (using factors of 2 and 3 to divide the string) that 2-semitone space is not exactly 2/5 of the other spaces. (The guitar fretboard makes it that way, due to our artificial "equal temperament" system) but the precise fractions would place the frets in slightly different places - maybe a mm or less either way. Staff notation, btw, came much later than the 7-note system, but before sharps and flats were fully introduced, so all that was needed were places for the 7 main notes. EDIT: typo

  3005. musictheory 2018-10-15 04:41:41 TheChurchofHelix
    We probably wouldn't have stuck with the current 5-line stave, which is essentially piano tableture. String instrument tableture is very common in both western culture and other cultures, such as in Chinese traditional music. Tableture is difficult to analyze but makes writing for instruments with many more than 12 pitches per octave straightforward. Writing in 17edo or 31edo can be a bit if a mess.

  3006. musictheory 2018-10-15 06:17:29 jessecarpenter0
    The range on my guitar (7 string) is B1 to F6. Middle C4 is pretty much in the middle. D4 would be the exact middle. If middle C was middle D then that would be the perfect clef for guitar music.

  3007. musictheory 2018-10-15 07:24:56 LukeSniper
    Assuming you notated it at concert pitch instead of transposed up an octave, as guitar is normally notated. Open high E string is E4, normally written as E5. If you wrote a guitar part at concert pitch on alto clef, you've only moved the notes down one line/space. If you write the parts transposed up an octave, you've now got the open low E in the space right under the staff, which is convenient, but the open high E is now 3 spaces above the staff. What's going to be easier to read? *Never* using ledger lines below the staff, or constantly using 2+ ledger lines for anything on the high string? Hell, a 7th position B chord, very common, would now span the 2nd space in the staff all the way up to *5* spaces above the staff! With the transposed G clef, as is standard, that chord is very readable, spanning a B below the staff to one above. One ledger line each. Fuck outta here

  3008. musictheory 2018-10-15 08:41:50 65TwinReverbRI
    >Not sure if I want to entirely give up my career in creative woodworking and chase a living in music, You don't have to worry about that! There is no living in music!!! OK, seriously, I'll give you my experiences with this. Firstly, this is very dependent first on YOU, and then second, the program you attend. If the school is renown for placing graduates into careers in the music industry the connections you make with faculty and fellow students could be indispensable - even necessary for getting you into certain types of careers. But, on the flip side, if what you're interested in doesn't really require a degree, then you'd be getting it solely for your own personal edification. That of course could also translate to greater success in your field, but most educations are expensive. So there's always that looming over your head. I'm not familiar with their program, but it actually looks like a perfect fit for you. I'm the area coorinator of a similar program. You do have to audition to get in. Which means you need to be able to read music, and play well. Here are the requirements: "PIANO To be admitted as an undergraduate piano major, students should: be able to play all major and minor scales and arpeggios correctly at a moderately rapid tempo; have the skills to sight read compositions of moderate difficulty; and have already studied such compositions as Bach Inventions, classical sonatas, and works by such composers as Mendelssohn, Chopin, Schumann, Debussy, Bartok, and Kabalevsky. At the audition, students will be expected to play three pieces of contrasting styles including: Bach Two or Three Part Invention or suite movement Movement of a classical sonata Romantic, Impressionistic, or Twentieth/Twenty-first Century work They will also be asked to present: Scales and arpeggios in any major or minor key Sight reading of an intermediate level work Students must bring to the audition a Repertoire List including works studied in the past five years." Our program is similar, though much of our studies are "more traditional" as well. What this means to students is, those interested in a more "popular music" kind of field of study who've sat at home making beats on Fruity Loops are not going to get in. Though you've not studied for 5 years, you should absolutely contact the instrumental faculty and see what they really require. If you can get in if you start taking lessons right now, then I'd start taking lessons right now (I don't know how many people I've told to do this to get into our program and they didn't, and they didn't pass the audition). You need to take that audition as the most serious thing the world. I've seen tons of older students come in and get a 2nd degree, but very often they are in their 40s, 50s, or even 60s. They're often retired from a career that was a super high-income career so they're set in life, can afford to go back to school, kids are grown, that sort of thing. _______ If I were to be totally honest about it, I would say cut off the cable, take your phone down to the barest services possible, cut your heat colder in the winter, and AC hotter in the summer. Turn off every unused light in the house. Don't drive anywhere that's absolutely not necessary. Eat Raman Noodles. Because in reality, it's really all about money. You can buy your way into anything if you have enough money. I know that sounds horrible but this is the world we live in. There's no guarantee that you will get *anything* out of your degree other than self-edification - which is great, but if you don't have the money to be able to put it into use, it's not going to be of any good to you while you're busking on the streets or working with a string of non-profit arts organizations so you can be an "artiste". It's fine if you can pull of the modern Andy Warhol or have built-in charm and charisma and so on, or you're a beautiful person who can use their looks to their advantage and so on (sorry, again, but that's the way it is). Unless you're independently wealthy or can marry rich, saving as absolutely much money as you possibly can and being able to get to where you need to be is probably more effective. If you live in an area that's culturally devoid of anything, then you have to be able to move. If you're locked into mortgages and loans and stuff, that's harder to do. The one person from our school who's opened up a very successful recording studio did NOT get a music degree. Most famous musicians out there did NOT get music degrees. I was just thinking of two high school friends the other day who did NOT get college degrees but got on-the-job training and have lived comfortably upper middle class lives while me and another of our circle of friends got music degrees and remained involved in a "pop" world of music and have had to live decidedly lower lower middle class lives. On one level, I suppose it's great that we got to "do what we loved" but both of those other guys play in bands and perform locally just like me and the other guy. But they can go out and buy a new drum kit, or put enough gas in the car to get to the gig if they need to. But who knows - you may "take to it" in that kind of environment too and it may be perfect for you - the people you meet and connections you make could really open up doors for you that you might not have access to in your current situation. And you may end up coming to a love of teaching in the field and there may be opportunities there. But you need to be good, hard-working, and diligent. You can't be a slouch. You need to be the person that when someone says "we're looking for someone to write for this dance group" you are the one that's recommended. Which means, never late to class, good scores on everything, constant production, and so on. Which may be hard if you're living this dual life of woodworker/teacher elsewhere. So I'm not trying to be discouraging there, but it is something you have to weigh. _______ Finally, not all programs like this are equal. A couple of decades back, when music technology was exploding and the whole "producer" thing was exploding, schools jumped on the bandwagon and started offering degrees that were often thrown together just to pull up enrollment numbers. It was a "hot" degree area. Some schools have those programs, but don't really have any substance to them - they're for the "I don't know what I want to do with my life but I like music" people who want to be "musicians" but can't play an instrument. Many intentionally appealed to the beatmaker/wannabe producer crowd and simply offered "DAW courses" because kids with no musical background were coming in wanting to be the next Kanye or whoever it was back then and thought if they could learn to use a DAW they could (and some do, but they don't usually major in it!). So they weren't really training anyone for any "real" music industry. By contrast, you look at a program like somewhere like American University, and they're turning out graduates who go on to work in broadcasting at ESPN and things like that - IOW, there's this whole music industry out there people don't know a lot about, and what you're interested in is part of that - sort of the "theatrical/artsy music world" which is fine, and which there's work in, but you've got to make darn sure the school gives you a great background in that and really places people in that area. Because if not, you might be better off to major in Theater or Communications, etc. Given this program requires the audition, it's going to be a little more "legit" than one that doesn't require any instrument proficiency, but that also sometimes means you may be studying a more traditional musical path, which doesn't work for some people. _____ Good luck. You sound like you'd really be the type of person who would reap at least some benefit from it, and probably actually do pretty well with it. But, you need to be highly informed before you make that kind of investment. Make sure it's going to work for you in the future. And, don't give up your day job...just yet :-) Did I mention, play the lottery too :-D

  3009. musictheory 2018-10-16 07:50:15 65TwinReverbRI
    Some terms may be getting mixed up here. "Consecutive" should really mean when an interval is followed by the same numerical interval - two 3rds in a row are Consecutive 3rds. They could be by similar or contrary motion. Parallel motion implies consecutive intervals, but those that are specifically the same exact size - so not just two 3rds in a row, but speficially, a major 3rd to a major 3rd. However, we seemed to have mixed these up along the way. Most people refer to a string of 3rds as "parallel" even though they are often simply "consecutive" and in similar motion. for example, M3 - m3 - m3 - is called "parallel 3rds" but really only two of them are specifically parallel - the two m3 in a row, and they're all similar motion, and all examples of consecutive 3rds. But when we're talking about 5ths and 8ves, we usually only use the words Parallel (perfect 5th to perfect 5th for example) or "unequal" (diminished 5th to perfect 5th for example) - which might better be called "consecutive" but again, we rarely use that word at all. What you seem to be talking about are what are called "Direct" or "Hidden" intervals. These are either a Perfect 5th or Perfect 8ve that is approached "directly" - that is, by similar motion. This implies that it is also not Parallel and generally not consecutive (because unequal 5ths is the only thing that could allow this, and they don't happen in musical gestures where they don't resolve by step). So the prohibition against Direct intervals works like this: 1. A 5th or 8ve is a Direct 5th or 8ve if it is approached in similar motion, that is not also Parallel (or consecutive is implied). 2. However, only when this interval is formed by the outer parts AND the upper voice leaps is it considered a "bad" Direct interval. The image you've linked to is simply parallel 5ths and 8ves. C# to D between the lower two voices is parallel 8ves (bad). C# to D in either of those voices also forms parallel 5ths with the top part moving G# to A. So there are no Direct or Hidden intervals here, only Parallel - the bad kind.

  3010. musictheory 2018-10-16 08:41:22 johnny2k
    Do it the easy way and just play the root and third or root and 7th. The amin7 is one that, if I'm playing all of the notes, I'll play using the open A string as the root instead of doing a barred chord with the root on the E string.

  3011. musictheory 2018-10-16 11:32:14 xiipaoc
    > I found this progression in natural minor: i - iv7 - v. I can play it easily on the keyboard and I wanted the guitar to accompany the keyboard with the same chords, so I used a website to find those chords in guitar, which are Em, Am7 and Bm. I'm really confused here. On piano you're playing Roman numerals, but on guitar you're playing named chords? Why aren't you playing Em - Am7 - Bm on the piano too? Or are you? Very confused. The thing about piano and guitar is that you can play 10 notes at a time on piano -- more, actually, if you play multiple notes with the same finger; I feel there's a Chopin prelude that does that -- but you're *much* more limited on guitar. You can play only 6 notes, but you only have 4 fingers to actually finger them, so some of the notes have to be barred or open strings, and you can only stretch so far, etc. You're very limited in your voicing options on guitar, and you're a lot less limited (but still limited) on piano. So of course you can play Em - Am7 - Bm on guitar, but not necessarily with the same voicings you'd do it on piano. On guitar, for example, you also have to worry about position. There's a great fifth position voicing for Am7 (x0555x), but you might prefer a full 6-string Em chord (022000), which has a very different sound because it uses more open strings, so you'd probably want to use a five-string first-position Am7 chord (x02010). But then there's Bm. You don't technically need a barre (x20402), but that's a crappy voicing because the D is too close to the B at the bottom and the upper B is doubled, so you barre the second fret (x24432). Of course, now you have parallel fifths from the Am7, but there's nothing you can do about it so you might as well forget that it ever happened. You can make things sound much smoother on piano. Also, is your guitar tuned to your piano? Just a thought.

  3012. musictheory 2018-10-16 13:04:54 dslybrowse
    >At the no-feedback levels, participants were not provided with any external feedback of the correctness of the tones, so they could not establish any external reference for the AP naming. Instead, they could only generate answers internally in an absolute manner. If they achieved 90% accuracy at the 8th level, a new pitch was added into the training set, with which they went through the same eight-level structure again. as well as > The same glissando clip was played after listening to the sample tones and before the start of the no-feedback levels so as to destroy any existing auditory memory trace of previously heard tones and to minimize the possibility that participants performed the no-feedback levels with external reference tones. It seems part of the system was attempting to avoid that effect, by both overwriting any pitch memory with a glissando sample of sorts, as well as these 'no feedback' tests, requiring that you answer a string of questions with absolutely no reinforcement of the correct answer. That should in theory at least have diminished pitch memory from easily being used.

  3013. musictheory 2018-10-16 20:24:09 gopher9
    1. When you divide a string at half, you rise the pitch by an octave 2. And the frequency is multiplied by two 3. We can think of music intervals as the frequency or string length ratios. An octave is 2:1. 4. And perfect fifth is 3:2, and pure major third is 5:4. 5. When we *add* intervals, we *multiply* ratios: 3:2 * 3:2 = 9:4 (a major ninth) 6. But we want a unit that we can *add* instead of muliplying 7. From math we know that log(ab) = log(a) + log(b) 8. So let's introduce a unit called a *cent* which we compute as 1200 * log2(ratio) 9. A semitone of 12 tone equal temperament is 100 cents wide 10. ????? 11. (this item is reserved) 12. **PROFIT**

  3014. musictheory 2018-10-17 14:49:27 BLOKDAK
    Interestingly, some instruments exhibit significant amounts of inharmonicity, like the piano. The lowest strings of a piano are actually tuned several cents lower, and the highest strings several cents higher, than the theoretical tones you would calculate using, eg, equal temperament. This is because the lower strings are significantly thicker, and wound, and so display vibrational characteristics which deviate substantially from the PDE for stiff, cylindrical vibrating bodies. The highest strings also have differing vibrational characteristics, despite being usially made of the same wire as most of the other strings, due to other limiting physical factors. But the relevant part here is that, for a piano to be "in tune" with itself, all those harmonics in the lower end have to line up, to a large extent, with where the harmonics of other mid-range strings fall. If you just tune A0 to 27.5Hz then its harmonics won't line up with those on most of the piano. You have to lower it even more, typically, though not always, depending on the piano itself. In fact, you can't even tune two of the exact same models of piano, made one right after the other, to be simultaneously in tune with each other and each with itself. And not even if you used the same gauge string all the way through, either (though the deviation is less in this case - one reason why your concert grands can be 12ft. long). There are too many resonant factors in the construction, and the construction can never be identical. Needless to say, a piano in tune with itself won't be completely in tune the orchestra its playing to. However nobody seems to mind very much. I wonder to what extent composers take this into account, even subconsciously, when they compose. Anyway. Not exactly relevant, but interesting af!

  3015. musictheory 2018-10-18 12:41:35 jeremydking86
    Cool! The voicings of one or two guitar chords came out a little unnatural--not wrong, just not typical, e.g., a G7 also had the flat 7th on the bottom string, where the root would typically be. Keep it going! It looks great, and it would be great to have one resource for all these instruments.

  3016. musictheory 2018-10-19 01:07:02 davethecomposer
    For the second question it depends entirely on what you are trying to do. 1) If you are just using normal pitch bend like a guitarist does when bending a string, then you can use regular pitch bend. The big caveat here is that it applies to every note on that channel and since MIDI only had 16 channels this can create problems down the road. 2) If this is for microtonal stuff then you'll definitely want to use the MIDI Tuning Standard. There are a couple of ways to do it but the most powerful and flexible method allows you to assign a specific frequency for each note that you send. It uses the pitch bend technology but adds another layer of specificity. The caveat here is that not every hardware synth supports it or supports it well or supports it there same way. With software synths you shouldn't have any problems. You might also ask the nice folks over at /r/midi as they are very knowledgeable.

  3017. musictheory 2018-10-19 06:24:00 Tomsisson4170
    I liked it a lot. I think that you need more choices in styles of music when using the part that covers chord progressions. For example, I would like to see choices for rock, hard rock, metal, and thrash metal. Also since this is done on computer instead of paper, you could offer chords and chord progressions for 7, 8, and 9 string guitars as well as the traditional six string guitar.

  3018. musictheory 2018-10-19 23:10:44 65TwinReverbRI
    Look at what m3gownz said. When we analyze a piece of music, we can do it from many standpoints. For example, we could talk only about form, or we could talk only about motivic development and so on. Really an analysis is more about what aspect of the music you're trying to point out and discuss, and basically do a comparative analysis with either other similar types of pieces, types of pieces in the same genre, types of pieces by the same composer, or even types of pieces written on the same date if you wanted to get that specific. You've either not been prepared to do this, have not completely understood exactly what the instructor expects, or you didn't learn what you were supposed to have learned earlier. One thing you definitely need to clarify: "Sonata Form" does not usually refer to a Sonata, but instead is the name given to a form commonly found in Sonatas and other pieces, most often as the first movement, so it's also called Sonata Allegro Form (since most first movements are Allegros), and First Movement Form, among other things. Sonatas themselves instead typically have 3 movements, usually arranged Fast Slow Fast, and they may very often have a Sonata Allegro Form movement for the first movement, they may not, and they may have the 3rd movement be SAF, or any other kinds of combinations. The middle movement is typically an Andante, and can be in any form but is maybe less commonly SAF than the outer movements are. But there could be Ternary Form or Compound Ternary Form movements, or Theme and Variations Movements (quite common) and so on. So we can't just pick another Sonata by Mozart as the layout may not be the same as the one you've chosen, and if you're supposed to be analyzing "The Classical Period Solo Sonata" like Piano Sonatas, or Violin Sonatas, etc. that's a separate can of worms than "First Movement Form" itself, which is often used in Sonatas, but is found in String Quartets, Symphonies, Concerti, Divertimenti, Overtures, and many other types of works. It's just a common form, like Theme and Variations, or Ternary Form, or Da Capo Aria, etc. that gets used in all kinds of places. I would recommend you clarify with the instructor or some of your classmates.

  3019. musictheory 2018-10-20 01:20:38 65TwinReverbRI
    Because the music most guitarists wanted to play necessitated a tuning which allowed them to play both harmony and melody and common musical patterns (chord formations, etc.) at the time. "Standard Tuning" for Guitar really evolved in the Classical Era and more especially in the Romantic Period when what we now call "Classical Guitar" was more standardized then ever before, as was music for it. Prior to that, Guitar as we know it stemmed from two primary sources - Spanish Viheula (which closely resembles modern guitar) and the Lute, used in Elizabethan England, France, etc. There was a time when tunings were not standardized and tuning was varied based on the need of pieces, or which mode pieces were in etc. (other instruments, like Appalachian Dulcimer for example, are modal, and can be tuned to create different modes) and people even made a distinction between "Accords Anciens" (old tuning) and "Accords Nouveaux" (new tuning). Lute is generally tuned like a modern guitar, in 4ths, with a 3rd between two of the strings. To a modern guitarist, the common Lute tuning looks like a standard guitar tuning with an extra string above the high E (tuned to A). Lutes also had additional low strings that were usually tuned to what we'd now see as, the Low E string, another string for what we'd now consider Drop D, and even lower (and some instruments like Theorbo were similar but with neck extensions for even lower notes that weren't fretted). A lot of Lute music has been transcribed for guitar, and if we tune or G string down to F#, it gives the same interval structure as the upper strings of Lute so you'll actually still see this in a lot of modern publications for classical guitar. Likewise, you'll run into Drop D transcriptions as well. Vihuela music also evolved - there were 4 course, and 5 course Vihuelas and even things like "re-entrant" tuning which is more like Ukulele - where a lower string is actually tuned higher. But over time it got closer and closer to Lute tuning, which both got closer and closer to standard tuning. In the early Baroque Period (and late Renaissance) Lute read Tabluature, but composers like Bach were writing more complex polyphonic music for it and eventually there was a move towards standard notation. By the Classical Era - and especially into the Romantic Period where music publishing was becoming a major financial industry, it just became necessary for Guitarists to both write in standard notation - so they could sell more music! That's why we see a lot of things like popular opera Arias arranged for guitar or treated as Theme and Variations - guitar composers themselves (Carcassi, Sor, Giuliani, Carulli, etc.) had to be able to read and write standard notation to both stay competitive and make more money selling music! The other big thing that happens and part of the reason the Lute and Vihulea kind of get replaced by the Guitar is the move from instrumental music in the Renaissance being more of a "lesser" form, to it becoming an equal or even predominant form in the Baroque and especially Classical periods, which also coincided with a move away from Modality into Tonality. So all the modal tunings sort of gave way to the Major/minor system, which necessitated fewer tunings (and by the time we get well-temperament, we don't need adjustable frets and things like that) and what we now called "standard tuning" was sort of the best compromise to work for the musical system in place. It does allow for chordal playing. if you compare to Violin, which is tuned in 5ths rather than primarily 4ths, Violins weren't really chordal and used more for playing melodies and individual parts, and because of their size (scale length) and playing angle of the hand, using 4 fingers per string to cover the span of a 5th is quite practical. Notice that Double Bass by comparison is tuned in 4ths - because the scale length is so much greater it has to have fewer notes in one position before moving to another string. While Lute scale lengths (and older Viheulas) were shorter, they weren't really as short ad violins and playing higher led to tuning issues, so more strings with less distance between them worked better - and allowed for chords. So by the time all these factors come together, the "Classical" guitar became standardized with what we now call standard tuning, with exceptions here and there (there are even Dropped D and Dropped G (A string tuned down as well) pieces). In the later 19th century, when music for guitar was becoming ever more demanding (Paganini, many of the later guitar Virtuosi) tuning started to get changed for fuller sound, and we even see in the 20th century guitarists using 7 and 8 or more stringed guitar to enable them to play transcriptions from Romantic Period piano works, or orchestral works, or to be able to compose for guitar that way. And in the 20th century, people got even more experimental. Many guitarists coming from a pop music perspective today may learn about Drop D, DADGAD, open tunings, or 7 string guitars for example, but none of this is new. It's actually ancient at this point! But, basically what happened was that in the "Common Practice Period" which includes Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods, as well as popular music in the 20th century, had so much music written for standard tuning on Guitar, and so much music could be easily transcribed to standard tuning (even earlier music!) that it became the "default" tuning that allowed players to play the most amount of music with the least amount of hassle.

  3020. musictheory 2018-10-20 02:18:52 CleverUsername277
    Its about the number of steps in between each string. EADGBE makes this easiest to play

  3021. musictheory 2018-10-20 03:38:37 crom-dubh
    For a while I was using what I called the "augmented tuning", which was just every string tuned a major third apart, instead of a mix of fourths and thirds, as it is in standard. The advantages of this were manifold, including having access to a complete chromatic scale without changing position, completely isometric layout, meaning shapes don't change when you shift strings, etc. But ultimately I abandoned it because a lot of existing music was just annoying to play on it. The reason for this is that western music favors tuning by either fourths or fifths, both because of how chord voicings are constructed and how progressions work.

  3022. musictheory 2018-10-20 04:27:19 Dracon_Pyrothayan
    Mostly tradition, but that tradition was first put into place due to handspan and internal consonance. When the strings are 4ths apart, you're working with 5 frets to make a chord: Bar, Minor 2, Major 2, Minor 3, Major 3, and then you're on the next string. As the gaps between frets widen the lower in note you go due to the physics of the instrument, this is a good way to keep your fingers from having to dislocate to perform any strange chords. Now, tuning to a specific chord is often done as well, but that has severe limitations when you decide to play more chromatically. Balanced fourths (except the G-B gap) allows for a wider range of technique, without having to memorize the different locations of different intervals you've tuned to. The other aspect is internal consonance. Fourths resonate with each other, and deepen the sound of the instrument. Tuning to a specific chord gives greater resonance on one specific note, but mutes the rest.

  3023. musictheory 2018-10-20 06:51:12 Spooneristicspooner
    I can tldr it for you: The way the strings are tuned allow you to play notes chromatically from the low E to the higher E without moving your arm position. The violin, and other string instruments are tuned similarly depending on the length and thickness of the fret board.

  3024. musictheory 2018-10-20 07:42:09 crom-dubh
    It definitely had its advantages too. Some of the shapes weren't too weird. To play power chords, for example, you would be like playing a minor 6th on standard tuning (36xxxx would be a G5 chord, for example) or if you play the three note version with the upper octave, a little like playing a m6 chord (3x23xx). Basic triads are very easy and require slightly less stretch as in standard (332xxx for G major, 322xxx for G minor). But playing bar chords with lots of voicings becomes a problem. Part of this (and this is one of the other disadvantages of the tuning system) is because the overall pitch range of the guitar is now considerably reduced. One of the great advantages of standard tuning is you have the high E string two octaves above the low E string. In "augmented" tuning, you now have the 3rd string *one* octave above the low E string, but you do not have any string that's two octaves up. If you had a 7 string guitar, you would have a 2 octave pair (your tuning could be E, G#, C, E, G#, C, E), but on a 6 string guitar, you can't play those really spread out sounding voicings. It's kind of a cool tuning to play around with, and especially if you have a lot of chromaticism or planing of certain chord shapes, it might be really advantageous. I recommend trying it out if you're curious.

  3025. musictheory 2018-10-20 07:43:18 beaumega1
    If you only want to use the diatonic notes of C, you have seven simple chords at your disposal. You can build a triad (stack of 3 notes) from each of the notes in C. CEG, DFA, EGB, FAC, GBD, ACE, BDF If you prefer using Roman numerals, this looks like: I - ii - iii - IV - V - vi - vii° (where uppercase indicates a major chord, lowercase indicates a minor chord, and ' ° ' indicates a diminished chord) To keep it really basic, you can try some variations with the pattern: pre-dominant > dominant > tonic Common pre-dominant options are ii and IV, but vi is also a possibility. Your dominant options will be V and vii° And your most common tonic chord will obviously be I, but vi is another good choice. So if you grab some random choices and string them together, you get some options for progressions: ii > V > I (Dm > G > C) IV > vii° > I (F > B° > C) IV > V > vi (F > G > Am) vi > V > I (Am > G > C) From there, you can add another third to each chord, giving you "seventh chords": I(M7) > ii7 > iii7 > IV(M7) > V7 > vi7 > viiø7 You can pop these into the same pattern as above to get other possible progressions. If you want some 4-chord progressions, try "pre-dom > pre-dom > dom > tonic", or "tonic > pre-dom > dom > tonic", or similar variations.

  3026. musictheory 2018-10-20 08:23:08 ur_mom_isthebiggay
    you can play notes the same way you can in different tunings/octaves, you just get a higher or lower tuning, this is what 7 or 8 string guitars are for, lower octaves, and capos basically act as tunings but you break strings, all-fifths **tuning** means that the interval between each open strings is a perfect fifth.) **Guitars**, however, are typically **tuned** in a series of ascending perfect fourths and a single major third. so thats your explanation, idk if your new to theory or not

  3027. musictheory 2018-10-20 09:32:03 jtn19120
    >Standard tuning provides reasonably simple fingering (left hand movement) for playing standard scales and basic chords in all major and minor keys. The separation of the first (high E) and second (B) string, as well as the separation between the third (G), fourth (D), fifth (A), and sixth (low E) strings by a five-semitone interval (a perfect fourth) allows notes of the chromatic scale to be played with each of the four fingers of the left hand controlling one of the first four frets (index finger on fret 1, little finger on fret 4, etc.) only when the hand is in the first position; otherwise, the four fingers must stretch to cover five frets. >The open notes of the second (B) and third (G) strings are separated by a four-semitone interval (a major third). This tuning pattern of (low) fourths, one major-third,[note 1] and one fourth was inherited by the guitar from its predecessor instrument, the viol. On the other hand, the irregular major third breaks the fingering patterns of scales and chords, so that guitarists have to memorize multiple chord-shapes for each chord. Scales and chords are simplified by major thirds tuning and all-fourths tuning, which are regular tunings maintaining the same musical interval between consecutive open-string notes. -wikipedia

  3028. musictheory 2018-10-20 12:21:08 Catbone57
    The 6 string guitar emerged in Spain's Andalusean region in the 18th century. Music in the Phrygian mode was all the rage there - with Aeolian a close second. The EADGBE tubing just happens to lend itself perfectly to the respective native keys (E and A) for those modes.

  3029. musictheory 2018-10-20 21:38:09 Conrad59
    Sounds like you might want to learn about *harmonics*. Major triads are "strong and harmonious" because the 3rd and 5th are notes from the root's *harmonic series*. Perfect 5ths are "strong and harmonious" because the ratio between the two notes' frequencies is a simple ratio, 2:3. Major scales are "strong and natural" because: 1. The notes are just the notes from 3 major triads: The triad built on the tonic, the triad built on the note a perfect 5th *below* the tonic, and the triad built on the note a perfect 5th *above* the tonic. 2. The notes are all connected by perfect 5ths, making a 7-note string of 6 perfect 5ths.

  3030. musictheory 2018-10-20 23:51:16 Analog-Digital
    Good! Now write the string melody first, and then find chords to go with it second. It's easier I think to harmonize an existing melody than it is to come up with chords first and write a melody on top of them.

  3031. musictheory 2018-10-21 01:11:52 4plus1
    These kind of keyboards exist, try searching for *balanced keyboard* or *Janko keyboard*. They are exceptionally rare, though. > EDIT: This is a thing, but why isn't it more widely used? Well, just keep in mind that the regular piano layout and staff notation (which is related) have been around for centuries, are used all over the world and almost all sheet music, educational material and music theory resources are based on the current system. It's almost impossible to obtain a midi controller (let alone a piano) with a uniform/isomorphic layout at a reasonable price. It's even more difficult to find a teacher or any books/resources on technique. It might sound strange, but whether an isomorphic layout is more logical or easier to grasp for beginners than the traditional layout is almost irrelevant. The fact that the regular layout is so widespread is the best reason for learning how to use it. It's just like being able to speak English (which is a very illogical language, in many ways) instead of a more logical, but less commonly used language. > It's like tuning your guitar in fourths compared to standard. Similar case here too. All-Fourths tuning is more logical and more accessible, but when it comes to playing chords (or combining melody and harmony) on a six-string guitar, standard tuning is just superior.

  3032. musictheory 2018-10-21 01:13:19 BRNZ42
    Sure, it's convenient to reduce ledger lines, but that's not *why.* Tuba plays in the same range as bass guitar, and its music is written in concert pitch, ledger lines and all. It's because bass guitar is derived from double bass, and double bass wasn't always in the orchestra. Cello used to be the lowest sounding string instrument, and they read standard bass clef. When orchestras wanted to add an even lower bass voice, the double bass was introduced. But most of the existing repertoire didn't have existing double bass parts, so the first orchestral bassists just read the cello part, but sounding an octave lower. When composers started to write specific parts for orchestral bass, they just kept that same convention because that's what players were used to reading. The reason it has stuck around is because of tradition. The fact that it minimizes ledger lines helps it seem like a sensible tradition, but it's because of history that we read an octave transposed.

  3033. musictheory 2018-10-21 02:13:36 65TwinReverbRI
    >but flattened the 3rd (F#) to a 2nd (E). You "lowered" the 3rd to the 2nd :-) >I cannot for the life of me get an answer on quad inversions That's because there's no such thing! A 4 note chord is a "tetrad" (or rarely, "quartad") but we usually just call them 7th chords in tertian harmony. Inversions are a Tertian-based thing, so your chord has to have a tertian structure in order to work (aside from our using "inversion" in a rotational sense but that's a different thing). However, your chord is not inverted. >Is there even an inversion for this specific chord structure? Well, there are inversions for 4 note sets (rotations) and even tertian tetrads. D-F#-A-C as a sus 2 is simply D-E-A-C - now the inversions would work just like they would with the D7 chord, simply replaces the F# in each inversion with the E. But this is likely to create some sounds that won't have the same kind of clear root that the regular 7th would because suspensions originate as *non-chord tones* not chord tones. However, your chord is a D chord, with D as the lowest note. So it's not inverted at all and the point is moot. What you may be asking about is "voicing" which is separate from inversions. In essence, you've taken D-F#-A-C, and voiced it D-A-C-F# and then turned the F# into an E. None of that has changed it out of root position though. It *could be* a D9, and most people would in fact call it that for simplicity's sake. It's a far more likely way for it to happen in music - the F or F# would be implied or would be in a melody or bass part, or heard from a neighboring chord, etc. That's the reason we don't see D7sus2 as a chord symbol all that often - because it's often more likely a D9 with no 3rd and just a specific voicing of a D9 chord. One thing that might help you is to look up "Drop 2" and "Drop 4" voicings for guitar. You'll see how a 7th chord across 4 strings in either of those voicings gets inverted. When you use a 9th chord things get trickier though because using only 4 string voicings means one note has to get dropped (as yours could be). Again this makes some of the voicings sound "less rooted" but since these kinds of structures are more often used in Jazz, there's usually an assumed Bass note that implies the D, which allows the guitarist to play voicings that on their own might not sound too D-like, but can easily be used over a D bass context. Since yours already has the D as the lowest note, it's going to sound pretty solid.

  3034. musictheory 2018-10-21 13:11:06 lasercruster
    I've taken a look at your post history and I think you have two major misunderstandings about music theory. 1. You don't seem to grasp the concept and meaning of "tonality" or a "tonal center". The idea that there is a home base from which all other tones or chords gain their context. Yes, it's true that A Minor Pentatonic and C Major Pentatonic both share the exact same notes...But that doesn't mean they're functionally "the same thing" and are interchangeable. They're distinct in that they have a different home base: A for Am, and C for CMaj. In the same way, C Ionian and E Phrygian share the exact same notes, but the distinct Phrygian only comes out if your tonality, your home base, is E. "Happy Birthday" in C Major has notes that are technically in E Phrygian - but it makes \*zero\* sense to say that "Happy Birthday" is in E Phrygian, because E is not the tonal center. 2. Related closely to the above: Scales and modes are not just 'positions and patterns on the guitar'. The whole "Dorian" exists in the first place, isn't just so you can start your shred run on the second note of a major scale. It's its own distinct tonality, with a 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, 6, and b7. Miles Davis and Carlos Santana take solos using the Dorian mode, but you won't hear it in Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love". Because it's not the same thing as Mixolydian, or Minor Pentatonic, or Blues. This fundamental misunderstanding, I think, is why so much of your lead guitar playing sounds the exact same. You're just playing comfortable licks, all in the same tonality, with little care. Can you actually sing what you're playing, as you play it? Do you think about melody at all? Or is it just patterns? \> However, on the guitar, you HAVE to think G Mixolydian because the guitar works in 3’s. Each mode is 3 notes per string, with unique half and whole step intervals depending on the mode. So to play anything at all in the key of C/F, you need to have a 3NPS pattern memorized, or 2 NPS if you want to be pentatonic. You \*can\* play a Mixolydian scale using three notes per string, but you absolutely don't have to. You can play a scale staying on one string up the neck. You could play two notes per string. **You don't even have to play a scale, just ascending and descending by step**. The patterns and shapes you learned somewhere on Youtube aren't "\*the\* way to play scales", they're just convenience positions for your hand. The guitar has all the same notes as a piano or saxophone, so the methods for playing melodies and scales apply equally. Only the fingering is different. \> On the piano, you just play whatever. I can't emphasize enough how backward this is. You can play whatever the hell you want on a guitar, too. Having six (or seven) strings to play on doesn't box you in to playing these cookie-cutter licks and runs. The same music theory applies. \> There’s nothing wrong with my Have You Met Miss Jones cover that I posted. I can play it however I want. It’s jazz. You absolutely can play it however you want. But it should be clear to you that your rhythm in this recording isn't standard or common in any era of jazz. You're playing chords like you're strumming a pop song on a ukulele. \*Which is fine\*! But it's not in the jazz style.

  3035. musictheory 2018-10-21 15:07:38 neutronbob
    > If I'm in the F#/G♭ major scale If you want to talk about scales at the level you're asking about, it's important to think of these as two separate scales. They are enharmonic only on the piano and other instruments using equal temperament. On string instruments, for example, they are not enharmonic. They're played differently and sound different. You're never in the F#/G♭ scale, you're in one or the other--even on the piano you're conceptually in vastly different places that happen to overlap in their fingering.

  3036. musictheory 2018-10-21 17:29:09 ITwitchToo
    There is also the fact that when you play a pure sine wave, our ears register overtones, not just the single frequency. Our ears work by having an array of sensor cells ("hair cells") with different masses. The mass of a single cell determines which frequencies it will vibrate to (low mass responds to high frequencies and vice versa). But each cell does not just respond to a single frequency, rather a single cell will have its strongest response to a single frequency, but it also reacts somewhat strongly to multiples of that frequency (octaves), and somewhat less strongly to other fractions (e.g. fifths, etc.). So when a pure sine wave is played, our brains don't just register that single frequency, we also hear octaves, fifths, fourths, etc. (down to almost no response in the very dissonant intervals). The fifth is encoded in that pure sine wave. A note and its fifth literally tickle the same brain cells (but to slightly different degrees). Now imagine that you're not playing a pure sine wave, but you're playing, say, a string instrument. That string itself produces harmonics. Now play multiple strings at once. Sound is so rich. We're often tempted to think of it as "pitch + volume", but it's really so much more than that.

  3037. musictheory 2018-10-21 20:57:27 TheNick1704
    Hey, I can't tell you a lot about the theory behind that, but [here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiERPVIEvSc) a song by Rob Scallon with a very similar vibe. I think it mostly comes down to the timbre of the instrument, which is what gives it this spaced out, dreamy feel. The chords at the end of Rob's solo (in your video) are harmonics. He doesn't "push down" the strings onto the fretboard, he just "hovers" over the string with his finger. It's tough to explain, maybe look up "harmonics on guitar". That is what gives it a different sound compared to the rest of the solo. I agree by the way, sounds beautiful.

  3038. musictheory 2018-10-21 20:58:36 YTubeInfoBot
    #### [Anchor (8 string song) - Rob Scallon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiERPVIEvSc) ##### 2,571,206 views &nbsp;👍42,854 👎353 *** Description: Anchor EP (Tour Edition) is out everywhere!Colored Vinyl: https://store.dftba.com/collections/r...iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/anc...At t... *Rob Scallon, Published on Jul 3, 2013* *** ^(Beep Boop. I'm a bot! This content was auto-generated to provide Youtube details. Respond 'delete' to delete this.) ^(|) [^(Opt Out)](http://np.reddit.com/r/YTubeInfoBot/wiki/index) ^(|) [^(More Info)](http://np.reddit.com/r/YTubeInfoBot/)

  3039. musictheory 2018-10-22 02:24:23 akimbocorndogs
    Well, it's pretty hard to understand at a lot of points. I just slogged through parts of it and took away whatever I could. The most helpful part for me was actually just playing all the chords listed on those two pages (where there's like 200 of them). It forced me to actually build chords using theory, rather than just memorizing shapes, and it made me realize how creative you could be once you knew the fretboard and how to stack intervals. For example, if I wanted to play an A minor 7th shape on the four highest strings, before I would either have to know a pattern already, or build it by hunting down all the notes that make up the chord and figuring out some fingering that worked. But after playing through so many chord voicings, I'd think of it as starting at A, move up a string and two frets, up a string and back a fret, and up a string, same fret, the intervals being a fifth, a minor third, and a fourth. This method kind of lets me build chords on the fly, as well as derive similar voicings for different chords (like if I wanted to play an A half diminished, instead of having to know a completely different shape I'd just play something where you go up a tritone instead of a fifth). I don't really know if this was the intention of the book, but it's helped me a lot regardless. I think that's everyone's experience with the book; the book itself is kind of an info dump, but everyone's able to take something away from it and understand the guitar better. It's definitely not a guitar course, and you're going to have a rough time if you try to read through it and process everything in a short amount of time. It's something to come back to over the years and challenge yourself with, there's some crazy advanced ideas in it.

  3040. musictheory 2018-10-23 06:47:38 65TwinReverbRI
    u/billybrowntrombone, trying to cut through the noise here :-) So, Classical Music - which is likely what you're studying in Theory, is different from a lot of other styles. There are many styles that are either descending from this "CPP" music (Common Practice Period) and certainly some of those elements are still in use in many styles and may even be prevalent. But, to explain maybe a little more deeply: The progression "up a 4th" or "Root Movement of a 4th" is considered the strongest Functional progression because it allows the Dominant to resolve to the Tonic. It also very quickly helps us establish keys because it makes unique progressions that can't be duplicated in other keys, so things like ii - V, and vi - ii also exhibit this property. However, maybe a better way to say it (and the way it is often said) is to refer to those functions - Tonic, Dominant, and Subdominant (or Pre-Dominant, or Dominant Prep, etc.) and then authors don't agree on the others, but one word is "Mediant" or another is "Variable". What CPP music does is use Functional Harmony to imply and establish a Tonal Center (Key) through use of SD to D to T progressions. This could be ii - V - I (and frequently is). ii could be replaced by IV, and V could be replaced by vii^o (and notice IV to vii^o is also root movement of a 4th). But, IV - V - I also does well to establish tonality and is functional - being SD-D-T, but one of them is not a 4ths progression. Secondary Dominant chords are actually also the same as a V(7) - I resolution, and thus a 4ths progression too. But, Secondary Leading Tone chords can be (and often are) used similarly. N6 goes to V - which some people see N as a modified II, but others see it as a special type of chord. So we could say that the Cycle of 4ths progressions are part of the structural underpinning of Functional Progression and Tonal Harmony, but, in that they exhibit the SD-D-T functional progression, not "Just" that they're a 4th apart (because as we can see, there are other possible moves with similar function). iii is actually a very rare chord in Major keys. If you were to tally up the number of chords in every piece during the CPP, you'd probably see I, or maybe even V(7) at the top of the list. ii and maybe IV, then vi and vii^o are probably next. iii would be way down on the list. In fact, you'll probably see more Neapolitans and way more Secondary chords before you see a iii! In fact, you're probably even more likely to modulate to a new key and use a bunch of non-iii chords in that key before you'll see a iii in the primary key !!! I have my book of Bach Chorales here and the progression for the first one goes: I - I - IV - V - I - I - V - vi - IV - vii^o - I - V So, my point to you in my original response is, look at this. It's not your typical pop music - I - V - vi - IV progression. There's one in there, but it's not a 4 chord loop like so much pop music. It's not just slamming a 7th, 9th, or alteration on there to make it "more interesting" or "more unique" and so on. It doesn't even have any significant Cycle progressions - IV to vii^o is one. So is V to I. I to IV is not usually considered one because I is treated specially, but it's not a iii going to vi, and a vi going to ii and so on. Where the "interest" comes in - and this is part of my original point - is which chords are used when and how they work with the melody, and which chords are inverted (for example the first IV and V are which is different from root position) and so on. So it's more about making the harmony serve the melody, and in doing so, creating interest and variety through inversion and chord choice (also, in Chorale, there's the addition of non-chord tones, though rhythm is pretty straightforward in that style). But, there is also a general move and smaller moves from SD-D-T. T - T - **SD - D - T** - T - *D - fake tonic* - **SD - D - T** and this ends on a half cadence to set up the next phrase. There are types of analysis which also reduce phrases like this to show a more basic structure, where the first part is all sort of an elaboration of the Tonic function (the IV and V being weak because they're inverted) and the "real" move being IV - vii^o - I and so on (I'm not saying that's exactly what it is here, but that's how it often works) which is a "deeper level - SD - D - T move. So actually, that kind of analysis is used in "more complex" pieces that don't follow the more obvious path or where function is more obscured. But generally, we like to talk about it in terms of function rather than specific chord numerals all the time. ____ Now, popular music is different and is even more likely to not only not use any Cycle of 4ths progressions, but not use functional harmony either - some are "anti-functional" on purpose, or do what we call a "retrogression", which is going "backwards" - DOWN a 4th instead of up a 4th! So it's like going - T - D - SD - T for your pieces - the wrong way! But we accept it because we like the way it sounds too. _____ I keep saying "4ths" and "Cycle" because really, the "Circle of 5ths" isn't at all about progressions. It's about Keys. Period. But obviously because it's organized in 5ths many people make the connection. I prefer "Cycle of 4ths" or just "Root Movement of a 4th" because it ties in with what you use for voice-leading principles and so on. But some people don't care to make such a distinction. ____ And finally, I was just trying intentionally throw you some curveballs to get you to think about this stuff - too bad others reacted so counter, but it's a very common problem we see - people trying to make chord progressions "more hip" or "more complex" and so on. There can certainly be reasons to do so, but if you think about it, a common Jazz misconception is to just put say an alteration or higher extension on the chords. But the problem is, that becomes a cliche itself and then isn't really any more complex. It's more about what chord you use when - or when you don't. Sometimes a well placed triad in the middle of some 7th chords, or a well placed secondary in the middle of a diatonic progression, can say far more than just making a string of secondaries (in a "circle of 5ths progression"!) That's fine in a sequence on as part of a development section or something, but it can seem over-bearing and tend to wander or have *too much** direction/thrust in a phrase - sometimes, composers just want it to be all about I, or all about I and V, and so on. So don't get too caught up in always trying to make the progression the main focus of a piece. It's OK for it to be "boring" if your melody makes up for it. It's even better to learn to use inversions creatively (which most pop music doesn't even touch on). These are the kinds of things you're likely studying in theory class - but sometimes it's a little hard to see the forest for the trees. So take a step back, look at the forest, the trees, the leaves, the limbs, the roots, and everything because music is really about the big picture and overall effect of the piece - sometimes it could be a forest, but sometimes it could just be a single giant old oak tree in a pasture that's so beautiful on its own. Best

  3041. musictheory 2018-10-24 19:59:39 clothmother
    I've been trying it for a couple days now and love it. So logical! It's especially great on my 8-string guitar (F#BEADGCF)

  3042. musictheory 2018-10-24 20:36:12 MrCatfjsh
    Each song I thought to check out had an example of it: [^Gojira](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR3qej0zmj8) ^/ [^Megadeth](https://youtu.be/Lcm9qqo_qB0?t=44) ^/ [^Periphery](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfOnq-zXXBw&feature=youtu.be&t=24) ^/ [^Lamb ^of ^God](https://youtu.be/N8nUX0RW6es?t=26) I had always thought of it as the other way around [guitar playing the drums] but now that think about it, it goes both ways [unless its just straight chugging the lowest string to the kick or something].

  3043. musictheory 2018-10-26 04:10:14 Oriamus
    I didn't read the comments so this might have been said already, but there are a few reasons. I can think of at least two. The first is simply to help differentiate between different pieces with similar titles. It just gives another reference point to use to find it. Before I explain the second reason I should just disclaim that this is an explanation I've formed on my own in the course of studies based on speculation and observation, not what someone else has taught be expressly. The other reason is a little more complicated, and I think it's useful to think of what form the piece is in. In traditional sonata form, the primary theme is presented in the tonic key, but the secondary theme is initially presented in the dominant key. If I write a traditional sonata in A major, I'm effectively letting you know where the music will go in terms of modulations. When the music modulates it will be in E. It sets the listener up for a kind of auditory roadmap for what the music will do. Furthermore, the same thing happens between movements. In a traditional string quartet, for example, the second movement's tonic is the subdominant of the first movement's tonic, so the listener knows that when we start a new movement, that is the key that the new movement is in. Again, just my thoughts, but it makes sense to me anyway.

  3044. musictheory 2018-10-26 07:58:39 paulvincentsnow
    No, I and many other current artists have studied 'eastern' music - in this sense, the (true, not as harmonically developed in the structural arrangement of thematically developed chordal) musical traditions of Turkish, Persian, Arabic overtone-tuning-based musical systems, and the Indian, Chinese, Japanese and many other 'eastern' - (why am I using quotation marks, these cultures, practices and geographical locations are to be found upon the east of our maps, it is a valid and very practical term) - styles of music.There are many significant underlying factors of these musical practices that earn them the right to be remembered as an important, knowledge- and innovation-rich, unique musical family; whether \- fretless instruments (much more prevalent in eastern countries than Europe, Africa or America, where they are limited to slide guitar, theremin, the occasional Fretless bass, etc. Ofc string instruments such as violins are fretless - but all these instruments are rarely used for more than 12-edo, an often exploited possibility in eastern music) \- the use of non-equal tempered tunings... \- unique musical traditions, such as the *musighi-e-irani,* with its dastgahs, guschehs and radifs; its unique half-improvisational, half-word-of-mouth, passed-down-from teacher to pupil, sacred mode/scale based system, or the oft, (admittedly, badly) imitiated indian ragas, with their darbari and yaman \- polyrhythms \- entire families of instruments, singing practices, performance events designed for other harmonic functions than our 440 hz homogenised clusterfuck \- not to mention the distinct trance-like state rarely achieved by western composers (although steve reich is bang on the money with music for 18 musicians....for a quicker, but perhaps more diluted version, see the stooges - we will fall) or the spiritual function of music, other than the ego-based 'composer seeks to portray god through sound' faux-philosophy/theology of most western composers. try some islamic chants bro/sis But I digress. I find it disrespectful to state that eastern countries and cultures have no say in music tradition and as such one cannot coin their art 'eastern music' or containing eastern harmonic development. That forms the crux of my premise. So I'm sorry, but this: "Basically, if it has functional harmony, it's Western music or descended from Western music" is just rude and wrong, in my eyes. Please, explain to me how the above-mentioned ~~two~~ (ninja edit, i listed more than two) musical traditions do not contain functional harmony. Also this: "Not many, though. Remember, the third is never in tune in Pythagorean tuning; the major triad requires a 5/4. We consider other chords to be consonant as well, like sus chords, but we come from a culture of harmony; a culture without the idea of chords as independent entities wouldn't give a sus chord any sort of *function*. So while you might get one or two consonant chords in a scale, you wouldn't really think to use them as harmonic units the way we think of it in Western music. They might just be sounds that happen in passing. At best, you'll have this chord sounding the *entire time* the scale is played." is incorrect. i frequently work in the field of microtonal compositions and to say the ear will not detect intervals as low as +/-20 cents is incorrect. studies (and yes, i will provide references upon request, i am an academic and practicing music since 11 years and yes I do know my different eastern flavours, thank you very much, in the kitchen and in music) have shown that even an untrained ear will, after a few short listening sessions involving microtonal (in this context anything smaller than 100 cents, our common 12 edo, equal temperament semi-tone) intervals, recognize intervals as small as 16 c between notes and be instantly able to differentiate between them in terms of sound character, or feeling - if obviously not able to recognize the exact frequency ratio or musical interval, due to a lack of musical training. However one can create chords with other intervals than standard western tuning, you do not need classical western harmony, equal temperament, or the harmonic traditions of the west to create chords, music, harmony, art, whatever. Chordal relationships between overtone-series-based-musical intervals are also possible. i hope i do not come across as hostile or over-excited, i am just a passionate soul upon this subject and have studied and practiced music for many years. i was told often by teachers and musicians early on the same things you iterated above, and it disheartened me, because it always comes across to a certain extent as belittling to the possibilities outside the classical western harmony. i speak only with the intention of sharing my studies, i am grateful for the opportunity to converse with you. &#x200B;

  3045. musictheory 2018-10-26 22:06:41 PlazaOne
    Well ET was known, but how widely used would be a different matter. Unless your composition includes a keyboard instrument, the string section of an orchestra can pretty much do as they please! I'd suspect the transition in naming conventions came about during the Romantic era, after Liszt invented symphonic poems designed to tell a narrative story through instrumental language. If you know the tale of e.g. *Prometheus* then that's sufficiently memorable and hopefully all the name you'd need. And, of course, that era's willingness to modulate more freely, so that pieces weren't any longer based quite so solidly in one tonal key.

  3046. musictheory 2018-10-27 02:23:35 reckless150681
    History time! :) So back when music was first being standardized and notated it was mainly for use in the Church. If you imagine a ginormous cathedral (think Notre Dame), it's actually pretty hard for an orator's voice to flow over the entire space, especially with a bunch of squishy bodies in the pews. So they figured out that if they combined their voices and sang together, their prayers/masses/etc. would reach people in the back far more easily. Except, they had to sing *together* (at this point everything was monophonic; polyphony and homophony would come later), and to do that in a way that didn't rely so much on memory they decided to write everything down. But then they had to figure out a way to define a starting note. That's where the clef - or rather, the ancestor of the clef - came in. Generally, these clefs were written in such a way that 1. they'd put the singer's range within the staff (i.e., no ledger lines), and 2. they'd show the starting note. Now my memory kind of fails me here as to whether we had ideas of solfege and the like, but nevertheless these three different kinds of clefs eventually evolved into the F, G, and C clefs we see today. See [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensural_notation#Clefs) for more information. Why do we still use them? Well once we standardized things in starting with the Baroque Era, there were three hundred years of so of using this system (due to lack of computers and the like). 300 years is a ton of music written down in this old way, and it's a long time for lots of practices to be instilled in new musicians. We're kind of stuck in between a rock and a hard place in that sense. To be able to read, study, and learn old music, you *have* to learn the notation; but the notation is kind of limiting, and in cases like transposing instruments, it's needlessly complicated. Your next question about clarinet and flutes is fairly easy to answer. The answer is: technology. So a few basics of the science and engineering behind wind and stringed instruments. Stringed instruments are hella easy. You tighten a string, pin it to some big box, and pinch the string at various places to change the pitch. On a violin, this is done by tuning pegs/fine tuners and having a fingerboard to pinch the string for you. We also went ahead and put a bridge in to better couple the vibrating string and the sound cavity. This is nothing new; by the time the 1600s came around, we had basically mastered this sort of instrument. Wind instruments are far more complicated. There are two types of wind instruments: closed-tube and open-tube. Open-tube instruments have holes on both ends of the instrument and work exactly like stringed instruments where the playable notes are integer multiples of a fundamental frequency. This doesn't necessarily make these instruments *easy* to work with since you still have to deal with specifics of instrument building like placing the fingerholes exactly, but it's not bad. The headaches are closed-tube instruments. These are instruments that have a hole only on one end of the instrument. "But wait," you may be saying, "aren't all instruments open-tube? You have to have one hole to blow into." That's true, but because one end of the instrument is always pressed against a mouth, you're basically closing off that hole. Really, the only open-tube instrument in the modern orchestra is the flute. Both ends of the instrument are uncovered, and you blow into the instrument via a *third* hole. Anyway, closed-tubes. The problem with closed-tubes is that they only vibrate at every *odd* integer harmonic of a fundamental. While a flute might play Bb Bb F Bb D F Ab Bb, a clarinet might play Bb F D Ab, missing a large amount of flexibility that the flute has (there's a lot more nuance to this that I'm not going in to, but that's good enough). In other words, the clarinet *cannot* play some notes that the flute can. So to fix this, people decided to make *multiple* clarinets, one for each common key. Except, if you have to play four instruments that are *similar*, you tend to confuse fingerings and the like. The solution? Make the instrument transpose and write everything "in C". This means that if you saw a C major scale and fingered a G clarinet, you'd play a G major scale. A Bb clarinet, a Bb major scale, and so on and so forth. This was a good solution until technology got better and we were able to build more robust instruments. That's why closed-tube instruments tend to be transposing. Look at the clarinet, or trumpet. I'm not sure why the oboe isn't transposing (maybe it was invented so late that the technology existed to make it robust), but the trombone (also a closed tube) is non-transposing because it's so easy to change pitch.

  3047. musictheory 2018-10-28 00:13:05 FVmike
    here's each note's position on the guitar, in G: 1 - G - E string 3rd fret 2 - A - A string open b3 - Bb - A string 1st fret 3 - B - A string 2nd fret 4 - C - A string 3rd fret \#4 - C# - A string 4th fret 5 - D - D string open b6 - Eb - D string 1st fret 6 - E - D string 2nd fret 7 - F# - D string 4th fret \^1 - G - G string open \^2 - A - G string 2nd fret \^4 - C - B string 1st fret The guitarist in the video might be moving around the notes so that they stay on the lower strings, for the tone

  3048. musictheory 2018-10-28 07:15:54 broodfood
    I think it's all about context. The different tuning systems are a good way to categorize things, but in practice things are going to be a mixture. Like string players, a singer doesn't start a piece having decided on a tonic pitch and tuning system to use throughout, but makes minute adjustments moment by moment, harmony by harmony, to maintain intonation.

  3049. musictheory 2018-10-28 07:54:31 greatjasoni
    The late Beethoven string quartets are very dissonant while staying beautiful. The grosse fuge in particular is a joy to listen to. Out to Lunch by Eric Dolphy is a classic jazz album that's very chromatic. Rick Beato always highly reccomends Aydin Esen as the pinnacle of high information piano. Brad Mehldau is great too, although his work isn't as chromatic it's complex and intense. Also try modernist music that is chromatic but not 12 tone atonal. People like Stravinsky made some great stuff that's dissonant and complex but isn't so joyless and sterile like 12 tone music can be.

  3050. musictheory 2018-10-28 20:46:19 Xenoceratops
    It's my experience that people who say this about Schoenberg's music haven't listened to or studied much of Schoenberg's music. Mind you, /u/groovy_mcbasshands is misrepresenting it too: Schoenberg definitely used pitch class motives [in his twelve-tone music; not speaking of the tonal and atonal music, though it exists there too], and often used [invariant](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/anziam-journal/article/invariance-properties-of-schoenbergs-tone-row-system/E2F7E71E4E1B59440E92B1C79B59E043) pitch sets (meaning the same collection of pitches between two different rows) to create symmetrical structures. So, Schoenberg's twelve-tone music does not "feature all the notes in an isometric kind of way" at all. Rather, he mediates tonal relationships around invariant pitch classes, invariant set classes, complement (if you use the notes C C# D D# E F F#, the complement is the other 6 notes of the chromatic scale), and combinatoriality (the technique of using self-complementary set classes to construct a row that can then be paired with a permutation or transposition of itself). If anything, the repetition of pitch structures is the organizational feature in his music. But nobody is going to tell you that because everybody's quick to use Schoenberg as a punching bag without checking to see if they have their facts straight. As for being joyful, look, I'm not going to convince you, but a lot of atonal music is immensely positive in its outlook. For Schoenberg, twelve-tone technique was looking forward to a future where music would develop toward using higher and higher orders of partials in the harmonic series. It's aspirational in the most basic sense. Of course, it's not all sunshine and rainbows: [Moses und Aron](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0HPN8830Ls&t=1h40m30s) has a pretty bleak ending (mind you, Schoenberg never completed the third act). But then you have pieces like the [Op. 45 String Trio](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2vX8JXfKEc) (written with an 18-tone row as well as a 12-tone row!) that depicts Schoenberg's ["heart attack"](https://www.naxos.com/mainsite/blurbs_reviews.asp?item_code=8.557529&catNum=557529&filetype=About%20this%20Recording&language=English) and subsequent recovery back to health, which he describes as "humorous". I know, it's a little bizarre, but he found something to laugh about in it, so I don't think you can rightly call it scary or joyless. At least not all the time. If I can plug some recommendations, the [Klaviestücke Opp. 33a and 33b](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuzfJ1Fgw6s), the [4th String Quartet, Op .37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L85XTLr5eBE), and the [Op. 42 Piano Concerto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEY9lmCZbIc) are all excellent pieces. Check out [Op. 4, "Verklärte Nacht"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhT6afzke-c) for one of his best tonal works. But why would you be concerned about giving your daughter music with harmonic complexity while withholding emotional complexity? When I was a kid, I watched The Muppet Christmas Carol a lot. It's a great movie. Years later, I bought it again on DVD. I watched through it, got to the part with my favorite song... [aaaand Disney edited it out](https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Why-Muppet-Christmas-Carol-Deleted-Song-Was-Cut-Really-Should-Have-Stayed-68641.html). Jeffrey Katzenberg's concern was that the sad song would be too much of a bummer for kids. But in removing the song ("When Love is Gone") from the film, Scrooge's reason for being a lonely curmudgeon is obscured. Not only that, but it ruins the the moment of Scrooge's redemption at the end of the film when the same tune is presented with new lyrics ("When Love is Found"). I understood that shit when I was a youngling. I didn't need it sanitized. I'm pissed at Disney's decision, because it implies children cannot think for themselves and must constantly be inundated with happy thoughts and uncritical positivism. (In case you're wondering, [Sailing for Adventure](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDqVCLJF5ec) is my favorite track from Muppet Treasure Island.) Aside from all that, I really loved the Rite of Spring part of Fantasia growing up. Yes, because dinosaurs, but also because of the cool music. Kids don't know tonal from atonal until you tell them it's a thing.

  3051. musictheory 2018-10-28 21:00:25 Aenima14
    I did something similar once, I heard a car horn go off and thought it sounded like the 5th fret on the high e string off my guitar which I now was an A note.

  3052. musictheory 2018-10-29 03:52:39 65TwinReverbRI
    Traditionally, the Bass simply plays a note that's an octave lower than the Cello. There are plenty of exceptions, but in traditional orchestration, the role of the bass was generally to "thicken" and "add weight" the the string section, where the Cello played the role of the bass part, with the "double" bass doubling it an octave lower when that "fatness" was desired.

  3053. musictheory 2018-10-29 07:52:58 AD1AD
    Sounds like a chicken and egg problem, but isn't the story that Pythagoras found that whole number ratios of string lengths sounded nice, and then the simplest one after 2/1 (the octave) was 3/1 which, down that 2/1 octave, gives you 3/2, which he then stacked on top of each other so that each new note had its own pure sounding 3/2 radio above it? If that's the case, then the circle of fifths arguably preceded the diatonic scale. (Before that, my impression is that at least some of the scales were subharmonic, which is what you get when holes or frets are equally spaced instead of logarithmically spaced.)

  3054. musictheory 2018-10-29 11:44:46 vfdsugarbowl
    So, there’s kinda two answers. One, is that tones will sound different depending on the string and fret and it’s up to the musician to determine which tone will fit best musically. Two, is fuck that and go with the easiest choice. The bass guitar frets are wide as hell so you gotta do what you can in order to hit the notes. I’m not an expert bass player or anything but I’ve noticed that players tend to go to lower frets (1-5) for standard stuff with long notes or few changes, but then hang around the middle (5-9) for stuff with lots of rhythm or changes. In other words, middle of the neck is a good place to be for technical work. The other thing about using open strings is that you don’t have the same control over them that you do over fretted notes, so (depending on the piece) might as well scrap the open notes unless you need something strong and steady. Also, say you’ve learned a piece and use little to no open notes. Now you can transpose it up or down with ease, but if you used open notes now you have to redo your fingering. As for transposing the octaves… idk. Just do whatever sounds good. In my opinion you should (as with the frets) stay low for stuff where you’re the anchor, stay middle for melodic stuff that you want people to hear, go high to show off but only occasionally. In my experience, unless you’re in a rigid ensemble nobody really cares which octave the bass is in.

  3055. musictheory 2018-10-29 11:56:18 Geromusic
    Bass guitar music sounds one octave lower than written. Concert middle C is the 17th fret of the G string. > how do I know when to play C as fret 8 of the E string or fret 3 of the A string? It depends. First look for technical problems. Does playing it one way or the other make it physically impossible (or hard) to hit the notes around it? Next is timbre. Sometimes it's better to stay on the same string for more consistent tone. After that it's really just personal preference. Have fun!

  3056. musictheory 2018-10-29 12:15:50 Ian_Campbell
    My comment was already massive so I split it up to add more. [Taneyev - John of Damascus III fuga](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-XHIjuUFvo) He has a more famous piano fugue so you can go find that if you haven't heard it. I liked this as a complete choral work. Very well engineered and tasteful within the larger structure. [Godowsky Passacaglia in B minor (fugue)](https://youtu.be/f0nlJXooIVc?t=921) This is quite the dramatic fugue with really cool sequences, a big tribute to Schubert. It's worth just listening to the whole piece. [Reger - Variations and Fugue on a Theme of Mozart - Fugue](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF4CPNV0Pqs) In the same way, this is worth listening to the whole piece, especially since the fugue subject is initially unrelated to the primary theme, until it comes back. This entire piece is based on the first movement of the Mozart piano sonata number 11 with the famous Alla Turca movement. The variations start very straight, the second variation only elaborating the exact same basic theme as is common with Reger variations, but it soon gets into chromatic craziness. There is a very characteristic reharmonization of Mozart's theme Reger does before the fugue. So the development of the separate subject builds some energy and allows the recapitulation with the themes combined to be more impactful. [Beethoven - String Quartet #14 in C# minor mvt 1](https://youtu.be/WlFYC1U5viw) I just wanted to write that I think this was actually the best fugue Beethoven ever wrote. Everyone in the basic musical courses and discussions makes a big deal of the Great Fugue and totally ignores this one which is pretty unfair because it's an important work. He wrote about using an entirely new manner of part writing for it. It does not break up the fugue so much and yet remains the most touching piece at the same time. Wagner said it had the most melancholy sentiment in all of music.

  3057. musictheory 2018-10-29 13:18:29 thejazziestcat
    One of the theories about why parallel fifths were taboo is that it makes the movement sound "hollow." A voice singing a fifth above another voice can *almost* sound like the same note, since so many of the overtones line up that the two reinforce each other to create a stronger sound. Bach (people think) didn't like that because he was all about that polyphony, and two voices that sound like one voice is super boring compared to two distinct melodies. The undertone series is... it can be produced, but I don't think it ever occurs naturally, and I'm almost certain there's no practical use for it whatsoever. (If you hold a tuning fork against a dangling sheet of paper, you can sometimes make an undertone as the fork only hits the paper every other cycle. Bowed string instruments can also produce undertones, we think, by applying way too much friction and... doing... uh, some sort of sorcery? I've done both of these myself and I still have no idea how the string one works.)

  3058. musictheory 2018-10-29 13:53:45 gravescd
    As a guitarist, Tremolo may have a slightly different meaning because it has a specific technique implication. Many guitar pieces clearly imply a technique that's intended to maintain a note/harmony, much as a bowed string or breath-powered instrument would when accompanying a melody. Listen to *Asturias* and similar. I can imagine that proper tremolo notation shows up different in keyboard music simply because you have you have more hands available than a guitarist. Because all the voices must be played by both hands, actual tremolo notation can be awkward to indicate in a single voice. On guitar, fully notated 16ths are often used to indicate tremolo by implication.

  3059. musictheory 2018-10-29 15:02:09 GlennMagusHarvey
    Oh I think I know what you're talking about now. I think early keyboard instruments used trills and repeated notes for this purpose, but with the piano's ability to maintain sonority longer, slower repeated notes (or simply pedaling) are more common used for this purpose. A tremolo on a single note on keyboard is rare not so much because of the fingers needed for it -- one can "trill" two fingers on a single key easily -- but because the key needs to physically be struck again, meaning it depends heavily on the key itself rising again to a height sufficient for allowing another press to cause the hammer to re-strike the string. This is quite unlike being able to just pluck a string anywhere, from any side. It's still kinda possible if you lift each finger fast enough, which is most feasible with alternating hands, but less feasible with one hand. This may be somewhat different for electronic keyboards, but I don't think we've really had major developments in virtuoso technique specific to electronic keyboards yet. (I may be wrong though and I'd be very interested to know.) Instead, tremolos on piano are almost always between multiple notes, typically used for a shimmering or blur effect, if in the treble, or a drumroll-like effect if in the bass. "Slower" tremolos of clearly-distinguishable rhythms (e.g. 16th notes, in quarter = 144 bpm) are used to notate accompaniment figuration in classical-period stuff, akin to Alberti-bass style figurations.

  3060. musictheory 2018-10-29 15:36:09 woo_im_great
    overtones are from the vibrating string undertones are the response to those vibrations by the air and body of the instrument and the string itself

  3061. musictheory 2018-10-29 17:07:20 Jongtr
    > do overtones have their own overtones? No. > does the overtone series actually exist? Absolutely. How much it affects how music is organised, however, is debatable. ;-) > one giant hill made up of smaller hills, if that is how it works in any way. That's not a bad analogy. The "giant hill" is the pitch we hear (assuming its frequency is within the audible spectrum), and the "smaller hills" are the overtones. When you pluck a guitar string, there's one overall movement back and forth which produces the main fundamental pitch, but there are many smaller waves which run up and down the string, representing the overtones. As any guitarist - or string player - knows, you can bring out the harmonics by isolating fractional vibrations of the string to produce the higher pitched harmonics: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 etc. The odd-numbered harmonics produce different notes. I.e., 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 produce octaves of the main pitch. 1/3 produces a perfect 5th, 1/5 produces a major 3rd. (Equal temperament deviates a little from these precise ratios .) Wind instruments employ the overtone series to produce many of their notes, especially trombones. If the overtone series did not exist, a bugle could only play one note! (In fact, it's hard to imagine what kinds of sounds could exist at all if it wasn't for the overtone series. There are no sine waves in nature....) Not only does the overtone series contain a range of identifiable single pitches (at least at the lower end), but the mix of overtones - especially the higher ones - produces the distinctive timbre of an acoustic instrument. The harmonic series is why a flute playing middle C sounds different from a violin or sax playing middle C: they all have a different mix of overtones. Check [this] (https://meettechniek.info/additional/additive-synthesis.html) out - a great little toy for hearing how the proportions of different harmonics affect the sound of a pitch. In theory, the overtones of a fundamental pitch are all multiples of its frequency (the inverse of those string fractions), but in practice the kinds of vibrating things that produce pitch (stretched strings, metal bars, columns of air in pipes, etc) exhibit degrees of inharmonicity due to anomalies in the physical make-up of the device - the metals in the strings, etc.

  3062. musictheory 2018-10-30 01:45:55 65TwinReverbRI
    Not really. Guitar can play in any key, just like piano. Standard Guitar tuning is said to be "in E", meaning it is tuned: E A D G B E (the lowest E is below the Bass clef, the highest E right above middle C). When a guitar is "in Eb" it means all of the strings are tuned down a half step: Eb Ab Db Gb Bb Eb All this does though is like adding an extra Ab at the very bottom of the piano. It doesn't change the keys you *can* play in. However, it does change the keys you can play in easier in some cases - for guitarists, there's sometimes a big reliance on "open chords" or "cowboy chords" which are chords that contain one or more open strings. So, in standard tuning for example, an Em chord is very easy to play - it only involves putting two fingers down. But, playing an Ebm chord means finding those notes much higher up the neck and in a position where they can all be reached with the fingers. So it lacks the "fullness" of that open Em chord. By tuning down to Eb, it now allows an Ebm chord to be played as easily as Em (and now the Em is a bit more difficult). For a guitarist, we don't really "think" Eb though - we think "chord shapes" (especially the self-taught crowd). What that means is we finger the shape for a G chord, but since the guitar is tuned down a half step, it comes out sounding like a Gb chord - so it's like a transposing instrument. You might equate it to playing an G Major chord, 3 fingers on white keys, and just moving it down a half step to all black keys for Gb major. Your fingers can basically keep the same basic "shape", and just by moving that shape down a half step, you get another major chord. You can move it down to F as well, but if you move it one more to E (all white keys) you end up with a MINOR chord. That's because the black and white keys are not evenly distributed (7+5). But on guitar, you can take any shape and move it up or down any number of frets and it's the same type of chord on a different starting note - IOW, the shape for F Major is the same as F#, G, G#, A, Bb, B, C, etc. Major. The E Major is the same "shape" but it "goes behind the nut" meaning some of the strings must be open - so it doesn't look quite the same - the relationship between intervals is the same. But we can't go any lower than that - we have to jump up to a higher position (like jumping up an octave, but starting with the E Major shape (1 black key in the middle) and use a different shape. So tuning down X amount just allows us to play those open string chord forms lower than we usually do. If you know what a capo is, it's the same principle but getting lower rather than higher. And for both, we think "G shape" even though with a capo on the 2nd fret it would produce an A chord, and with the guitar tuned down to Eb (no capo) it would produce a Gb chord. There is a tuning called "Dropped D" where only the low E string is tuned down to D. Again, this is sort of just like adding a low G to the piano - gives you access to two more low notes. However, it gives the guitar player a different open string note to use so for example, whereas usually we can only play a D chord in Root Position with the D in the bass clef as our lowest note, this would now allow us to play a D chord with the extra low octave (below the bass staff). Guitarists somewhat recently re-invigorated a trend of tuning ever lower ("nu-metal" mostly) or adding a 7th string to the guitar and still even tuning it down. This doesn't really change the keys they can play in, but rather it provides access to chords with more open strings lower than what they can normally produce (and in that genre, it was for the heavy chugginess sound they wanted). So the biggest things for you to worry about are: 1. Just so you know, written guitar music is written an octave higher than it sounds, so E in the top treble space is E above middle C - it sounds an octave lower than written. May not make a difference if your guy can't read but if you're transcribing anything it could help. It's also only traditionally written in Treble Clef but that means the E three ledger lines below Treble staff is the lowest E on the guitar, which sounds as the E below the Bass staff. 2. If a guitarist is tuned down to Eb, and they say "I'm playing a G" it means they're playing Gb - everything is transposed down a half step. If you were to say "I'm playing a G", they'd have to take their G shape and move it up 1 fret to compensate (which from their perspective would be an Ab chord shape, so harder to get to in that tuning). 3. There are things we call "Alternate Tunings" like Drop D - only 1 string (or a few) are changed. There are "open tunings" where all the strings are tuned to a Chord (Open E and Open G are two of the most common) and there is "double Drop D" meaning both E strings are tuned down to D ("Black Water" by The Doobie Brothers is this way IIRC). Then there's "DADGAD" which is spoken like it reads and the tuning of the strings. This is popular for folk guitarists especially for a lot of music done in the 60s by the Baez/CSN(y) type crowd. None of these really affect what key the guitarist can play in, but it affects which chords are easier to play, or easier to include open strings in, so DADGAD is more likely to use chords like D, G, and A, than a tuning like "Eb" which makes those chords no easier to play and there's a big difference between the "open string sound" and more fretted notes. 4. That means, for anything other than "Eb", you have to be clear what the guitarist means. Some people tune down to "C#" but more often what they do is do what would be better called "Drop Db" - they lower the guitar 1 half step then drop the low Eb to Db on top of that. If they then said they were playing a "D" chord, the drop D part of doesn't affect anything beyond their access to lower notes, but the "b" part of it means they're playing a sounding Db chord. HTH

  3063. musictheory 2018-10-30 05:37:01 jazzadellic
    I'd say if the guitar player doesn't know any theory, then it's a waste of time discussing things theoretically. Your best approach would depend on whether you are teaching him to play something or you trying to learn something he is playing. If you are trying to learn something he is playing, then you should simply have him play or tell you all the chords, or play the melody separately and use your ears to determine what key he is in. Even if he doesn't know any theory, he probably at least knows the name of the chords he is playing, and so you shouldn't take more than a minute to figure out the key or keys (if you really know your theory). If you want to teach him a tune that you are playing, then you could simply google guitar chord diagrams for the chords you are using and print them for him or have him look them up and print them. For any melody that you want to teach him to play, you could use a notation program to input the melody (on a guitar staff) and then have it auto-TAB it out for him (for example Sibelius does this). Keeping in mind that if the notation program is set up correctly, it will sound/TAB the melody one octave lower than it is on the staff. Also the TAB will not likely be the most optimal way to play it on the guitar but it should work at least. If he is tuned to anything but standard tuning, that will screw things up. For example, if he is tuned down a half-step, any open chords would have to turn into either barred or movable chord forms beginning on the 1st fret. All other barred or movable chord forms would be moved up a half-step. When he says he is "tuned in D", he might really mean "drop D tuning" which just means his lowest string which is normally an E, has been dropped to a D a whole-step down, which of course would affect any chords that have a note on the sixth string. He could also mean an "open D tuning" which usually means all six strings are tuned to a D chord (like the sixth and 1st strings are tuned to D, the G string gets dropped down to F#, B string becomes A). So you would have to clarify what he means by "tuned in D". But anyways, trained musicians collaborating with completely untrained musicians can be a pain in the butt for both really, and only really happens with people who are friends or family. No trained musician would waste time doing such a thing with a stranger, they'd run and run far away! The other thing you should do is ask your friend to learn a little theory ;o)

  3064. musictheory 2018-10-30 07:48:00 FwLineberry
    If the guitar player doesn't know the names of the chords they're familiar with or even where the notes sit on the fingerboard, it's going to be extremely difficult to communicate. If you both have good ears, then notes and chords can be figured out that way, but that's the hard way to do things. As far as guitar goes. almost every player gravitates to certain keys that make sense on the guitar. In standard tuning, the keys of E A G D C utilize a lot of open string chords and are pretty common. But don't expect straight major scale based keys. A guitar player who plays by ear is liable to be using a lot of borrowed chords and modal interchange in their songwriting and playing. As far as tuning goes, A guitarist who tunes down a half step is usually still thinking like a guitarist who's playing at standard pitch. So They're thinking E chord when they're really playing Eb. This is like any horn or wind player might be thinking (transposing instruments). If they're using altered tunings with a capo, who knows how they're actually thinking about when they play.

  3065. musictheory 2018-10-31 11:39:02 broodfood
    90 notes goes above the typical range of a full keyboard, so I'm guessing they're not arranged by string (violin range is ~50 notes). Can you tell us what is the naming scheme as far as you can tell? Is it like F4, Bb3, C0, etc?

  3066. musictheory 2018-10-31 18:32:23 Tackling_Aliens
    I guess OP means playing an open E on a guitar has B and e string open.... leaving those strings open as you go up the E major diatonic chords leaving those strings open on a guitar gives you Asus2, Bsus4 etc etc. So if I want that in the key of G I can just put a capo on fret III and work away. Edit: I mean... like this is definitely what OP means!

  3067. musictheory 2018-10-31 21:49:43 colorized
    I was thinking the same except in the key of G, with the ring finger on the third fret of the B string playing D. Never move the ring finger or pinky from their third frets and you have all the chords OP is talking about.

  3068. musictheory 2018-11-01 00:34:31 aandrewc
    What you don't have an 8 string guitar and a third hand for voicing chords!? This is the most I've laughed at a reddit comment all year :)

  3069. musictheory 2018-11-01 04:39:13 MrRedTRex
    Yeah. I do this also. If you're in Emajor and play an open Emaj chord, you can keep your pointer and middle finger where they are the entire time and move your pinky to make the rest of the chords. I'm not sure of the actual names in this case, but you can move pinky to F# note and play an F#chord, move to G#, move to C# and move to B. Then you just remove your ring finger from the A string and keep the rest, and there's the A. And voila, you have basically that entire scale. I learned this from being in a pop/indie/punk band in the early 00's. Most Taking Back Sunday songs off the original record are played this way. A lot of Kevin Devine's stuff also. it's a really fun and simple way to play in that key.

  3070. musictheory 2018-11-01 05:51:56 65TwinReverbRI
    >Just because no adult so far has been able to do it (not 100% sure that's even true), doesn't mean it can't be done. No one could run the four-minute mile until someone did. Ok, that's not what people mean when they say stuff like that. Sure, the sun might explode tomorrow. Or in 5 minutes. But the evidence is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of us getting to the first of the year as far as the sun at least is concerned. I'm a guitarist and have been playing since 13 or so (many suns now). I can take the strings off my guitar and put new ones on, and tune it up without any reference other than "memory" or "feeling" (I would describe it more as "feel") and get it pretty much right in tune. Sometimes I'm for all intents and purposes right on. I can also tell when listening to guitar playing, say some simple cowboy chord progression, what the chords are based on their "sound" - i.e. I'm so familiar with what an open A chord sounds like I know that that's an A chord shape. Often, I can also tell if it's tuned down to Eb. I recognize Drop D immediately. However, I can't really tell if a tuned down guitar is in D or C# or C for example. I just now it's tuned down at that point. Here's something interesting: Years ago I worked in a music store and we had a Roland Guitar that you could plug into a Guitar Synth that actually played COSM modelled sounds that sounded like an Acoustic. They were bragging at the time that someone like Joni Mitchell or Joan Baez was using it on tour because you could pre-program alternate tunings - no need for 20 guitars on stage or retuning constantly - you just picked a patch and it was DADGAD or Open G, etc. But what was weird was, even though it was an electric and you couldn't hear it over the amp, and you could play Dropped D voicings for example, it didn't "feel" right to me. The Low D sounded like a D note, but the string and guitar itself didn't "feel" like a low D - it still felt as Low E! The high E on a violin is an open string so it has a different timbre than a fingered string and even I can hear in recordings when one is used (it's an 8ve higher than guitar's open E BTW). But none of this is "Perfect Pitch". PP would be if I walked into my living room where the piano is, and my son played a note, and I said "that's Ab" and I was right. And I would be right every time we did it. It would happen on Synth and synth sounds. You could fret a note on the guitar that looked like E, but the the string was tuned down a half step (say, the G string) and I would say E if I saw it, even though it sounds like Eb - a person with PP would say it's Eb. What you're describing I've seen called "pitch memory" instead of perfect pitch. If you truly have PP you could be right 100% of the time. That other music messes you up tells you it's not PP or even partial PP. At least, currently we define PP as pretty much an all or nothing thing - people with PP get notes in the 95%+ average I think (it might be like 94.3 or something but for our purposes here it's darn close to 100%). I recall reading that there was a greater likelihood that people with PP might miss some notes more frequently than others, of the ones they miss, and interestingly it's either B or Bb that's the note for most of the people who miss one commonly. So there's not a "Pitch Spectrum" as far as PP is concerned. I do think PP warrants a lot more research and there may very well be less black and white aspects about how and when it can be learned, and if it can be developed, or improved, and so on. IIRC studies show that the ability decreases with age but that's one of those things that it's not clear if it's just a research anomaly, cognitive ability, hearing loss with age, lack of musical experience (kids might play an instrument in school but then stop when older) and so on. People who speak Tonal languages are much more likely to have it. So with all that, not only do people like us not really have it, or can't attain it, but it's so "imperfect" on the scale (i.e. only being able to get one note, under perfect conditions) that even bringing up the term is a bit of a stretch. Pitch Memory is probably a better term.

  3071. musictheory 2018-11-01 06:55:52 Kiljeaden
    Is do this all the time in shoegaze music. Open B and E string is wonderful for an F#maj chord.

  3072. musictheory 2018-11-01 11:14:18 agromono
    i play violin so I remember intervals as the distance between my fingers if I were to play a double stop with those two notes. I'm not sure this is helpful to non-string players though...

  3073. musictheory 2018-11-01 20:20:37 Jongtr
    Obviously, those are all subjective qualities, and nice for you, but - as I'm sure you're aware - meaningless to anyone else, with PP or not. (Another PP person will have different responses.) Music works - for the vast majority - via relative pitch, which is why RP matters. For me - a guitarist without PP - different keys certainly have different moods or feelings, but that's down to how they feel on the instrument. I couldn't characterise the differences verbally, but (say) F major is obviously very different from E major - and I'm sure all guitarists know exactly what I mean. But then I could tune down a half-step, and E major would then *feel* exactly like F major - while still sounding like E major. Obviously if I hear F major right after E major there's a difference. But if there is a long gap after hearing the E major (say a few hours at least) then if I heard F major I wouldn't be sure it was a different key. And of course I wouldn't know what key it was. But if there's a song I'm very familiar with - on one recording, or having known it as a player for some time in the same key - I can tell when I hear it in a different key. That's pitch memory. I can't necessarily tell what the difference is, I just know it's different. So specific pitches can still wear a groove, as it were, in one's aural perception, if always connected with the same context. This is a common experience for plenty of people (even non-musicians) who don't have PP. The other effect of pitch memory for me is that (having played guitar for decades) I can tune a newly-string guitar to within a semitone of concert pitch with no reference, other than my memory of how the strings sound, especially the bass E.

  3074. musictheory 2018-11-02 02:41:05 mfabbo
    Bass is just written one octave up from tuba, they will both sound the same. Just transcribe an octave up. Also for deciding which C to play, it’s all about personal preference. It has nothing to do with how it’s written, but how easy it is to play. Most music it will be easier for you to just play the C on the A string. However as you said you are just learning, soon it will become natural to you how you play.

  3075. musictheory 2018-11-02 13:37:11 smiteredditisdumb
    will you always get paid for each of your compositions? Im a college freshman and I want to get my nose far into everything right away, Im only a beginning composer but I'd like to continue. Do you think I should register now or wait until I have something really big? I recently wrote a dodecaphonic fugue for string trio but I havent had anyone perform it.

  3076. musictheory 2018-11-02 16:57:15 Znees
    Thank you. This is response is a bit over my head. But, to the extent that I understand it, it makes a lot of sense. So, one of the things I'm doing on the progression is hammering on/off the first position D on the 2 string. And then, when it's on D, I'm hammering on and off the G on 1. So, what you're saying makes all the sense in the world. Second question, is this essentially an application of the "Mixo-Blues" scale I see people talking about? Third, does this have anything to do with how songwriters tend to play a flatted major chord instead of the diminished chord for the seventh degree? (hope that makes sense)

  3077. musictheory 2018-11-02 21:47:27 Badicus
    Your highest note there is F5. That's pretty high, so you probably need to play that on your 6th string, 13th fret (unless you want to do 5th string, 18th fret). This limits you to that area, so you need to find your D4 and D5 nearby. You can do your D4 on your 3rd string, 12th fret and your D5 on your 5th string, 15th fret. That should all be pretty easy. And you just do the rest like that.

  3078. musictheory 2018-11-03 00:20:18 Jongtr
    Yes, if you want both those first two high notes, one of them needs to be fret 15 (B string), with fret 13 on the E. That ought to be do-able even on a non-cutaway guitar where the neck joins at 12th fret (I can manage it on mine anyway). The rest are easier - eg, instead of fret 15 on the A string you could play fret 10 on the D string; the bass line then runs down the D string. And the "3-4" in bar 3 on the B-G strings would be 10-12 on the E-B strings.

  3079. musictheory 2018-11-04 20:23:49 mrclay
    The melody is E F# (rest) F# G# (rest) A (rest) G# G# G#, sounds like played in octaves, first with E string as bass, then A. What I don’t get is how he plays the lower octave of the melody (presumably requiring the A string) while the A string is open. Maybe there’s a special tuning. I’m on a phone so the video is tiny.

  3080. musictheory 2018-11-04 23:27:42 Jongtr
    Firstly, he's in standard EADGBE. To start with he plays octaves on the 5th and 3rd strings (as mrclay says), starting on frets 7-9 (muting the 4th string, but allowing the 6th, 2nd and 1st to ring open), sliding up to 9-11, etc. Then he moves down to open position, letting the open A ring too, and playing the same octaves line on the 4th and 2nd strings (starting on frets 2-5) - again going up the E (or A) major scale. He ends up at 0-0-9-x-12-(0).

  3081. musictheory 2018-11-05 02:44:27 UncertaintyLich
    With a lot of “neo-tonal” music, you want to analyze the tonal centers and types of scales and chords used rather than using a bunch of Roman numerals all the time. So if we’re looking at a Debussy Prelude, you can just look at at and see it’s a simple form like ABA or through-composed or something, so that’s good. Then you just want to go through and see “oh, that’s like a page of quartal chords right there, then it goes to some whole tone stuff, there’s some Mixolydian, a bunch of unresolved 7th chords... etc.” then you can go through and find all the most prominent motives and see how they’re developed. After you have some of that stuff mapped out, the tonal centers and relationships between chords will usually become pretty obvious. Either that or it doesn’t matter because Debussy probably didn’t care anyway. For Ravel you can do that for his earlier stuff. For his Neoclassical stuff you might see traditional forms with harmonies such as modes instead of major and minor for instance. Same goes for his and Debussy’s string quartets. You can see stuff like “oh, it’s a sonata, but the first theme is Dorian and the second is Mixolydian” or something like that. Prokofiev’s most prominent works on the other hand are kind of tonally conservative despite how they sound because of Stalin, so romantic harmony should get you through a lot of that. But I haven’t analyzed a lot of Prokofiev, so I don’t know. A lot of this stuff is less time-consuming to analyze because you don’t need to write so many Roman numerals and a lot of it is more intuition-based. But it takes a while to get used to it and different composers require different types of analysis. Just make sure you’re familiar with all the terms u/TwinReverbRI lists that I don’t want to repeat and jump in. It makes a lot more sense than you think.

  3082. musictheory 2018-11-05 03:52:33 65TwinReverbRI
    There's no such thing. "Common" keys are mainly "easy" keys and they can vary by instrument and ability. Beginner keyboard players tend to stick to C Major, A Minor, G Major, F Major, E minor and D minor, as they have the fewest number of black keys. Basically the more black keys that get added, the less common the key is except for more advanced musicians. On guitar, Em, E, G, A, Am, C, D, and Dm tend to be more popular keys because they allow for a lot of open string chords, though keys like Bm are also common because they involve a fair number of open chords as well. But there's no "The Key of Ab Major is used for X, Y, and Z, while the key of Bbm is used for M, N, and W instead". As far as modern music is concerned, assuming 12 Tone Equal Tempered Tuning (which is by and large what the vast majority of people are using) all keys are equal and no one key or set of keys is used for anything specific. It's really just a matter of "I started writing in this key" so that's the key the piece ended up in, or that a person learned a lot of songs in Am, so they gravitate towards Am when they write, or they also sing and certain keys fit their voice better so they opt for them (talking about vocal peculiarities such as breaks, not just range here).

  3083. musictheory 2018-11-05 04:50:33 banjalien
    Yes, I share your pain as well, the period is one of my favorites. I've actually been thinking about putting up a few scores and going through them on video or something....because the process can be loooooong. I sometimes feel like I'm on my own, even after plowing through tons of analysis papers, articles and scores, etc. Sometimes these music theorists in the articles can't really explain it either, they are basically brushing a lot to the side. It's largely skipped because it's not an easy road. A couple of things I've picked up: 1)Moving Dominants by minor thirds-Ravel does this in his string quartet. Example G7 to Bb7 a few times and then G7 to C7 kicking him back to F major. They'll take a simple D7 to G major and turn that into F7 to G major (F7 once again a minor third away)....I have a Delius score where he goes D7-F7 in an inversion and then G major.... 2)Can we say Diminished Scales. Nothing is off limits. D half diminished to D# diminished to E7b13...Once again in Ravel quartet. The bass line is moving up. Lots of hidden 7b9 chords with these composers , B7b9 to Eminor can be hidden as say a Cdiminished scale going to Eminor. People earlier were of course doing this but not in so many ways. That's of course where you get some of your dominants minor thirds apart as well. 3)Whole Tone Scales-I got a lot out of studying Delius for Whole Tone Scale uses. Take a progression like this D-A7-D, well they will turn that into D-A7#11-D/ D-B7#11-D/D-C#7#11-D....lost track of how many times I've seen this one as well A#5 to F#5 to D major (Turning dominants into augmented chords major 3rds apart) Any one of them may be substituted. It appears nothing is off limits with that whole tone scale! Pretty soon you are left with a headache of possibilities. Part of my goals are to not only write with the material but use it in my improvisations. It's a lot of work trying to codify this stuff to where it is some sort of language. While I do understand it's difficult, I do feel we should be further along in the material available for unraveling this stuff.

  3084. musictheory 2018-11-05 06:54:18 LukeSniper
    >Well, the low B string on a guitar is B1. Middle C is C4. B3 would be on the space below. B2 would be the second line of the bass clef. And B1 would be on the space below 2 ledger lines under the bass clef. You *do* realize that guitar is a transposing instrument, right? Guitar parts are written an octave higher than they sound. The low B of a 7 string guitar would be notated as B2. The actual *pitch* of middle C (C4) would be the 1st fret of the B string. The *written* middle C on guitar is the 3rd fret of the A string. >Maybe put some extra effort into notating the up and downstrokes so that maybe a violinist could imitate it with the bow. You don't know a goddamn thing about violin, do you? No violinist on Earth would mimic the picking direction of a guitarist just because it was in the score. It's not the same thing. Not by a long shot.

  3085. musictheory 2018-11-06 01:57:57 Gyze5x
    Yep. 3rd Fret of the low E is G, and a major second interval could be either the open A string or the 5th fret on the low E.

  3086. musictheory 2018-11-06 02:20:50 DFCFennarioGarcia
    A major 2nd is the distance between any two frets on the same string, or the equivalent. The open E to the F# is a major 2nd, the F on the first fret to the G on the third fret is a major 2nd, that same G to either the A on the 5th fret or the open A is a major 2nd since they're the same note, etc. Also known as a Whole Step, moving up one fret (say from C to C#) is a Half Step, moving up two frets (say from C to D) is a Whole Step.

  3087. musictheory 2018-11-06 02:52:08 Gyze5x
    Still a Whole Step. Still a Major Second. I'm not sure what you mean by "always looking for the lowest distance" but let's look at the different interval possibilities below: Any interval that only use notes below the 5th fret of the low E string have only 1 possibility, from the 4th Fret (G#) down to the F you were talking about, and the open E itself. Can't find those low notes anywhere else on the guitar, so intervals using those notes are limited. Example - there's only 1 way to play the major second interval of F to G on the low E string: the 1st fret to the 3rd fret. There aren't any other F's or G's that are THAT low on a regular 6 string guitar in E standard tuning. Some only have 2 possibilities, like the major second interval of that low G to A. There are only 2 places to play that low A: the 5th fret on the low E string, or the open A string. So the G has only 2 paths to travel to get to A. Some have a bunch of possibilities, much more than 3, because there are a buttload of ways to play the same exact intervals as your notes get higher!

  3088. musictheory 2018-11-06 11:25:05 Neekoy
    Print yourself a Circle of Fifths, put it somewhere on your desk where you can see it all the time, and work it from there. The chords follow a logical pattern coming from the names - learn what minor implies, what dominant implies, what 5ths, 7ths are, and apply them. When you see a chord name in no time you'll know what which parts of the name means. Also it's great if you have a piano/keyboard (you can use a digital one) to visualise things. String instruments are tricky for theory because of the fingerings, so make sure you use a keyboard - it makes much more sense on it. If you make two cheatsheets with both and just check them every couple of hours you'll get past that part of theory easily. It's just a matter of memorizing several thingies that aren't much information. No need to get discouraged over it :)

  3089. musictheory 2018-11-06 15:32:13 _thechancellor_
    What really helped me was learning barre chords. If you're new on guitar, it may take a while to develop the strength to play them, but as for finding keys/chords/ etc, they are very useful. &#x200B; Essentially, learn 4 chords first. E major, E minor, A major, and A minor. Then, your index acts as a capo. Essentially you slide that chord around the fretboard to create the same type of chord in any key. Every fret is a half step, so if you started with E major working your way up, you'd get E major-F major-F# major-G major, etc. &#x200B; Try to find the root note of the song or chord on your low E string or A string and barre at that fret. If the note is on your E string, the chord will look like some kind of E chord. If A, an A chord. &#x200B; Use your ear to determine if the chord at that fret sounds right (consonant). If not, you may need to switch from maj to min, or you may have built your chord on a note that isn't the root. It will be trial and error until your ear becomes more experienced, but once you learn how to create these chords consistently, you'll have all of the major and minor chords available to you with just a little bit of critical thinking. &#x200B; Of course, there are many more kinds of chords out there (7th chords, augmented, diminished, etc.) But these can usually be achieved by adding or removing a finger - this will come with time. &#x200B; This cannot replace a basic education in music theory, but it can certainly help you to fake your way through new music, and understand chord relationships. &#x200B;

  3090. musictheory 2018-11-06 20:28:26 65TwinReverbRI
    Let's start here: The E string you're talking about is the LOW E, or "bottom" E. Can you comp chords to a 12 bar blues? If not, that's where you need to start - not all this froo froo stuff :-)

  3091. musictheory 2018-11-06 21:15:49 ChobaniSalesAgent
    Learning music theory on guitar can be an absolute nightmare if you aren't already proficient with it. If you really want to learn music theory, I think piano makes it much, much easier to comprehend. If you have to think about what notes each string is playing on each fret then you're going to get bogged down and frustrated. That being said, I think where you start completely depends on how far you are to begin with. Did you play an instrument in school? If so, for how long? This will cover some of the fundamentals, like scales and the ability to read music. Unfortunately that's about as much as it covers for most students, unless if you paid attention to what you were playing in high school and started noticing patterns. I think the place to start is scales. Learning the structure for major and minor scales is a good starting point. From there I'd suggest learning about simple triads, and then start taking a look at cadences and 7ths.

  3092. musictheory 2018-11-06 21:46:49 Lewey_B
    >If you have to think about what notes each string is playing on each fret then you're going to get bogged down and frustrated. > That has been my biggest problem with guitar

  3093. musictheory 2018-11-07 02:00:10 pucklermuskau
    it mattered/matters more when writing for analog string instruments, whose resonances created different sounds with different notes (like wolf tones with cellos). modern and electronic instruments arent as susceptible to this effect.

  3094. musictheory 2018-11-07 02:10:43 Nick_Denison
    Some of those with perfect pitch ascribe very different 'feelings' to certain keys, and there is some evidence of certain composers having written in the different keys to convey these phenomena. As mentioned already, the choice of key can have a very real effect on how the instrument expresses itself. Works written in G for violin for instance, are able to make wonderful use of the open G string. A work could be written in a key for a singer that would take them to soaring heights of their voice safely. Other practical considerations for keys are transposing instruments, such as E flat instruments, where certain keys may be chosen both based on the range of the instrument, and ease of reading regarding accidentals. Scales by themselves, without reference point or purpose, are somewhat meaningless. I.e. C major and G major have the same proportions. But, when related to one another, they begin to form relationships and functions. This is where the magic is at.

  3095. musictheory 2018-11-07 07:28:48 65TwinReverbRI
    All things being equal (i.e. tension, string gauge, mass, etc.) then yes. This is actually how frets on a guitar work basically. If you "shorten" the string length by X amount, you get some higher pitch. Frets on 12tet guitars are like the square root of 12 or something, so not just tuning but same principle. There are "fanned fret" guitars and Just Intonated guitars and you can compare them to standard fret spacing and see what's going on.

  3096. musictheory 2018-11-07 17:24:10 Jongtr
    http://www.truetemperament.com/ IMO, there's a smell of snake oil about it, but plain 12TET is a somewhat dark art when it comes to guitar anyway, given string inharmonicity, fret height, fret pressure, etc. *Caveat emptor.*

  3097. musictheory 2018-11-07 22:58:26 xiipaoc
    > I don't know what roles the instruments would fulfill Whichever roles you want them to fulfill. > why I would pick one instrument over another Because you feel like it. The instruments in various ensembles have traditional roles, and there's no scientific basis for that; it's just an accident of history. Most non-string instruments used to be a lot harder to play in Classical times -- no Boehm key system for woodwinds, no valves for brass, no pedals/gauges for timpani, etc. -- so they had simpler parts. Then people got used to the sound of the orchestra and mostly wrote similar things even as the instruments became much more versatile. So you can basically write whatever you want for whichever instruments you want. You'll want to study scores to get an idea of what is *usually* done, but then you can disregard that wisdom and do something else. > Why use a trombone over a baritone/bass sax in a big band? Because you want a trombone sound right there and your big band doesn't even have a bass sax? > When to use a clarinet and not a violin? Always. Violins suck. Clarinets rule. Source: clarinet player. > Whats are the pros and cons of bassoon? Pros: sounds like a fart. Cons: isn't very loud.

  3098. musictheory 2018-11-07 23:09:36 JSW2K7
    Orchestration is a skill that takes a lifetime to start to understand, but as others have said the best way of going about it is transcribing/reading scores you love since they work in the real world. Remember, orchestration done properly is the intent of having the piece performed live and acoustically - no microphones! &#x200B; Most of orchestration is actually concerned with projecting your ideas at the right dynamic level, on instruments that can perform the said idea - rather than choosing the instruments for their timbre. We can't pull up faders in the acoustic world so for example there's no chance a low flute is ever going to overpower a trumpet. Try to listen to as many live concerts as possible! The literature surrounding orchestration is primarily written from the classical standpoint, which has the end result of dealing with overtones and frequencies but we tend not to think about them in the same manner. You'll hinder yourself trying to find information written from the electronic standpoint. &#x200B; To answer your questions specifically: &#x200B; * Why use a trombone over a bari/bass sax in a big band? * A trombone is naturally louder and will blend better with the trumpets if they're playing, creating a homogeneous sound. * Trombones have to slide to reach other harmonic positions, especially in quicker passages. This may be an unwanted effect. * Trombones can alter their timbre drastically with the use of mutes, saxophones don't have this option (in most scenarios). * Saxophones (especially lower ones) have a honky quality by themselves, but like trombones they will blend extremely well with other saxes. * Bari saxes can double the bass guitar well, especially during staccato phrases * Bari saxes have more agility than trombones, and can easily play scalic figures and arpeggios * Typical big band writing has the saxes harmonised in solis, with the bari sax doubling the alto melody an octave below. If this is the case then your bari is used up and you would have to defer to the trombone. * Bari sax is probably the least played instrument from a big band so it's quite hard to find a player (in my experience) &#x200B; * When to use a clarinet over a violin? * Clarinets have a huge range for a woodwind instrument, reaching from the middle-bass register up to above the treble stave. * Clarinettists have to breathe, meaning that passages have to have rests in them. * Clarinets have a 'break' around the B above middle C, lines crossing over this cause problems to inexperienced players. * When voiced correctly clarinets will blend with the woodwind section quite well. * Clarinets blend with other clarinets, either in unison or as part of a chord. This isn't always the case with woodwinds. * Clarinets have a unique tone, to some it reminds them of a 'rural American farm'. These unique tones are what make woodwinds a powerful tool. * Due to the square-wave tone of a clarinet it is often used in unison with other instruments to add volume without affecting the overall colour. * Violins also have a huge range, reaching from the G below the treble stave to as high as the player/the instrument itself can reach. * String instruments can play indefinitely, no matter the difficulty of the piece. (aside from bow changes) * Violins blend perfectly with the other stringed instruments, and can play at any dynamic. * Violins are the workhorse of the orchestra, meaning that they will be used for melodies (and pretty much everything else) most of the time. To make a melody stand out you might want to keep it away from the violins. * Both instruments are pretty consistent over their entire range, a flute for example is extremely quiet in its low register but piercing in its top. &#x200B; * What are the pros and cons of a bassoon? * Pros * Blends well with the oboe, double basses, celli * Great at staccato lines * Great colour for unique melodies * You can rely on the bassoons to form part of a tutti bassline (i.e. bassoons, tuba, basses) * Cons * Draws attention to itself in a solo context * Weaker high range * A standard bassoon doesn't go too low (a contrabasson however does) * Doesn't like being played in any interval other than an octave with another bassoon I hope this helps!

  3099. musictheory 2018-11-07 23:42:42 MeButNotMeToo
    Their meantone version has some appeal, but you’re limited to standard tuning, with a narrow range of string gauges. When I go this route, I’ll shoot for one of the other historical temperaments. Their standard tuning necks are a bit more snake-oil-ish. The bent frets are supposed to compensate for string thickness intonation issues, along with shifting some of 12 EDO’s deviations from just intonation to less used keys. Again, you’re limited to one tuning and a narrow ranges of string gauges.

  3100. musictheory 2018-11-08 10:21:22 Rinehart128
    I’m wondering if the ratios of intervals correspond with the literal length of the strings. So 9:8 is the ratio of a pure major second, so to physically do this you’d have to cut a string so that it is 8/9ths of the “1:1” initial string. So, if this is true, continuing up the scale, in order to have a third string sound a just major third higher than the “1:1” string, you ought to cut it so that it’s 4/5ths (corresponding with the 5:4 ratio) of the initial string. Moreover, is it true that that if you cut the second string to 1/9 of the 1:1 string, it would sound a just major second plus however many octaves? And then if you continue to add (make string longer) 1/9ths to the 1/9ths string (1/9—2/9—3/9, etc) Your essentially octave reducing the major second until it’s just a regular ol’ major second (8/9)?

  3101. musictheory 2018-11-08 13:39:10 Sound4Sound
    Ok here is a quick overview of a bit both music theory and psychoacoustics: One fundamental element of sound that the human auditory system is built around is repetition: 1. What we perceive as pitch in a note is based on the fundamental frequency of the note, which is how many cycles per second the sound wave completes. Example: A4 being 440 Hz or cycles per second. 2. The human hearing prioritizes certain frequencies over others, in other words, we are more sensitive to certain frequencies, 4,000 Hz being one of them. Evolutionary explanation suggests that is related to the pitch of a baby crying and is also near where a lot of human voice overtones are found. 3. Human hearing also loves Octaves. Almost every sound is complex, containing more than one frequency. In a piano you will have a Fundamental Frequency (pitch or note) and then a bunch of overtones, which are frequencies that sound less loudly and that “shape” the sound of the instrument. That’s how you differentiate a piano from a violin. It’s important to point out that the more octaves of a fundamental a sound contains the more pleasant to the human hearing is, that’s how you differentiate an instrument from a percussion. (See vibrating string and white noise) 4. Octaves are the only common element between most of the music of different cultures both occidental or oriental. In the case of classical occidental music, we were able to fix the frequencies into twelve proportional tones. From one octave to the next, creating a sense of progression or regression depending on Harmony. Harmony is so powerful because it speaks to us in a subconscious way that is rooted in our brains. It changes from culture to culture as so does the use of rhythm. You have quite a few layers of elements happening in a modern song. Most of the time the elements are simple or dull and the concept of taste and preferences, which is more of a conscious phenomenon, is also involved. But the influence of music is present: 1. BPM and rhythm relates to heartbeat and repetition. You wanna have a complete cycle, from a simple Waltz to a fusion jazz piece, they all repeat their rhythms and will either relax you or keep you dancing or hyped up. 2. Harmony and melody try to take you from one place to another and give you the satisfaction of having it happen. Imagine living without music at all, humans could probably survive but we wouldn’t have a strong, visceral way of communicating with each other in a such profound way. Heck, probably even music helped Homo sapiens get where we are now. 3. Music is how the humans have found beauty in sound. Sight and visuals are great for obtaining information but sound is great for communicating emotion. ———- I hope this made sense. I tried to go for the basics of what humans perceive subconsciously and hence the unavoidable nature of sound and music. Bye.

  3102. musictheory 2018-11-09 05:09:34 65TwinReverbRI
    Newer/Current vocal music doesn't beam 8th notes either. It fell out of practice because people are too ignorant to learn how to notate music properly :-) But you're actually missing part of the picture here. Vocal music is beamed according to SYLLABLE. When there is a string of 8th notes (ot 16ths, etc.), if each 8th note is its own syllable it gets an individual flag (Syllabic) If a more than one note is sung on a single syllable (Melismatic) then as many 8th (or 16ths, etc.) as there are for the syllable are beamed together. The beginning of the "Star Spangled Banner" is "Oh - - say can you see. The "Oh" is sung on TWO notes, but is only ONE Syllable, so if they were 8th notes, they are (or should be) beamed together. Vocal music actually goes crazy with stuff like this because they also add a slur line, and a "word extension" too. So it's not like the broken beams (turning them into flags) is really necessary. Despite my previous comment, there is actually a trend towards "instrumental" beaming in vocal music, especially when more complex rhythms are involved where showing the beat becomes really important. And because people are too ignorant to learn how to notate vocal music :-) The availability of notation programs and lack of familiarity with proper notation kind of compounds the issue. But at any rate, the traditional way is to break beams and turn them into flags for each syllable, and beam 8ths and lower together when more than one note is on a syllable. We could argue whether it's a good trend to be moving away from the traditional approach (I would say it is, given the additional symbols used - 2 out of 3 ain't bad!) but there are always purists who want to keep things the way they are as well.

  3103. musictheory 2018-11-09 06:53:39 Marvinkmooneyoz
    If, say, a group of musicians is playing together, and the guitar or piano, or string section whatever, is playing the D as their low note....but some lower instrument is playing a note from an F triad......I'd call it an F chord. The thing about what your asking is, with stacked 3rds, the lowest one tends to define the harmony. If we went another third down, either a B or Bb, that would define it. An F6 doesnt neseccarily feel minor...but if the bass sits on the D for any real duration, it basically moves the feel of the whole harmony. Whereas the opposite isnt as true, you can take a D minor, if the bass starts the measure on the d, then moves up to the f, but there is a strong enough D played by someone else, the d minor feel is more likley to be preserved, context of course, not a full rule.

  3104. musictheory 2018-11-09 20:00:24 mrclay
    Tchaikovsky’s Andante Cantabile string quartet starts in [2/4 with a few 3/4 measures](http://www.ludwigmasters.com/PDFFiles/PDFs/20250028efs.pdf). https://youtu.be/eZFUaQxuymA

  3105. musictheory 2018-11-10 00:04:03 65TwinReverbRI
    Depends on if you define "Classical" as including the very tail end of the CPP or not. The answer is, it's not very common at all. To change meter within the piece that is. When you narrow it down as you've done, it's even less common. I was just teaching in my class yesterday, that The Clef, Key Signature, and Meter Signature appear at the very beginning of every piece, in that order. But, only the Clef and Key Signature are repeated on every subsequent system. That's telling. Because Meter so rarely changed, once it is established at the beginning of the piece, there's no need to reprint it each system (though the same could be said about clefs and key sigs, they are more likely to change overall within pieces in general than meter is). IIRC, in the very late Beethoven String Quartets (or possible Piano Sonata?) there are some Meter changes for "dramatic effect" but I don't know of specific spots. More likely, what I've encountered are measures rest interspersed, usually with a fermata, to create a "pregnant pause" in the music. That's not to say such examples don't exist, but to say they're "common" would of course be overstating their frequency.

  3106. musictheory 2018-11-10 02:03:12 SomeEntrance
    >>as the way he develops compositional material and the way he orchestrates his works>> You saved me from having to say it. Whatever period/style, he was fooling around with, you often see what a great classical composer he was in the sheer way he develops his ideas, like Octet for Wind Instruments, or Dumbarton Oaks concerto. The harmony alsmot doesn't matter. By hook or by crook, he uses the notes how he wishes to express and develop his ideas. That's more important even than the harmony...truely in the classical tradition of developing musical ideas. And you're so right; often the idea is expressed from extremely adept use of instruments (thinking of Dumbarton Oaks; it's superb instruemntion and chamber orchestra.) Though...some of his early works were obviously truly original in their harmony, like Rite of Spring, or Three pieces for String quartet (both c. 1913).

  3107. musictheory 2018-11-11 06:45:38 88melter
    ALL tuning systems have to make compromises: the point is which compromise suits the music at hand. Just intonation makes transposition and harmonic borrowing impractical. Find an article about the physics of the b=vibrating string, it will help you see that NO system can be both perfectly in tune, and compatible with total harmonic transposition and 12-key or chromatic playing. Microtonal music will not ever really catch on, as it is such a weird and counter-intuitive genre that it will never gather enough of a fan base or enough practitioners to gain momentum, to say nothing of having enough micro-tuned pianos around... &#x200B;

  3108. musictheory 2018-11-11 13:40:55 Cello789
    Do you mean rock or jazz or concert band? As a string player I’ve found I can emulate an unskilled player very effectively by playing left handed. Drums I can switch left/right for the whole kit (snare and hats on either side) so that doesn’t work for me, but guitar or bass or cello left handed? Sounds a mess. It wouldn’t be easy, but you could do the same with some woodwinds, and could definitely do it with brass. The lack of coordination slows you down and your intonation might be off a bit because of focusing on mechanics. I recommend everyone try it at least once, mostly because it’s hilarious...

  3109. musictheory 2018-11-11 20:02:07 Jongtr
    The issue with scales on the guitar is that a lot of people apply a lot of dumb names to positional patterns. A scale transferred to the guitar fretboard forms a pattern covering 12 frets before it repeats. (12 frets up any one string, but the pattern is staggered across the strings, to form a 2-D "map" across 6 strings and 12 frets.) To make the scale more easily playable, that 12-fret pattern is broken down into "positions", covering 4 or 5 frets, to enable you to play it in any position you choose, without moving your hand up or down the neck. Each position contains over two octaves of the scale, and of course they overlap to build up the entire 12-fret pattern. Where things can get complicated (in terms of naming the positional "boxes") is because the notes are in a different order in each position. E.g., for the C major scale, a different note will be the lowest (and highest) in each pattern, and the C root notes will be in different places in the patterns (as will all the notes of course). This had to led to two main naming systems for the boxes: a 5-pattern system known as CAGED, and a 7-pattern one where each one is given a mode name. (There are also so-called "3 nps" patterns - 3 notes per string - which are designed merely for rapid playing up and down.) The "CAGED" system is based on the well-known open position major chord shapes, which can be found within each of the 5 scale boxes, and make a useful reference point for the major scale root, 3rd and 5th. The problem with the system (of course) is that the chord shapes and scales don't produce the *sounds* of C, A, G, E, or D (except in one instance). Meanwhile the problem with mode names (which is worse, IMO), is that a mode *as a musical entity* covers the entire fretboard, just like any scale. So to give a mode name to just one part of the pattern is entirely misleading. E.g., every pattern of the C major scale is also a pattern for every mode of that scale (D dorian E phrygian etc). The only real alternative to naming the box patterns is to number them - but then, of course, the issue is which one should be "1"? A numbering system commonly is used for pentatonic patterns, with "1" being assigned (logically enough) to the one which has the root as the lowest note. Of course, the answer to all these problems is to *learn the notes on the fretboard* (each string each fret) and to (gradually) learn the whole 12-fret pattern. You can break the 12-fret pattern down any way you like, it doesn't really matter. (Personally, I found chord shapes helped when I learned the fretboard, but I also knew the notes.) If you learn the boxes, you have to escape them in the end, and forget any names you may have associated with them.

  3110. musictheory 2018-11-11 21:39:11 MrJalapenjoe
    You have to be a little bit more detailed. Are you asking about the geometric shapes you get if you play a diatonic scale with a 3 note per string pattern? Do you want to learn the position of the notes of a given scale, like E major, across the fretboard? Are you asking about the music theory behind the scales? &#x200B;

  3111. musictheory 2018-11-12 10:01:15 FwLineberry
    Inverted is just flipping the notes around high to low or low to high. A normal power chord is root with the index finger, 5th with the ring or pinky finger. If you flip that around, you'd play the 5th as the bottom note and root as the top note. When you do this, both notes end up on the same fret. When you play G C together that's C G (C5) inverted. Another way to see it is go back to the G5 chord. You have your index on G and your ring on D. You can also play the note on the next string over at the same fret as the D. That's the octave of G. If you just play that 5th and octave together, you get the inversion.

  3112. musictheory 2018-11-12 17:23:47 Jongtr
    Find some music that sounds like you want to sound. Figure out how it works. Quite likely it will be a mix of factors: long form (verse/chorus/bridge/etc, not just 4 chords looping); melodic phrasing: harmonic progression (functional sequence); rhythmic effects (syncopation etc); orchestration (choice of instruments); studio effects (reverb etc). Steal elements you like, string them together in different orders. This is how songwriters learn their craft.

  3113. musictheory 2018-11-12 18:07:03 Jongtr
    Just to expand on cubistguitar's correction: x2313x is Bdim7, but in key of A minor should be read as G#dim7, because that 3rd string note is G#, not Ab. G#dim7 (whichever note is in the bass) resolves directly to Am, as the vii chord (or rootless E7b9 if you prefer). Bm7b5 (B D F A) is the ii chord. Bdim7 comes from C harmonic minor. Dim7s are, of course symmetrical, but context (not bass note) usually determines the right name.

  3114. musictheory 2018-11-13 01:44:01 bartobias
    My 2 cents: Avoid the "Father Charles" nonsense. The circle of fifths is a system, not a string of letters. It is A: actually easier to learn systematically (or was for me, anyway), and B: learning it as a system makes it much easier to apply to anything other than just playing that sequence of notes (E.G. transposing keys, finding relative minors, majors, and tritones easily, etc). Also ignore the people who go the other way and act like you have to look deep within your soul and reflect on the true meaning. After you know it and start using it you'll start gaining deeper insights about it. People learn differently, but here's what worked for me, and the small amount of extra effort has payed dividends: I visualized it like a clock (there are the same number of notes as hour positions on a clock). Memorize the POSITION of the notes. First memorize the 12 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions (C, A, F#, Eb, IF you start with C!), Then memorize which two letters are between those (E.G. between A and F# is E, B, at 4 o'clock and 5 o'clock). A couple times a day I drew it from memory, then looked up the ones I couldn't recall offhand. Maybe every time you look at a clock, try to recall which note is at the current position of the minute hand? If you do this, you will have all the positions memorized within a couple days with little effort. Then you can start trying to draw the circle rotated (E.G. try drawing it with A at 12 o'clock). Doing it this way, you will have memorized the full schematic of this system rather than just a string of notes, and you'll be able to start at any position with equal ease. All the people who just learned to rattle off the notes, or learned a trick for playing the notes on a keyboard without even having to recall what note they're playing, will think you're a genius when it comes to actually using it for anything. And when you start to see some of the underlying symmetries and relationships in this system, it can get pretty neat. But that takes time.

  3115. musictheory 2018-11-13 08:37:34 65TwinReverbRI
    >[X54030] {DF#GDE} (G56Maj7/D? D3add2add4? F#6maj7b2? feels like a "Dsus2 / Dsus4"-type chord in context, possibly some F#6maj7 variant) In this context probably going to sound like Dadd9add11. Common guitar chord actually - move the C shape up. >[X30010] {CDGCE} (Cadd2/D for first 4 beats, then thumb in the second string C-bass on second last beat) Thumb? I think you mean the FIFTH string :-) >[XX3203] {FABG} (Fadd2b5) Even though the C is not present, we'd usually call it a #11 instead. Fadd9(#11) or Fadd9(add#11) >[X02201] {AEABF} (Asus2add#13) It would be b13. Could be Fmaj7(#11)/A but depends on the context if it's A rooted or F rooted (since there were some F chords before) but probably A rooted. >[X02110] {AEABF} (AmMaj7) Typo on your notes. A-E-G#-C-E - but yes AmM7 >[130200] {FCDABE} (F6Maj7addb13? Dm67add2? Feels like an F major or F7 in context. Dm, Bm and C works as substitutions but has completely different feeling ) Fmaj13(#11) or (see below) Cmaj9/F _____ Ok so let's clear up a couple of things. Firstly, chord names are just "harmony" names, not **specific**. A chord with "13" in the name doesn't and really isn't intended to tell you if the 9th and/or 11th is included. Secondly, when a 7th is present, it's 9, 11, or 13, and when the 7th is not present, it's "add9" or "add11". Thirdly we don't usually use "add2" or "add4" (though some pop sources do) and instead call them "add9" etc. even if the added note is low in the chord. Finally, naming chords is kind of a stupid exercise :-) If you want people to play specific voicings, you need to write it out as standard notation, or for guitar, tablature or chord diagrams. Chord Symbols (names) are not intended for this. Think about it this way, if I put "C", a player could play that any number of ways. Same with G13(#11) - they could play it a number of ways. It's totally up to them - just because it has more notes or "numbers" in the chord name doesn't mean you get to specify any more :-) So there's no way to name some of these that a guitarist would play them that way. You have to notate it, or tab it out, etc. There's no point in even naming the chords aside from maybe telling people who can't read tab what they are (which is why guitarists need to learn to read standard notation) or as just a practice exercise for you to learn how to do it. So what this means and why I spelled it out like I did above, you can't really put "add9add11add13"! (add13 doesn't really even exist). You can get away with stuff like "add9(#11)" because putting the #11 means to include it - but because it's altered. But if it were plain 11 it would probably be "add9add11" which again gets cumbersome. One way around this is to look for alternate bass names so for example your 7th to last chord could simply be C/F. It's much more compact than Fmaj7sus2. Hopefully you can see that the system is just not designed to name these rather complex non-tertian "added note" style chords. It can, but it produces rather cumbersome names that really don't mean any more than "Am7", which again, could be played any number of ways. ____ You're not doing it wrong at all and this is actually very typical guitar playing - including open strings within other chord shapes to create harmonically rich chords that give us weird names. And your naming for the most part is good. Your errors with the tougher ones stem more from the difference between 2, 4, and 6, and 9, 11, and 13 and just some typos. So really good job! But, please do yourself a lifelong favor and learn to use standard music notation if you don't already know how to do so - and while published music would certainly name the chords in a standard notation with tab with chord diagrams format, don't try to worry about voicings with the names - just use them as a general reference - an "after the fact name" that is the "one that is clearest" without using it to play from or anything like that. HTH

  3116. musictheory 2018-11-13 12:10:37 oglopollon
    > Finally, naming chords is kind of a stupid exercise :-) Well I'm trying to understand the rules and patterns by working from the opposite side. I sort of get that they are an "after the fact" naming, but there are still rules to it; rules that I don't fully grasp. It isn't strict, but neither is it arbitrary. Sometimes it's strict, but sometimes it's arbitrary. It seems like such a mix of logic, half-logic, history, historic baggage, and convention. But thanks for thorough answer :-) I have some follow up questions: - **D3add2add4 vs Dadd9add11** Is the missing 5th not important to communicate? - **Fadd2b5** >Even though the C is not present, we'd usually call it a #11 instead. That sounds very strange to me. It seems like an obvious use of a b5 notation. What's the guiding principle here? - **Asus2addb13 vs Fmaj7(#11)/A** Could it be Asus2(b6) instead? It functions as an Am in the song if that's what A-rooted means. I tried to thumb in a top string F-bass and it altered the perception of the passage. Didn't like it :-) Weird though, since there is already an F in the chord anyway. - **F6Maj7addb13 vs Fmaj13(#11)** I had a brainfart when I made my mental shorthand for the secondary ring (9th to 14th), so 13 mapped to 5 and it all became messed up but let's see if I understand this correctly: *The maj13 corresponds to the 6-note. An Xmaj13 -as opposed to an X6- also implies an 11(4), 9(2), and M7, with 11 and 9 optional. If it is a m7 instead of M7 it is just an X13. If no 7 it would be an X6-chord, with optional add9/add11.* Fmaj13 certainly is a cleaner name, and sort of explains why it sounds relatively "pure", compared to the mess I wrote out

  3117. musictheory 2018-11-14 04:40:20 oglopollon
    Interesting that the Dadd9add11 is an ambiguous Em9 or Gmaj13 since it comes after a G6 and before an Emadd2. I tried to write it as an E or G, but it looked equally horrible either way, and since it has E and G neighbors it doesn't sound good to treat it as such. I have tried a couple of variations of it: - Either opening the D-bass [X04030] to or adding an extra A-bass [554030] on the top string, (making it an A13sus4 as far as I can tell), and it works OK. Top string A-bass sounds slightly muddier and less pleasing. - Switching the G for an A [X04230], making it just a Dadd9. Cumbersome to play, but very harmonically fitting. Too smooth even compared to what I'm used to here. Needs more grit :-P - Dsus2, Dsus4 and A7sus4 all works as well. So the chord can be viewed as an A or D, though I think I prefer D, and the A note does not really change too much. But if I, for the sake of argument, wanted to exclude the 5, would D3add9add11 be correct notation? ___ I don't really understand the scale argument for why it's Fadd2(#11) vs Fadd2(b5). As in "F,G,A,B are the last notes of a C major scale" ? Or that A, Bb and Cb is three consecutive semitones, and not part of any scale? You are beyond my theoretical knowledge I think... There's no maj7 E note in it though, so Fmaj7#11 is definitely not right. ___ Can you explain what you mean by "non functional dissonance" in the Asus2b6? I am pretty sure it makes sense to treat it as an A chord. The Am substitutes perfectly. An Fmaj7 substitution "works" but is too similar to the F's before and after. The question is more "Does Asus2b6 tell the story I want to tell" or or are there hidden implications here? ___ **XMaj13, X13, or X6** yeah I meant that if it's an X6 chord, adding a 9 or 11 is optional, but writing them is not.

  3118. musictheory 2018-11-14 07:57:43 spitz81
    To finger it, it's like an open B7 except you slide the f# on the 1st string up to g and bingo bango you're in business.

  3119. musictheory 2018-11-14 22:42:37 desertsail912
    Yeah, what others have said, take piano first. It's soooo much easier to visualize scales and how to build chords on a piano, plus concepts like half steps and whole steps are a lot easier to grasp and retain. With stringed instruments it's a lot more difficult b/c the scales are scrunched up. Like to play a scale on guitar, you play open top string, then, perhaps 2nd fret, 3rd fret, then 5th fret, then on when you go down to the next string, you're starting off at the open string again, if that makes sense, so playing a scale makes kind of a zig zag shape. With piano, it's a straight line. To give you an example, as a guitar player and former piano player, if I have to play a G chord, I picture a piano first in my head as to what notes belong in that chord. If you're dying to learn a stringed instrument first however, I'd go guitar first as there are much more resources for guitar and then open strings are laid out more logically than a uke.

  3120. musictheory 2018-11-14 22:51:53 orangebikini
    >You can play chords and notes on the piano with one hand, but not a guitar. Speak for yourself, I can easily punch a solid 4-note-voicing with my fretting hand. Something like a augmented seven voiced 1-#5-b7-3 starting from the second lowest string is hard because you must play the fifth with your pinky and there isn't much leverage that far out, but most voicings are doable! Maybe not practical in playing music, but doable. Anyways, I agree with you that a guitar is perfectly fine for learning theory. I think the very very start is easiest on a piano since you have all the notes laid in front of you in a linear way, but once you understand that C comes after B every time guitar does just fine.

  3121. musictheory 2018-11-14 23:18:30 Ganaelin
    Haha XD yeah, but many string players start off learning tablature. Tabs are great for learning new songs individually, but wont teach you much else. There are ukelele tabs on some sights I've seen, so I just decided to not assume whether or not you can read sheet music. Sorry about that XD

  3122. musictheory 2018-11-14 23:19:58 JakesFlannel
    Yeah, piano has the notes all laid out in order, while ukulele has the highest pitch string, followed by the lowest pitch string, followed by the 2nd lowest, followed by the 2nd highest. It’s too jumbled around to learn theory on in my opinion

  3123. musictheory 2018-11-15 00:20:40 RobotAlienProphet
    A few observations from a sometime uke player: 1. Yes, generally, learning theory will be easiest on the piano, especially if you want to understand what's happening with chords. On a uke you'll almost certainly start by just memorizing chord shapes without being able to see the intervals. I had played chords on the uke for a couple of years before I started to understand how they fit together, and even today if I want to understand something arising from theory I always go to the keyboard. 2. That said, you can learn quite a lot about the *linear* aspects of theory -- scales and melodies -- on a stringed instrument. Instead of focusing on chord shapes, learn the major and minor scales on each string. Each fret on a uke fretboard is a half-step, and on a soprano uke, at least, you get a single octave to work with. So that's your basic 12-tone range. I've gotten a LOT more comfortable with scales by doing scale runs and simple melodies up and down that octave on a single uke string. You can, in fact, easily play a pretty good blues melody on a single string just by learning the minor pentatonic. And once you learn that pentatonic or scale pattern, it's the same for each string, and it's also the same for any other stringed instrument that uses half-step frets, *and* for the piano. Neat, eh? 3. Baritone ukes are tuned the same as the standard tuning of the bottom four strings on a guitar. So that's some double learning, there. 4. A couple of people have mentioned re-entrant tuning on the smaller ukes -- i.e., the top string (G) is higher than the next string down (C). While this is generally true, it doesn't have to be -- you can easily buy a "low G" string and install that instead. That's what I do on my soprano -- gives it a buzzier, slightly more guitar-like sound. So *if* you like the uke as an instrument, there's plenty you can teach yourself about theory, and it doesn't have to be terrible. And a uke is much cheaper than a piano (though, obviously, there are cheap MIDI keyboards to be had). But as others have said, keyboard is really the logical choice for studying theory.

  3124. musictheory 2018-11-15 00:24:08 guitargeek1991
    Ukulele is a toy of an instrument and has a very limited range + having your highest string out of order is gonna be confusing. I’d recommend guitar (transfers to the uke easily) or piano

  3125. musictheory 2018-11-15 04:54:47 bstix
    No. Some say it's too basic, but really; any string instrument is too confusing when learning the fundamentals of theory, because each string make up it's own series of notes parallel to each other. Combinations of notes are also limited to one per string and within as many many frets you can reach and only in certain orders as is possible with your hand. "Everything" is possible, but it will require a lot more effort to arrange a specific voicing on stringed instruments. The piano is more straightforward, because you "only" have one series of notes, but you can combine them freely without worry too much about the limits of fingers. But here's the best option: Do both. A stringed instrument is great for running through chord progressions and for understanding intervals, which are a lot more regularly laid out across the frets and strings than across the black and white keys on a piano.

  3126. musictheory 2018-11-15 05:15:48 DRL47
    Nice video. You could have gone one step further and showed a string of secondary dominants: C - E7 - A7 - D7 - G7 - C.

  3127. musictheory 2018-11-15 11:46:33 Conrad59
    > people in the past wouldn't know about this People in the past could certainly tell when 3rds and 4ths sounded harmonious, which is what they do when the ratios are right, because the overtones line up. They could also actually measure the ratios, since they correspond to tube lengths or string lengths.

  3128. musictheory 2018-11-15 11:48:50 phalp
    The standard tool for studying harmonics in the ancient world was one or more strings with movable bridges. Just by setting the bridges to play a major sixth, then measuring the string lengths, its ratio could be determined. They were also aware that placing one interval on top of another meant multiplying their ratios. So if you asked Ptolemy, for example, to determine the ratios of our modern major scale, he'd be perfectly capable. Which isn't to say that a person from the past would understand that ratio as correct according to the practice of their time or their mathematical aesthetics. (Or even that 5:3 is the best choice today.)

  3129. musictheory 2018-11-15 22:52:45 Jongtr
    > Does the 7th harmonic of a note really makes a note sound out of tune or weird? Well, it's 32 cents flat of a tempered minor 7th, which is significantly out of tune on instruments that play in equal temperament. But it is known as the "harmonic 7th" or "barber shop 7th", because singers can harmonise a dom7 chord equivalent using that pitch, giving chord tones in the ratios 4:5:6:7. > For a guitarist, do you really pluck the string around 1/7 of the way down to avoid this 7th harmonic? Well, that would do it - the video is quite correct in principle - but IMO there's hardly any need. I've been playing guitar for over 50 years - and been aware of the 7th harmonic issue for maybe half that time - but never felt any need to pick the strings at the 7th node. Every time you pick a string anywhere, you get a whole mix of overtones. You obviously change the timbre of the note depending on how far from the bridge you pick, because (as he says) you emphasise more of the high overtones nearer the bridge. But personally I can't detect any special change by picking 1/7 of the string length away from the bridge, compared with short distances either side - certainly not a sound that is noticeably better than either side. In any case, if one was to take the idea seriously, one would have to pick 1/7 of the active string length all the time, which means the higher you fretted a note the closer you'd move to the bridge. You couldn't therefore strum a chord, because those 1/7 distances would be at different points on each string, because the active string lengths are different according to where you're fretting. IOW - who cares, basically? ;-) Still, it's interesting (if he's correct) that piano hammers are positioned at that point.

  3130. musictheory 2018-11-16 00:46:51 beaumega1
    When a string player presses their finger down, the note goes up in pitch. When a wind player presses their finger down, the note goes down in pitch. Therefore, it is simpler for string players to play altered/non-natural pitches by raising the pitch, and simpler for wind players to play altered pitches by lowering it. It's also the case that wind instruments are mostly tuned to flat fundamentals (Eb alto sax, Bb clarinet, Bb trumpet, etc.), so flat notes are more native to their instruments.

  3131. musictheory 2018-11-16 00:47:04 Trainzack
    My understanding is that this is true. I'm not a string or orchestra player, so take this with a grain of salt: The open strings of string instruments often include notes that are among the first to be altered by flat keys (like E), so it's easier for string instruments to play in sharp keys, where the open strings are still relevant.

  3132. musictheory 2018-11-16 01:19:12 cellomold
    I’ve performed in a few different orchestras so from my experience, this is incorrect. As a string player, it’s not really more challenging to play key signatures the use flats compared to sharps, it’s just the number of flats and sharps that makes the performance more difficult. For string players, 4 sharps or 4 flats is the limit before we start getting annoyed. Winds on the other hand, depend on the key center of the instrument as well as the key of the music. For example, a standard clarinet will play a “C” but it will sound like Bb so they will use a different key signature from the strings which may have more or less sharps or flats. Because winds are tuned to several different keys, players are used to reading keys with more sharps or flats than string players.

  3133. musictheory 2018-11-16 02:20:52 wiz0floyd
    In addition to what others have said about ease of playing, sharp keys resonate well on string instruments since they all have open strings for A, D, & G.

  3134. musictheory 2018-11-16 02:57:05 DRL47
    >When a string player presses their finger down, the note goes up in pitch. > >When a wind player presses their finger down, the note goes down in pitch. This has nothing to to with it, and that doesn't make it easier for strings to raise pitches and winds to lower pitches. Your last statement is the most important: flat notes are more native to most winds. Likewise, sharp keys are more native to strings.

  3135. musictheory 2018-11-16 10:23:45 MusicalPolymath
    Violist here, 4th that. Also emotional 4th of the string section.

  3136. musictheory 2018-11-16 13:36:44 RickenbackerDAW
    It sounds pretty good to me. But I use a bar chord for the Dm and then go down to the B. The regular Dm on the first 2nd and 3rd fret (G B and E string) to the B doesn't sound nearly as good for some reason. Obviously I've never taken music theory before, but I have to ask, if you do know music theory, doesn't it seriously hamper your creative abilities at times because you're always second-guessing yourself?

  3137. musictheory 2018-11-16 20:48:02 vagrantchord
    I don't really understand- you know all the notes on the neck, but you don't know what to call a bar chord? I'm just trying to figure out what you're asking, not trying to be rude! If you're playing an E bar chord on the 3rd fret, that's a G. I always have to do a little math when playing A bar chords: so if I'm on the 7th fret, in my head I think of what note/chord it is on the E string (B) then jump a perfect fourth to figure out what the A bar chord is (E).

  3138. musictheory 2018-11-16 22:43:47 Jongtr
    There are two (common) kinds of barre chord, one with root on 6th string (the so-called "E" form) and one with root on 5th string ("A" form). E.g., here's two ways to play a B major chord (EADGBE tuning): 7-9-9-8-7-7 (root on 6th) x-2-4-4-4-2 (root on 5th)

  3139. musictheory 2018-11-16 23:15:01 Suli406
    So if we were to play that chord on the A string, the low will be muted?

  3140. musictheory 2018-11-16 23:38:58 65TwinReverbRI
    ALL chords are named from their Root NOTE. If the root is C, it's "some type of C chord". A C Power Chord will have a C note as its root. Any type of C BARRE chord will have C as its root as well. Other chord shapes that are named "C something" will also have C as the root note. There's a 2nd part to the name and that's the "type" or quality. A Power Chord is always the same type of structure so we don't need to worry about different names. Nowadays we just call them "X5" because "5" is the accepted symbol for a Power Chord. C5 would be a power chord with a root of C, D5 wold be a power chord with a root of D, and so on. But most Barre chords are Major, Minor, or 7th chord forms. So even with just Major and Minor, we have two different types - we name them Major and Minor of course, but what YOU have to know is what the interval structure is. Obviously, if you learn the SHAPE for a 6th string Minor Barre Chord Form, you can use that shape for any "Xm" chord - Cm, Dm, Em, Fm, etc. Same for Major. Learn the shape, then just place that shape on the spot on the neck where the 6th string is the note you want. You want Bb Major, you make the "major shape" and put the root note (which is the lowest string in a 6th string barre chord shape) on a Bb note - so two parts, basically just like the names. (there are 5th string barre chord forms as well). So if you know where the notes are on the 6th string, you could go to fret 8 and if you play a power chord shape, you have C5. If you use the minor chord barre shape, you'd have Cm. If you use the major chord barre shape, it's just C (the letter by itself implies Major). If you play the shape for a 7th chord, you'd have C7, etc.

  3141. musictheory 2018-11-16 23:45:33 65TwinReverbRI
    Usually, players will not play notes lower than the root in most forms, except when they want that particular sound, or if it's notated as such (so mute the note, or skip picking the string, etc.) So if we see "B", we're going to play it as Jongtr shows above on the 5th string form. You can reach an F# below the B on the 6th string in that form, but we don't typically play it. But if the chord is named B/F#, that means the F# is in the bass (in the X/Y configuration, the thing behind the slash - Y - is the bass note and the X is the chord itself). In older Country and Bluegrass music, it's common to do an "alternate bass" pattern where you would play the 5th string (B) on beat 1 and then strum the rest of the chord, on "and", then play the 6th string (F#) on beat 2 and then rest of the chord (usually skipping the B) on the "and" after that. This is kind of to separate the guitar into "two instruments" where the two lowest strings might act as a Piano Player's left hand (or a bass guitar) and the rest of the chord is like the Piano Player's right hand (or a guitar by itself not playing those lower notes). There are all kinds of variations on that pattern adn we still would just normally notate "B" and let the player figure out if they're supposed to play a pattern like that or not. Usually though, until a player is advanced, including a note lower than the root of the chord when not indicated is considered a "beginner mistake" (outside of specific patterns) and it is important for beginners to learn where the root of each shape is so it's doubly important not to play it - at least while a beginner.

  3142. musictheory 2018-11-17 00:34:42 Suli406
    Also, a same type of Barre chord has two different shapes right. E.g, if I'm a playing an A Barre chord. That would mean my index falls on the 5th fret of the low E. And my other 3 fingers will be on the D, G and B string. So if I were to put my other 3 fingers on the A, D and G, that would be the same A Barre chord but the shape will be different?

  3143. musictheory 2018-11-17 01:21:37 65TwinReverbRI
    2 4 4 4 2 x is one shape. We call that a "5th String Barre Form" because the root is on the 5th string. Because the root in this example on the note B, and the form is for a Major chord, then it's a B Major chord. 7 7 8 9 9 7 Is another shape. It's a "6th string barre form" because the root is on the 67th string. This is actually though STILL a B Major chord because the 6th string note (the root) is a B note on that string, and this form is for a Major chord. So you can see they're BOTH B major, but the shape is different and the position is different, because one is based on a "5th string shape" (like open A Major) and the other on a "6th string shape" (open E Major). If you were to do this: 7 8 9 9 7 (7) You'd have an E MINOR chord. Even though you're playing the same "shape" but just moving the non-barre fingers to the next string (as compared to the 6th string B major above) you end up with an E MINOR. The root for this shape is still on the 5th string - so even though you might could play the 6th string 7th fret as it's part of the chord, it's not the ROOT of the chord - because this is a 5th string form (based off Am open chord, and A is the 5th string). So they're both on the 7th fret, in essence, by moving your fingers "up a string" (towards the floor) you've moved the ENTIRE form up a string - even though you may not have to physically move your first finger that's holding the barre. So "hopping across strings" with the same shape also kind of takes the barre along with it, meaning the Root also moves as many strings as the other fingers do. HTH

  3144. musictheory 2018-11-18 05:26:48 crom-dubh
    Put simply (because I don't have the physics knowledge to be more detailed, although I'm sure it's available) it has to do with excitation of a medium (i.e. the material that is vibrating). When you excite something, vibrations propagate through it, and those propagations will naturally assume proportions that are integer divisions of the size of that thing (i.e. the length of a string, tube, etc). There are objects like cymbals that produce a very noise-like profile of overtones, but I would intuitively put that down to the fact that the propagation happens in multiple directions (i.e. across, and all around, etc.) due to its shape, so the overtones can appear non-harmonic, but I'm not convinced they necessarily are in the same sense.

  3145. musictheory 2018-11-18 05:43:03 65TwinReverbRI
    You've gotten good examples already. For the non-physicists among us, it's really just simply that that's the way it is - bodies, when excited through vibrations, vibrate in one, or multiple vibrations. "Harmonic" means that these vibrations are as you describe - 1, 2, 3, 4 whole number integers. "Inharmonic" means they are non-whole number - 1.35, 2. 78 and so on. The explanation I give to my class is, take a weight and attach it to a bungee cord, and then drop it from a bridge - and let's assume it bounces up and down, but not so far up the cord goes slack. If you look at the weight, it might travel 10 feet. But the fixed end of the bungee chord travels 0 feet. With harmonic vibrations, the middle of the bungee chord would travel the middle distance - 5 feet. The 1/4 mark of the bungee chord moves 2.5 feet, and so on. So when a string vibrates, it's not only moving "up and down" the whole distance, but the two halves of the string are also going up and down at 1/2 the height and twice the speed. The one at 1/3 the distance is 1/3 the height and 3 times the speed and so on (again assuming this is harmonic) up to infinity. What this does in music - or sound - is produce different timbres - why a flute sounds like a flute and not a clarinet is due to the difference in the amount of vibrations they each have and how those vibrations are related to each other - a flute has very few, a clarinet has more, but the odd numbered ones are more pronounced.

  3146. musictheory 2018-11-18 05:46:59 FwLineberry
    All scales work the same way on guitar. Once you have the pattern, you can move it anywhere on the neck to get the different keys. The reason for more than one pattern is so that you can play the same scale in several different locations. Each pattern will have it's key note with a different starting finger and/or on a different string.

  3147. musictheory 2018-11-18 06:12:13 65TwinReverbRI
    I'm not sure what you're asking here... Guitar is funny in that we often rely (maybe too heavily sometimes) on patterns. What makes a Major Scale a Major Scale, or even a Major Pentatonic Scale a Major Pentatonic Scale is the "pattern" the notes produce - the distance from one note to the next. You can see for example if you start a Major Scale, there will be 2 frets between the 1st and 2nd notes. But in two places, there's only 1 fret between notes (this may not be obvious if it happens as you cross from one string to another but you'll hit them somewhere if you play across all 6 strings). The Major Pentatonic Scale is really just a "subset" of the Major Scale - you're simply play the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th notes of the scale. So of course it works the same way!!! :-D When you start either on a note - say, D, you'd be playing a D Major Scale or a D Major Pentatonic Scale - because you're playing the "pattern for Major" or the "pattern for major missing a couple notes" starting on D. If you move either up to the note E, you now have E Major, or E Major Pentatonic. There are different patterns for different scales. Minor Scales have a different pattern, and Minor Pentatonic works the same way - it's like the Minor scale missing 2 notes (here though you use notes 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of your minor scale to make minor pentatonic). Major and minor scales are actually related - they have the same pattern counted from note 1 in major and note 6 in minor - so C Major is actually the same pattern as A minor. The difference is, we typically start - when just playing the scale, on the note it's named for. So if you start an Am scale on A, you'll get a different overall pattern than C major, but, if you check, once you get to the C note the pattern for C Major is the same from there on up. But we usually play an Am scale from A to A up and down, and a C Major from C to C up and down. This means there's two notes in each pattern that the other doesn't have in terms of the pattern on the neck. So they LOOK different from each starting point - and that goes back to what I was saying before - it's the relationship of the notes to the starting note that makes one major, and one minor, despite the patterns being equivalent at some point. These are known as "relative" scales. So guess what, since C Major Pentatonic and Am Pentatonic are both subsets from two relative scales, they too are relative! And they even have the exact same notes! The difference is, again, you're starting the Am on an A note, and the C Major on the C note (also, you'd usually be playing this over a chord progression in Am, or a chord progression in C, and that helps to distinguish them). The modes work similarly, but I would recommend you avoid them (like the plague) until you get a really good handle on Major and Minor and the pentatonic versions of each. But so you know, each mode has its own pattern as well, because what defines it is the relationship of the notes to (and their intervals from) the starting note (or the Tonic chord in a chord progression). HTH

  3148. musictheory 2018-11-18 06:22:57 361332171
    Agree. This is more of a physics question. [Khanacademy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT0IqL1dyyk&frags=pl%2Cwn) does a great job of explaining harmonic series (what is referred to in physics as standing waves so if you're into this sort of stuff, I'd give this video a watch. This one deals with waves on a string though, but there's [another video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhQUW9s-R8M&frags=pl%2Cwn) that deals with standing waves in a hollow tube. Hope these help!

  3149. musictheory 2018-11-18 06:34:28 gopher9
    > Why don't strings (or other things) just vibrate as 1/1, whats the science behind this. Because the excitation signal is not a sine. If you look at a spectrogram, you'll see that transients look as vertical lines. They have a rich spectrum. A string filters the spectrum so only harmonics are remained.

  3150. musictheory 2018-11-18 07:05:51 Rogryg
    Basically, what happens is that vibrating objects have many different modes of oscillation that they can vibrate in, that have varying vibrational shapes and frequencies - for columns of air and (idealized) strings, these vibrational modes even naturally form a harmonic series. (More complex 2- and 3-dimensional shapes generally do NOT form harmonic series without careful design.) Now when vibration is initiated, the object has to briefly be *deformed* in some way. The shape it takes when deformed can be described as a combination of some mixture of it's various vibrational modes added together. When the deforming force is released, the object begins vibrating on its own, and it vibrates in every mode in that mixture simultaneously. So in order to make something vibrate in only one vibrational mode, is has to be deformed into a shape that excites *only that mode* and no other. In practice this is basically impossible; to do it for a string, for example, it has to be pulled into the shape of a sine wave half-cycle. Instead, when you pluck/strike/bow a string, it takes the shape, not of a sine wave, but of a sawtooth/triangle wave - one point somewhere along the string pulled to the side, and with straight segments of string between that point and the string ends. This excites every mode except those with a node (a point where the string doesn't move for that mode) and the point of plucking/striking/bowing. So, for example, if you pluck a string halfway in the middle, you will excite the odd-numbered harmonics, but not the even ones (which is why you don't pluck there). If you pluck 1/4 of the way along the string, you won't excite the harmonics that are divisible by 4 (4th, 8th, 12th, etc). (Similarly, if you *touch* a vibrating string, you *mute* every harmonic that except those with a node at that point). Also, when an object is struck, vibrational modes with wavelengths that are small compared to the striking object aren't excited (they get contradictory input from the strike). This is why hard mallets produce a brighter tone than soft mallets - hard mallets are better able to excite the higher vibrational modes. And all this is why, for example, tympani are struck off-center with a large, fairly soft mallet - off-center because most of the musically-useful vibrational modes have a node in the center, large mallet to avoid the higher modes which are extremely inharmonic.

  3151. musictheory 2018-11-18 07:36:21 reckless150681
    They exist because we constrain waves to do so. You'll notice that this sort of pattern basically only occurs within specific cases. For example, clapping your hands doesn't really generate any sort of harmonic series. Without going into those cases, though, let's consider what we do know. Stringed instruments have strings that oscillate in standing waves. A string is, for (almost) all intents and purposes, one-dimensional. Wind instruments are long and narrow. Even if you were to imagine a French horn with its circular shape the pipes themselves are actually just really thin. These pipes, while not *quite* one-dimensional, are pretty close; in fact, if one were to perform heat transfer or fluid mechanic analyses, it might sometimes be useful to model them as very long cylinders/cones. For the rest of this explanation I'll stick to stringed instruments because they're easier to explain. Know that analogous phenomena happen with wind instruments. So we fix end conditions on a string by declaring that the two ends must be fixed in place. This makes sense. If you were to excite a loose string, you wouldn't get any vibration out of it but rather it'd just kind of flop around. Same goes for a string with a single fixed end. In this way, the standing waves that are created don't really have any place to "go"; they're stuck on the string. These waves are transmitted by way of our fixed endpoints to a bridge or resonating cavity or whatever, and depending on specific resonances in material that's how we get sound. Now your question is why we have the harmonic series. Well, how many ways can you manipulate a string? If you have a stringed instrument available (guitar is the best for this), follow along; if not, do your best to imagine it. Find several ways to excite your string with your finger. Do you displace it from its middle? Its end? Somewhere in between? This idea is the basis for why we have harmonics. Essentially, if you were to model the string as a line and excite it from a single point, you'd kind of get [this](https://d2vlcm61l7u1fs.cloudfront.net/media%2Fb4f%2Fb4f4dd27-3f5f-4e5b-beef-3172c8386b73%2FphpU4S5Iu.png) image. When you are to let go of the string, it can only vibrate in certain ways. If you were to pull the string perfectly in its middle, you'd get the most basic mode of vibration. Call this n = 1, or the fundamental, or whatever. Can you see how this is the simplest method for the string to vibrate? Can you also see how this forms half a sine wave? This is why the frequency is related to v/**2**L; to fit a full sine wave you actually need double the length of the string. Let's continue this concept. If you were to pull the string exactly 1/4th of the way from an end, you would "fit" a full sine wave into the length of the string. Since the wavelength is now half, the frequency is doubled; this is your n = 2, or second harmonic, or first overtone. This sort of pattern continues; pulling the string at certain points gives you a perfect number of half-sines in the string length. But what happens if you were to pull the string 1/2.353258459329 of the way? Well it turns out that the resulting pattern is a superposition of other modes. You can prove this via diffEq and eigenvalue analysis; I'm not smart enough to do it without consulting notes, but you can definitely find proofs if you want. Basically, though, if you have two solutions to a system describable by eigenvalues, any linear combination of separate solutions is also a solution. In layman's terms, if you have a bunch of perfect solutions (like pulling it halfway vs 1/4th vs whatever), if you add those solutions up you'll still have a solution. Proof? The harmonic series. At any one time on a real instrument you're hearing a bunch of different harmonics at once. You know this is a real solution (after all you're hearing it, right?); if you were to run the sound through a spectral analyzer you'd extract the specific tones. If you were to generate a bunch of pure sine waves at each harmonic's respective amplitude, you'd approximate the tone you heard.

  3152. musictheory 2018-11-18 07:37:03 Kalcipher
    Imagine this is the string: | When it vibrates, it goes like ( and then returns to | and then to ) and back to |. This is a simple vibration with just one frequency, following the entire length of the string, but this is not the only vibration that occurs. Imagine if you had a vibration occurring across two thirds of the string. It would require the remaining third to be kept still or the vibration would stretching out and either die out entirely or it would fill the entire length of the string. Since the remaining third isn't kept still, you cannot have the two thirds vibrating. You can however have the string vibrating in halves, since two halves will fill out the entire length and no part will have to be kept still except for a single point. This vibration will be twice as fast as the longer vibration, thus producing a pitch that is twice as high. So basically the overtones occur because the vibration will fit the length of the string. Now, it may be relevant to note that this is assuming the string is a mathematically idealised object with infinite elasticity. In reality, the fixed ends of the strings aren't mobile enough for the overtones to be exactly harmonic, not to mention that the length of the string is limited. Since a wider vibration means the ends have to bend less, this matters more for higher overtones, which causes the overtones to stretch away from each other, creating what is called inharmonicity. The inharmonicity depends on the material the string is made of, the tension applied to it, and several such variables. Finally, it is important to note that this phenomenon is contingent on the oscillator being fixed *at the ends*. An instrument like a glockenspiel or a xylophone will not have harmonic overtones as the bars are fixed at other points than the ends. It will still have overtones, but those overtones will not form an even remotely harmonic series, which is why consonant intervals do not necessarily sound consonant on these instruments.

  3153. musictheory 2018-11-18 07:45:33 LukeSniper
    Imagine you pluck a guitar string. The wave you create doesn't just travel in *one* direction along the string. It travels both ways. When it bounces back, they'll collide with each other. They'll affect each other; amplifying or cancelling out. Then that happens several dozen, or hundred, or thousands of times a second. Pretty easy to imagine how quickly that escalates to a very complex waveform.

  3154. musictheory 2018-11-18 09:37:02 SomeEntrance
    Vibrations which produce musical tone are called 'mathematically special', because, if the vibrating body (say a string) is pinched at a certain place, and the vibrations which then go back and forth between the fixed place and the pinched place have interference patterns, where the subdivisions are whole number ratios of the the base vibration... that is one of the requirements of musical tone. The other is that, practically always (in nature; except for sine waves in the laboratory), all the various modes of vibration --where the subdivisions are 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on--exist, but with varying amplitudes, which is part of the tone's timbre. Generally the first modes of vibration are louder, and gradually decrease as they get smaller. Physics of music/acoustics is a stated part of the sub reddit's scope, so your question is welcome.

  3155. musictheory 2018-11-19 12:55:05 devlindigital
    It’s less likely an issue of transposition and more one of scoring and that they aren’t used to seeing scores with 4 sharps. You probably need resources on “orchestration” more than “transposition”. Look at google searches around “composing for clarinet” or “composing for cello” Edit: Although, I’m pretty sure that cello, as a string instrument, is a c instrument so E Major isn’t that crazy of a key. Edit2: It’s understandably confusing as “transposing instruments” is a thing and something clarinet falls under, but it’s less about the concept of “transposition” than it is of scoring music in a way that appropriately fits the actual pitch range and expectations of the performer.

  3156. musictheory 2018-11-19 18:35:55 jesuslop
    Minor is relative, so if you are fluent in walking the major scale in caged, you have all modes for free, aeolian (minor) included, and it is also moveable, so the root is where you want. Also, in 4 string-sets (4 upper, next fours, x-xxx-, -x-xxx), there are 4 voicings of a given drop-2 7th chord flavour (maj7, dom, 7b5, m7) fit in caged boxes.

  3157. musictheory 2018-11-19 22:29:28 shittymusicologist
    Like /u/rogerspruce pointed out, it's just so much more practical when playing a piece. Also you are assuming all music is notated with computers these days. Not true and I (along with many other music students) still write the first draft with pen and paper. Just like not all writers and authors go straight to the computer for a work. They still use notebooks to jot down things. Another thing is that, in my opinion, it looks tidier and neater. Longer/more pages does not mean better and just because we can do something doesn't mean it's necessarily the best thing to do. I know computers with copy-paste functions might make it seem dumb, but to me it's about readability first and foremost. A huge string of extra bars that can be avoided by a symbol that tells you "repeat that part" is more than enough.

  3158. musictheory 2018-11-20 08:10:29 b0b
    I know the chords and the scale of the song. I string notes together into phrases, usually starting and ending on notes from the current chord. When a chord contains a note that's not in the key signature of the song, I often hit that note on the 1st or 3rd beat of the measure.

  3159. musictheory 2018-11-20 14:23:31 GlennMagusHarvey
    Exceptions: Some modern key signatures may put multiple "versions" of a note depending on which pitch you're at. But they'll indicate this unambiguously -- for example, there might be an F♯ on the top line but an F♮ in the bottom space. This may also happen when an instrument is tuned in such a way that makes it easier for the player to play certain notes. Basically, a partially-transposing instrument. Example: the C minor cello suite by Bach, which asks that the top string be tuned down a whole step, and thus the piece may be written such that the high notes, to be played on the top string, are "in D minor", for the convenience of the player. This is actually just an instance of inaccurate notation prioritizing convenience of performance instructions over accuracy of representing the notes that are actually played, and is basically akin to the "written pitch" of a transposing instrument. Note that these are rare exceptions.

  3160. musictheory 2018-11-20 17:28:40 Jongtr
    You know the open strings, right? (EADGBE). Learn the natural scale formula: ABCDEFGA, semitones (1 fret) between BC and EF, tones (2 frets) between everything else. You can then work out any note you need on any fret, any string, just by counting up. (The sharps and flats take care of themselves as the frets in between.) Of course, that's a slow process, but there are various tips which will help. 1. Look at the pattern of octaves. 2 strings across, 2 frets up - except, of course, when you cross from 3rd to 2nd string, where it skips another fret up). So there's (eg) a G note on string 6 fret 3; string 4 fret 5, string 2 fret 8. 2. The unison pattern, which works diagonally the other way, going up 4 or 5 frets: C = string 2 fret 1; string 3 fret 5, string 4 fret 10, string 5 fret 15, string 6 fret 20 (NB: you never need that one!). (Of course, use your ear to test octaves and unisons.) 3. Chord shapes. Learn which notes are in a few common chords (say C and G major), and trace those chords up the fretboard, in their different shapes. Every C major chord contains the notes C-E-G. A C major chord has all these shapes: x-3-2-0-1-0 = x C E G C E x-3-5-5-5-3 = x C G C E G 8-7-5-5-5-8 = C E G C E C 8-10-10-9-8-8 = C G C E G C x-x-10-12-13-12 = x-x-C-G-C-E x-15-14-12-13-12 = x-C-E-G-C-E Once you have all those, then it's not hard filling the other notes (D, F, A, B). I.e., it's like a jigsaw: the more pieces you put in place, the more you see the bigger picture, and the easier and quicker it is to fill the rest in. The main tip is: don't try just committing notes to memory as an exercise outside of context. Play music, play chords, and occasionally test yourself by asking what notes you're playing. This is the same advice for any theoretical learning (note names are where theory begins): start from the music, from the sounds. Get the *sounds first, then* ask what they're called.

  3161. musictheory 2018-11-20 17:36:47 cellomold
    By mentioning a fretboard, it sounds like you are either talking about guitar or bass guitar although it could also be mandolin or even ukulele. Anyway, if it’s guitar, use the dots on the fretboard and use your chords to memorize most of it. Using an “E” chord shape, the first dot will be a G, next is A, B, D, and then the double dot is E. The “A” chord shape series is C, D, E, G, and A. The “D” series is F, G, A, C, and D. Each of these chord shapes keep the root note on the open string of its name so the E shape has the E root on the low E string, A is on the A string, etc. now you know the notes of every dot for 4 strings because you have two E strings. Bass would be similar to guitar but instead of using chords, just work on remembering the dots. You know that the second dot is the 5th fret and you use that to tune each string so your strings are tuned E A D G which means the 5th frets are A D G C. The 3rd And 5th frets for each string all happen to be natural notes so from the A on the E string, down a dot is G and up a dot is B. The 10th fret dot is one whole step below the octave so again, all natural notes. I don’t own or play mandolin but I believe it’s tuned like a violin so the 7th fret will be the same as the next pair of strings. I don’t know where dots are placed though. Any other fretted instrument I have no idea

  3162. musictheory 2018-11-20 18:18:07 crabapplesteam
    Not bad overall, but if you're going to make a post like this, you're going to have to do a bit better. First, the harmonic series is not a series of fractions, but a series of tones all related by a whole number relationship to a fundamental. This is key, because your logic to get from 2/3 to 3/2 is deeply flawed. Multiply your fundamental (440) by 2, and you get an octave. Multiply by 3, and you get an octave and a 5th. The reason we divide by 2 (so 3/1 becoming 3/2) is to lower it one octave - it has nothing to do with where one would fret a note *in fact, there are two places where you can touch the string to hear this interval. What you mention about inverse fractions is simply incorrect - when 3/2 becomes 2/3, you get into something called the inverse harmonic series, or undertones. Everything else is informative and interesting.

  3163. musictheory 2018-11-20 20:29:35 PlazaOne
    An exercise I found helpful was to learn the notes one at a time, and being able to find (and play) them on each string. Every practice session then started off with finding a couple of different notes: e.g. A = 6th string @ 5th fret; 5th string @ 12th fret; 4th string @ 7th fret; 3rd string @ 2nd fret; 2nd string @ 10th fret; 1st string @ 5th fret. Rinse and repeat with a different note.

  3164. musictheory 2018-11-20 21:43:32 crom-dubh
    Problems: >The harmonic series is a series of fractions that music is based off of. The harmonic series is not a series of fractions. It's also not really "what music is based of of." Of course a lot of music uses it to varying extents, but this is a really inaccurate generalization. >To build the C major scale, you start with F and stack 6 perfect fifth intervals. F-C-G-D-A-E-B and there ya go! This is a really weak explanation (if you could call it an explanation). You don't say why you start on F or really say how this whole process relates to the harmonic series (it doesn't, specifically). >The harmonic series is a series of fractions based off of actual harmonics. As stated, the harmonic series is not a series of fractions. Furthermore, saying it's based off of "actual harmonics" is just using the word in the definition. >1/3 becomes 2/3, because that’s where you would fret the note on a string, and then it becomes the inverse, 3/2 and that is what you multiple the fundamental by to find the interval. First of all, this explanation is a little nonsensical. "One ratio becomes another because that's where you'd fret it on the string and then it becomes the inverse" is not an explanation. Furthermore, you *can* fret it at 2/3 *or* 1/3 along the string and get the same result. You neither mention that nor provide a foundation for understanding why that would be. >The perfect fifth to A4 is E5. The frequency of E5 on a normal instrument is 659.25. As you can see, it is approximated with the 12-tone equal temperament chromatic scale. Confusing paragraph. What is a "normal instrument". *I* know you mean equal-tempered instrument, but the following sentence makes it sound like these are two different things. Then you go off the deep end and start talking about the golden ratio which has... absolutely nothing to do with the harmonic series. Literally about 1/3 of your harmonic series lesson is about something else entirely. Honestly, and I'm trying not to be a dick here, I can't fathom what this is actually for. I don't think anyone who didn't already know how the harmonic series works will find this useful or intelligible, you make a lot of leaps that aren't supported, and there is a good deal of inaccuracy. There is no shortage of more comprehensive, accurate, and frankly, better written summaries of the harmonic series and how scales are made from it. Sorry, I know that's not what you want to hear.

  3165. musictheory 2018-11-20 23:04:56 crom-dubh
    Actually, I provided several specific areas where they could improve. Now, I'm not going to actually re-write the OPs post for them, if that's what you mean. As an example, where they talk about 1/3 vs. 2/3 I specifically said that they could explain why these are related in the context of string length, etc. I'm not going to actually *write* this explanation because I'm not the one who's trying to give the lesson, and I was actually giving the OP the benefit of the doubt in that regard, assuming they themselves understand it and can do better if the shortcomings in their explanation were pointed out. If I wrote the explanation out to them, you might be accusing me of being pedantic. When you post something for public consumption on an open forum, you should expect feedback, and that's what I gave. I also hardly think what I did classifies as "berating". I think, all things considered, I was pretty constructive. Berating would be if I said "what the fuck is wrong with you thinking you have any business giving lessons on the harmonic series when you don't understand anything about it, you idiot?"

  3166. musictheory 2018-11-21 01:15:33 agmusic81
    Practice reading music, not just enough to learn a song and then play the song from memory, but continue learning new songs and move onto the next one as soon as you get the first one down. While committing the chord changes and other parts to memory so you can play them without the music in front of you is a good thing, moving on to the next song so you get more practice with reading music that you haven't yet internalized will help you link the frets to the note names. I'd recommend getting a basic classical guitar book to practice from. This will help you familiarize yourself with staff notation and mapping the fret positions to the position on the staff. I'd also recommend learning chord changes from fake book notation (where the chord names are spelled out as Cmaj, Dmin7, etc). This will help you learn to relate the root of each chord to a name of that note (D is the 5th fret of the A string, etc). I think if it as a chord shape on top of the root as opposed to the individual notes that comprise the chord above the root, so for learning the notes you could really just play the root notes instead of the whole chord, or play the bass. The only parts of the fret-board that I really have internalized are the low frets on all of the strings near the nut (starting point for the beginner classical guitar piece), and the first 7 frets of the low E, and A strings (the root notes for chords). From there I tend to picture an octave (up 2 strings and 2 frets... or 3 frets if the B string is included) up from one of those notes on the E or A string for the rest of the fretboard. Internalizing the rest would be a good skill for me to develop, but you can get pretty far just with that.

  3167. musictheory 2018-11-21 02:08:38 Cello789
    Interesting!!! I’ll say, tho, on any cello I’ve played, it’s damn hard to play good 4ths, and on a guitar (tuned in 4ths) it’s real easy to sound out of tune. If my 5ths are pinched a bit on my cello, it works out. If a guitar has a string just out of tune, all sorts of chords start to be pretty off. I think the 4th is less stable, like it’s upside down... (which, as a 5th, it literally is!)

  3168. musictheory 2018-11-21 02:43:42 agmusic81
    It really is unfortunate that people on this sub-reddit like to reward troll responses like this one. This comment accomplishes nothing but to stroke your ego as the person writing it, and you've made a baseless claim that is completely false by saying: > The harmonic series is not a series of fractions. It's also not really "what music is based of of." Both of these statements are simply false. The harmonic series is a series of fractions, and is the basis for the diatonic scale which is the basis for virtually all of western music: classical, jazz, pop, punk, metal, rock - every genre that uses major or minor scales, or even the less common modes, is based on the diatonic scale which is based on the harmonic series. It's not just a western music thing either: non-diatonic scales from other cultures are also pulled from the harmonic series in other ways. But really, it's even more fundamental than that: when a string, vocal chord, reed, lip, etc vibrates it creates vibration at the fundamental frequency as well as the upper harmonics at 2x, 3x, 4x etc that frequency. It's a physical phenomena of sound, so to claim that is inaccurate to say it is "what music is based on" shows a great ignorance about the subject, which combined with your childish desire to tell OP he is wrong creates a toxic combination that really should not be encouraged or supported with up-votes. You're just being an ass.

  3169. musictheory 2018-11-21 03:18:08 agmusic81
    > The physics of vibration != the harmonic series. LOL - just stop now before you embarrass yourself any more. The harmonic series is a critical part of the physics of vibration. When a string vibrates it does so simultaneously with a wavelength of the full length of the string, 1/2 the string, 1/3 the string, etc... there is that series of fractions you claimed didn't exist. Did you really not know that?

  3170. musictheory 2018-11-21 05:06:09 agmusic81
    OK look, we're both flinging mud here but I suggest that we take a step back and actually try to understand each other's perspective. Mine is that vibration occurs naturally in frequencies related through the harmonic series, as explained in every music theory and Physics 1 textbook. What exactly is your perspective? By continuing to make baseless statements like "the harmonic series is not the vibration of sound" you're not offering any insight on what your perspective actually is. Do you disagree that a vibrating string creates sound a frequencies that are multiples of one another? If so, a simple google search would correct your misunderstanding there. If your perspective is something different, than by not sharing what it is you're just wasting everyone's time by refusing to participate in the conversation in a constructive way, i.e. "trolling."

  3171. musictheory 2018-11-21 08:54:42 SilentStrikerTH
    Taking a technique my piano teacher uses... Try learning to play scales on guitar, just major ones is fine. Once you have one learned, go slowly through the notes and say out loud the note you are on. Doing a G scale, play each note in the scale and say G, A, B, C, D... Etc Make sure you are looking at the fretboard while you do this. Eventually you should be able to remember the frets from scales you've played. Another thing to think about (since we are in theory subreddit) is interval relations. The 6th fret of any string is a 5th above the string tuning, fret 6 on D string is A, a 5th above D. From there you can branch out, if the 6th fret of the D string is A then the 4th fret is G. Doing little things like that will slowly help you to make relationships in your head and you'll remember fret notes.

  3172. musictheory 2018-11-21 17:42:14 Astral_Enigma
    *String section tuning up* Me: eeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEYYYYEEEEEEEYYYHHHH

  3173. musictheory 2018-11-22 04:27:56 demieert
    There is a beautiful modulation in Dvořák's string quartet No. 12 in F-Major. F - Dm - A - Bb - Am - D9 - E - A Although you pass the A chord early on, the previous Dm puts the A in the context of a V chord. It is only used to set up the Bb, which leads us to Am. From Am on, he uses octave 'E's and builds on them to increase tension, releasing it by moving a perfect 4h upwards.

  3174. musictheory 2018-11-22 05:41:14 65TwinReverbRI
    In Kurt Stone's "Music Notation in the 20th Century" he suggests an alternate form for trills which many people did and still do use, which is to write the note like a regular trill but put the the note to be trilled to as a smaller sized stemless black notehead in parentheses right after the main note. There is no special name for this TMK. Some people have probably called it various things like "large trill" etc. There is an odd case with Tremolo - Tremolo appears in two types - one is the traditional repeated note (of the same pitch) which is used in both measured and unmeasured forms. These are the little "semi-beams" you see crossing the stem of a note. A measured tremolo would mean to play in a specific rhythmic value. The same "beamlet" is used also as a shortcut for repeated notes so you'll see a string of 8th notes in String music each note with the beamlet, which means to play each 8th note as 2 repeated 16ths. This his been common for a really long time. Percussion also uses the same kind of marking for various rolls. In some cases, the tempo, mood, style, effect, and so on determine whether the tremolo is measured or unmeasured, but in a lot of cases, ones with 3 semi-beams across the stem or over the note imply "as fast as possible" and not necessarily in any specific note value. There's also a "fingered tremolo" or sometimes "bowed tremolo" used in strings where two notes of the same value but different pitch have beamlets between them. This means that the player would play what is essentially a trill - but between the two written pitches which are usually more than a 2nd apart for the duration of ONE of the notated values (so you'd see two whole notes in a measure of 4/4 with the beamlets between the noteheads). Notation for this (and interpretation in some cases) is non standardized - sometimes two half notes will be joined by a single beam, with other beamlets between the stems. It's often assumed that these are all "unmeasured" - not played in any specific rhythm, and intentionally so in string groups so it produces more of an "undulating" sound rather than specific note values. And having each player "tremolo" (or trill if you like!) between say C and E, sounds different from the firsts playing tremolo E and the 2nds playing tremolo C. It became a common effect in Romantic Period music. You'll also see it commonly in piano music, especially in the accompaniment or in the LH bass, which probably was both inspired by orchestral tremolo and to mimic the effect. So you may see "tremolandi" (plural) that is an interval larger than a 2nd, that has the same effect as a trill of the same interval. But, Stone recommended IIRC (been a long time) that conistency was better, and if you were mixing "normal" trills with "large trills" you should use the trill sign for both, and mark the note to be trilled to (a stemless black note usually above the written note placed in parentheses) so all trills no matter what the interval all follow a consistent pattern. You could do it all as tremolandi as well but the problem is, sometimes people are confused by if they're measured or not, and people are also confused by the note values you use (which are the value of the entire duration for both notes) so the traditional trill notation is a little easier to deal with, plus in multi-voice music a little easier to notate sensibly. Measured tremolo: https://www.timusic.net/wp-content/uploads/Measured-Trem.jpg Unmeasured (fingered) Tremolo: https://www.celloonline.com/images/unit5/cello_fingered_tremolo.gif Good explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremolo harder to find the "modern" one but here's an example of the stemless note: https://is2-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Purple69/v4/5c/e5/f8/5ce5f8c5-c6dd-7a69-c135-079bd8841f57/pr_source.png/643x0w.jpg It's actually quite common in guitar music - we rock guitarists do trills of minor 3rds and so on quite often. FWIW, the root words for both Trill and Tremolo come from the same place - "to tremble". This is evident in the name for the Trill up through the 19th century, which was a "shake"! Historically though, a trill (or shake) was a 2nd apart, while a tremolo specifically meant repeating the same exact pitch. Funny thing if you're a guitarist: Tremolo Bridges, "Tremolo Arms" actually change the pitch, producing "Vibrato", and the Vibrato effect on an amplifier is actually Tremolo in most cases (some bridges are called Vibrato or Vibrola, etc. and some effects in amps called Vibrato truly do create Vibrato). Leo Fender kind of got them backwards (or probably was avoiding patent issues). But when we "tremolo pick" it is a tremolo, and we can do what are essentially fingered tremolandi, but most of us would probably call them trills!

  3175. musictheory 2018-11-22 08:19:56 RolandMaj7
    Some thoughts to teaching and learning ear training... You are the teacher for yourself! I started early on picking up melodies on piano from TV what my grandparents were watching in next room. I did it for fun but now I realise that was the key. There is period in brain development, probably 3 until 6 ~ 8 years which is crucial and partialy defines physical brain abilities to learn and master the skill in future. You don’t have to teach them atonal music, but work out their attention to pitch changes by playing games and repeating melodies. Absolute pitch is even different. It’s brain ability to categorise and remember frequency. And there is people around who doesn’t know they have it and it stays undeveloped. I have noticed that singing plays the main role. If you can sing it, you can play it. Start with melodic transcription and vocal improvisation in scales/chords what you want to master. If you want to learn chords, they are stacked intervals. Fogure out the bass, highes note and then listen what is going on in the middle. While doing this, you make your brain pay attention. If you don’t know what it is, then think of what it’s not. Try to undersatand difference between intervals or chords. Just make yourself to obsessively to want to undarstand that one chord... One more thing is short time memory (Your RAM), that is one of the biggest prices what you get when learning music. As everything else, it develops when worked out consistently - every day, short time, not once a week for 4 hrs. That is ability to remember what you just heard (one pitch or whole row of) while you compile what it is to put it on the paper. Don’t give yourself a reference pitch in the middle of every exercise. Don’t do it before starting an exercise also, unless it is really necessary. Don’t encode sheet music - this means that you find every pitch, figure out rhythm and then try to put it together. This way you will never learn to read. Instead, read only pitches with imaginary note lenghts or read only rhythms while singing only one pitch. But don’t stop, look ahead and get to the ending in smooth way. Learn to get used to the feeling of doing one thing but thinking of the next bar (looking ahead). Singing intervals is for the muscle memory. When you see a high jump in sheet music, you do it by muscles what you rely on. You are teaching yourself “this is correct” way not failing 10000 times hoping that you will learn to do it right while actually teaching yourself to do wrong. There is exercise what you can do while located in any place. It is known that only harmonic frequencies makes stable pitch, all the other frequencies (unharmonic) are noise. Frequencies are interfering all the time. When hearing a car engine in public transport, a church bell, a water runing in heater pipes, a spoon falling down the ground, a snoring dog, ticking lock, or listening in human speech... try to count how many pitches can you hear in spectre? Maybe you can find and name any intervals or maybe you can tune your voice to the pitch you hear? Another game is to look at the random note on guitar string or piano (in your vocal range). Sing it and then listen to test tone. For young children you can use three bells and name them “high middle low” and while not looking, they have to tell which bell you ring. Later add nore bells, add note names and that way... Don’t fix, make them understand by them selves that “this is definately not the high bell” Make cards with simple melodies as puzzle. Cards consist from melody fragments and while listening, they have to put the cards in right order paying attention to melodc contour. Last thing, but this weird, I know... Don’t listen to any kind of crap just to break the silence (radio, TV and other noise around us). I realised that this habit blunts your attention and your brain switches off and marking the noise around you as “not important”. This is called frequency masking which keeps you away from getting insane, because we can’t pay attention to every single person talking in the mall for example. :) The same is with unnecessary music pollution. This is conflicting. In one hand you try to develop pitch and pay attention, but in the other hand your brain switches off as soon as you finish your work and switch on TV. It’s the same as trying to get healthy but drink a bottle of whiskey after gym. :D If you want to develop your hearing, make it a way of living and perceiving the world. Ahh... inspirational quote. :)

  3176. musictheory 2018-11-22 08:45:31 banjalien
    Well we learn many things by what I call error correction. Think about how you learned to drive or ride a bike. You try and over time you get better at it. You don't sit and read the manual for hours. Usually somebody shows you in a safe environment and you gradually get better with your balance or in the case of a car, you learn to keep it between the lines. Hopefully you don't wreck.... On that note, some people try to approach ear training like sitting in a car in their garage and just going through the motions without exposing themselves to a real world environment....or practice as if hanging out with the manual more than the road is going to make them a better driver. Another problem-they don't concentrate on hearing FAST, for example, you don't have time to sit there and go, "oh that was a major 2nd, oh that was the same as here comes the bride, oh that was the same as jaws, etc." You train your ear to hear it INSTANTLY, not computing something. That's why some of the stuff already mentioned is a dead end, in no real world environment do you have to time to think that slow about it all. We hear things in GROUPS of notes, in contour and shape, especially as it gets faster. The method must work you towards hearing groups of notes fast. Training yourself to hear note by note, slowly does not help, it's a hindrance. You also have to start simple, otherwise, it's like throwing 16 year old kid into the middle of rush hour in NYC or LA. You start off in safer environments and work up to more dangerous ones really. The only way you learn to hear sounds is by regularly exposing yourself to them, aka getting on the road. Where so many of the methods mess up is like you said, it's just here, learn it, good luck.....I think there is a lot of room for growth in ear training teaching. In ear training, you have to know how to listen, what to listen for. Not to mention you better try a number of methods before giving up. 1)Sight Singing 2)Playing the Sounds 3)Learning songs with those sounds 4)Transcribing I found the Jersild Approach interesting. In particular how he says to learn how to hear how certain notes move towards other notes. For example a maj7 climbs to the 1. [Jersild Approach](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40374290?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) Lastly, another thing wrong with these ear training programs is what you hear is not always going to be just a piano in isolation. It doesn't train you to hear TIMBRE, a C maj7 from a piano doesn't sound like a Cmaj7 from a string quartet or woodwind section. Hence, why I advocate transcribing.

  3177. musictheory 2018-11-22 11:00:18 vornska
    Are you going up or down? If you go up from E to A, you go up a fourth. If you go down from E to a lower A, you go down a fifth. If you play A on your E string, that's the 5th fret like you said. 5th fret means that A is 5 half steps above E. 5 half steps = 1 perfect fourth. On the other hand, imagine playing the second fret on your D string. That's an E. Now play the open A below it. You just went down two frets (E->D, two semitones) and then down a string (D->A, five semitones). So you went down 7 semitones altogether, or one perfect fifth.

  3178. musictheory 2018-11-22 11:47:10 65TwinReverbRI
    E UP to A is a perfect 4th. E DOWN to A is the same as A UP to E, which is a perfect 5th. Stacked, highest note on top: E A is P5 and A E is P4. On guitar, the lowest string is tuned to E, and the next string is tuned to A, a P4 higher. Now, this has nothing to do with the fret! 5 frets is 5 half-steps, which adds up to a P4, not a P5 - so don't confuse 5 frets with "5th" because it's really about letter names; E-F-G-A is 4 letters, so "some type of 4th" (perfect 4th in this case). Guitar is tuned mostly in 4ths, except for the G and B strings which are a 3rd apart. Other "strings" such as Violin are tuned in 5ths, so the 2nd string on a Violin is A, and the 1st string is an E, which is higher, so it's: A B C D E - 5 letters, so "some type of 5th" (perfect 5th in this case)

  3179. musictheory 2018-11-22 12:45:31 lazy_stacey
    Your confusion is because 5frets does not equal a perfect fifth! Assuming its a guitar, each fret represents "a half step". Imagine a white key on the piano going up to an adjacent black key... that is a half step. Here are the intervals and their steps: &#x200B; |Interval|Number of Half Steps (Frets)|Example| |:-|:-|:-| |Unison|0|E - E| |minor Second|1|E - F| |Major Second|2|E - F#| |minor Third|3|E - G| |Major Third|4|E -G#| |Perfect Fourth|5|E - A| |Tritone|6|E - A #| |Perfect Fifth|7|E - B| &#x200B; So a **Perfect Fifth represents 7 half steps.** A perfect fifth up from the open low E string is the 7th fret, NOT the fifth. Hope that helps.

  3180. musictheory 2018-11-23 11:47:15 jozzlez
    &#x200B; 📷 Right so I know music theory is super complicated and I'm trying to write this song. I thought the chords I was using sound really good together, as did my friend however he thought one sounded really jarring. His ear is better than mine so I trusted him on it, he suggested that maybe its out of key but neither of us know what the issue is so I thought I'd ask this forum. If anyone could help me it would be much appreciated. (side note, when I looked some these chords up they had multiple long, strange names that I don't fully understand so I've just explained what strings I'm pressing on those chords. Annoying I know but I'm a noob okay.) These are the chords:(Capo on the 4th fret) E Major E Major + 6th string 3rd fret G6 G Major C/G C/G + High E, 1st fret E Suspended A Suspended A Minor A Minor + High E, 3rd fret A Minor + High E, 1st fret

  3181. musictheory 2018-11-23 15:08:20 i_8_the_Internet
    Seems like you have read a lot. How about studying pieces and analyzing them? You’re inspired by Bernstein - now what makes Overture to Candide work? Can you conduct it? Studied its form? Music in practice is much more than theory. Do you know orchestration? Instrument transpositions and ranges? Can you look at an orchestral score and know how to interpret it? Or...how do you talk to an orchestra and get them to do whatever you want while making them feel valued and empowered? There is so much more to music than theory, and this is coming from someone who LOVES theory. My advice: get in the trenches. Find as many music ensembles as you can to play with. Join a community band and learn how to play an instrument. Start a string quartet with friends. Find a school band and ask the director if you can write music for them. Sit in your local orchestra’s rehearsal and watch how the conductor works with the group. The more you do, the more you will learn.

  3182. musictheory 2018-11-23 20:29:16 Jongtr
    There's a few there that might sound "jarring". Chord 2: 6th string 3rd fret is the minor 3rd of the chord, against the major 3rd (3rd string 1st fret). Play just those 2 strings together and see if you really like it. (IOW, without the capo it would be fret 7 on 6th string and 5 on 3rd string.) Chord 6: C/G plus fret 1 on top E. Again, check the sound of the 4th string note against that top note. You like that? (fret 6 on 4th string - major 3rd of chord - against fret 5 on 1st string - 11th of chord.) Last chord: same problem as chord 6. All three of these intervals (pairs of notes within a chord) are "minor 9ths", one semitone bigger than an octave. It's what jazz musicians call an "avoid note". It doesn't mean it should *always* be avoided, but you have to be aware of the sound (isolate it from the chord) to decide whether you really want it or not. Sometimes when you strum a chord you don't always hear the whole thing. Always use your ear to check how each single note in a chord sounds with each of the others. When you analyse it in this way, you can zero in on exactly the notes you do want, and drop the ones that either cause problems, or just seem redundant. Your ear is always right (you can include dissonances if you want!), but you have to be sure what you're hearing. The way to fix these - if you want to - is simply to leave out one of the offending notes (the higher or lower one) - or raise the bottom one or lower the upper one, to make the interval an octave. Alternatively you could lower the bottom one or raise the upper one, to create a better sounding major 9th interval - but that would produce a different sounding chord, maybe not one you want.

  3183. musictheory 2018-11-24 05:45:23 crom-dubh
    The short answer is that you use whatever chord you want to fulfill the purpose you want it to fulfill. That might not be the type of answer you're looking for. It really depends on what type of music you're making. Some musical idioms have "rules" for what to use when, but in the broadest sense, there are no real rules for this. It pays to remember that chords are a simultaneity of voices and what matters is how those voices lead into one another. In other words, in your example question, sus4 can be built from the same root as an otherwise minor or major chord if that 4th is important. If that 4th is a meaningless participant in the voice leading at that point, then it won't serve your progression regardless of the "original" quality of the chord. To put it most succinctly, your chord qualities do not matter as long as they are purposeful and not just arbitrarily using a sus4 or whatever chord just to say you had a sus4 chord in your progression. Be mindful of the overall flow of tension and chord complexity in a progression. You probably shouldn't have a string of ordinary triads punctuated by *one* crazy dissonant chord.

  3184. musictheory 2018-11-24 08:08:18 IdiotTranslator
    Study the Harmonic Minor scale and Phrygian Dominant mode. These can both sound very Arabic depending on the context. Try use an open string as a drone note, like the E string in the bass. Keep playing this open string and let it ring out. While this E is ringing out, start playing the E harmonic minor scale over it on the 5 other strings. * E Harmonic Minor Scale Notes: **E, F#, G, A, B, C, D#** * Scale Formula: **1 2 b3 4 5 b6 7** * Scale Intervals: **W H W W H W+H H** Really play around with the minor 2nd intervals to start hearing the Arabic sound. Use lots of slides between notes. &#x200B; This should help get you started.

  3185. musictheory 2018-11-24 08:34:27 widdlebabymemeboy
    This is all really poor advice, that's just a cheap imitation of a vaguely foreign sound. Like the desert level in a video game. You can play any scale with augmented seconds and get this sound but it's not exactly true to the real thing. Drones aren't particularly common in Arabic music and neither are the specific maqaams that resemble harm min/phrygian dominant. A ney isn't even a string instrument.

  3186. musictheory 2018-11-24 18:45:37 Jongtr
    Nope. The body of knowledge we know as "Music theory" arose from the so-called [common practice period] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_practice_period), where composers began composing in much the same kinds of ways across Europe - gravitating to similar agreed principles. There would be all kinds of "solid reasons" why that process occurred, but music theory itself is not interested in that background. It's only interested in laying out the formulas that were used - many of which survive today. It's like it's saying "this is how it works. We don't know why, it just does." Think of it like a street map of a city. The map is not interested in (won't tell you) how the city was built, or why it was built where it was. It won't tell you anything about architecture or town planning. You might well be interested in those things, but you'd need to look elsewhere to find them out. Meanwhile, all you need to do now - practically speaking - is to be able to find your way around. You need to get used to the main routes, how to get from place to place. You can do that without a map (as most vernacular musicians do), just getting used to exploring your immediate neighbourhood ( = ear training), but a map will certainly come in useful if you want to go to less familiar places, or if you happen to get lost somewhere. The other metaphor (perhaps closer to home) is the grammar of a language. A book of French grammar won't spend too long (if at all) explaining the history of the language, or why it is the way it is. It's just going to tell you *how* it is: the way they spell words and string them together. All you want to do is to be able to speak French, to make sense of it. You could do it all by ear - going to France and listening and copying - but a book is certainly going to help. Luckily with music, the language is quite simple, and already quite familiar. Even with no musical training at all, you know a wrong note when you hear one, because you've been *acculturated* to music, passively, as you've grown up. So it's a lot easier to learn music by listening and copying than it is to learn a foreign language that way. Music is not a *foreign* language. The main difficulty, in fact, is the physical, technical one of learning to play an instrument (and theory won't help you there, except in labelling the notes).

  3187. musictheory 2018-11-24 20:24:48 disaster_face
    B D G D. It's just G in first inversion. Compare it to: e-3 B-0 G-0 D-0 A-2 E-3 That's the standard easy G major chord. it's almost the same as your chord, but both E strings are playing a G and the B string is open..

  3188. musictheory 2018-11-24 22:54:13 Jongtr
    > Yes rock songs are made with dark notes Well, not all rock songs. You can describe low pitches that way, but it's a subjective phenomenon and it's relative. In short, it's not a useful concept for discussing theory. > and most likely minor keys (minor keys sound dark) Yes, that's a more generally agreed subjective association! Still, not all rock music is "dark". Metal has a predilection for minor keys and dark sounds, but that's just one subgenre. In any case, it's not too relevant to your main question. I.e., it's probably true that if you played Enter Sandman an octave higher than they played it, it might sound comical or ridiculous. But also, if you played it an octave lower, maybe it would just sound too muddy? IOW, octaves are chosen by composers according to what sounds right on the instrument or voice. A singer is limited in the range they can cover and so are guitars, basses, etc. A guitar can be tuned down, but eventually you're going to be in the natural register of bass guitar, and then you may as well play the bass (which is properly set up to play in that low register). > if I get into a situation that someone tells me to play a song in the key C major and I mess up by playing 1 or 2 octaves higher or lower just because I didn't knew the octave the person meant. It would be rare that you would thereby "mess up". If the octave is important to the tune, the person asking you would probably tell you. E.g., if you started playing too high or low, they might just say "no, octave up/down" whatever. I.e., it's not a serious mistake at all. As I say, the range of guitar (assuming that's your instrument) is limited anyhow. If you were playing a piece written for violin, you would probably *have* to play an octave lower than it was written (the lowest note on violin is G string on guitar and the highest note is way above the highest note on guitar). If you were playing a piece written for bass guitar, or piano left hand, you'd probably have to play it the octave higher. If you're given notation to play - if you can read notation! - it might be worth knowing that guitar music is written an octave higher than it sounds. Middle C in piano music ("concert middle C") is written on the ledger line below treble clef. In guitar music it's written in the 3rd space up. So if you were given a piece of piano music to play, you might bear that in mind, and play it an octave higher, so it sounds the same as the person who'd written it would expect. But the octave would only really matter if you were playing a part in a harmonised arrangement. The other time when a specific octave might matter is if you were playing a vocal melody for someone to sing. Then again, a singer will know to choose whatever octave they're comfortable in. If you play the tune too high for them, they'll instinctively drop the octave. One thing worth remembering about guitar: it's a mid-range instrument, which is why middle C is in the middle (roughly) of guitar notation. Also, it covers all the human vocal ranges from bottom of bass to top of soprano. (A few male bass voices can get below bottom E (E2), but not many.) Because of that vocal range, most music tends to be written in that mid-range. Obviously bass instruments (and piano left hand) go lower, and plenty of instruments go higher. But the middle range (up to 2 octaves either side of middle C) is where our ears are most sensitive and we are best able to distinguish pitch difference and pitch relationships. The voice - again - is where our emotional associations with pitch come from. Low pitches might be "dark", but that's not necessarily a "low mood" - low sounds can be ominous, but they can also be soothing or re-assuring, even sexy. Likewise, high sounds might be light, airy or happy, but they can also be scary (like a scream).

  3189. musictheory 2018-11-24 23:45:37 agmusic81
    There is solid reasoning and music theory is not "only about what is common" in the sense that the subject is not about cataloging what has been done previously and determining that something is "right" because it was done the most often. In fact theory does not at all tell us what the "right" way to compose is. Music theory is not about dictating how to compose it is about explaining how compositions work. And obviously the techniques that are most commonly used by composers will then be the same which are most commonly explained by theorists. And in many ways the language of music theory was written to describe what was common during a specific period of time. As /u/Jongtr points out below we "acculturate" to music as we grow up. The more music you hear the more you become accustomed to it and the more the qualities of the music that you are hearing become familiar. This familiarity is important to understanding music theory and I agree with what /u/Jongtr says about it, except for the first sentence of his post where he says "nope" to your comment above. For one thing, Music Theory absolutely can be used to describe many techniques of composition that are not common at all, it just may be uglier because the language wasn't written for it (accidentals, long chord names, etc) or may only apply to some aspects of the music (no formal notation to indicate triggering the envelope with a specific ASDR to the high-pass filter on a synth, but theory nonetheless may provide an explanation of the notes being played). But there is also a side of music theory that isn't based on culture or what is common at all. The harmonic series of overtones in a vibrating string is a physical phenomena that occurs in nature. Understanding how the different scales can be derived from the harmonic series is an important thing to learn when studying music theory. And while the scales are human inventions, why they sound good to us is not entirely cultural or just what we are used to hearing. We are drawn to what is familiar, but familiarity is not required to hear resolution in certain harmonies, because that resolution comes from shared frequencies in the overtones of the tones that comprise the intervals and chords.

  3190. musictheory 2018-11-25 10:14:29 65TwinReverbRI
    Of course. Everyone does. Only people who learn that the harmonic series exists *understand* that it's made of different pitches and can then "force themselves" to listen to and pick out various overtones. One can of course notice an overtone that stands out that is out of balance with its natural state in the harmonic series. For example, if the partial at 2(f) is louder than 1/2 the amplitude of (f), then it's going to stand out a bit more. This can be percieved pretty easily even by those who don't necessarily understand the phenomenon. So you might hear 1, or a couple of Harmonics when they are "out of kilter", but you're not going to hear "the harmonic series" as in "the whole harmonic series". And of course, the amplitudes decrease in amplitude. Due to Fletcher-Munson effect, the amount of overtones we're going to be able to perceive is based on overall volume, so all things being equal, a note at 50 db is going to have more audible overtones than a note at 20 db. Also, even in order to "pick out" notes, the notes can't go by but so fast - in a fast string of notes you're just simply not going to have the time to "pick out" and "listen for" individual harmonics. Your brain simply absorbs this information as Timbre, not as a "chord" per se. Remember too that not all types of notes produce all of the harmonics, and not all harmonics in the real world are perfectly harmonic - many are inharmonic (meaning not whole number ratios). And again, how many we can hear is based on amplitude of the fundmental, and the higher the fundamental, the sooner overtones exceed our range of hearing. Also, harmonics change with the way tone is produced. There are experiments showing that the same Flute, when played by two different people, produce different spectra, and when the same player plays different flutes, they are different spectra (more different than expected, given the player attempting to play as identically as humanly possible). Harmonics also change over time in notes - during the attack phase there can be many more than during the sustain and or decay phase, and instruments that decay of course decrease in amplitude, making them change over time as well. And, if people heard them as a "chord" we wouldn't really be defining individual notes as we do, or a C on a Flute as the same thing on a C on a violin. Our brains just don't work that way - similar to how your eyes actually don't see what you think they see - they "stitch together" images to form a whole. Same thing - our brains take the harmonics (and even in many cases inharmonic overtones) and subsume them into a single fundamental, unless something is out of whack. With a Compound waveform with plenty of overtones, that are not textbook math - which is true of a lot of instruments, you can certainly play a note on say, a Piano, hold it, and mentally "scroll through" the overtones if you know what to listen for.

  3191. musictheory 2018-11-25 11:13:32 HideousRabbit
    Regarding (1), just like keyboardists, guitarists use inversions for their particular sound, for better voice-leading, and for ease of playing. However, acoustic 'campfire' guitarists want to have as many strings ringing as possible to maximize volume, and want to use mainly open-string chords. This sometimes forces them to use inversions in a musically arbitrary way. Some rock guitarists play barre chords with a fifth (or third) in the bass in a way that might seem musically arbitrary. But they are often playing music that is intended to be accompanied by a bass instrument, and it is the bass instrument that determines the inversion. The barre chords are thus not being chosen to determine inversion, but to achieve some other effect (or possibly to make strumming easier).

  3192. musictheory 2018-11-26 04:09:30 watteva
    Hey, if that works for you, that's cool. I, and a lot of other professional transcribers use the octave shift method for bass, especially if it's low tuned or 5-string in a dense mix.

  3193. musictheory 2018-11-26 04:24:42 Red_sparow
    First fret on the B string is middle C

  3194. musictheory 2018-11-26 04:26:24 Red_sparow
    Although when you read music for guitar you play it an octave lower. So middle C on sheet music would be 3rd fret A string. Edit: if you're reading music FOR GUITAR. I realize I missed that clarification hence the comments and downvotes. If you're reading piano music on guitar then you'll need to transpose in the same way you would sax or something, which is easy on guitar as it's just an octave. So, guitar sheet music; play centre stave b in treble cleff as open b string. If you're reading sheet music for piano (or a score etc) then play the centre line on the stave in treble cleff as 12th fret b string.

  3195. musictheory 2018-11-26 05:16:00 65TwinReverbRI
    u/2ndrateideas In standard tuning, the guitar's 1 string open E, is the same as the E above Middle C on Piano, or E4 in Scientific Pitch Notation (were C4 = Middle C). The 2nd string 1st fret sounds as middle C. The 3rd string open, G, is the G below middle C (G3). Guitar Music is written an octave higher than it sounds, or, you could say it sounds an octave lower than it's written. So what is written as middle C on the staff is played as 5th string 3rd fret on guitar, but that note will sound an octave lower than middle C. If you take middle C on the piano, and go down an octave, the D string is the D right above that note, and the A the A below that note, and the E is four more notes down, or you could also say it's the E that above the C that's TWO octaves below middle C. E2 - A2 - D3 - G3 - B3 - E4 are the *sounding* pitches of the open strings in standard tuning, again assuming the standard of C4 = Middle C. But, if you want a piano player to play the same notes you are, you have to write them an octave lower than what a guitar player would usually read.

  3196. musictheory 2018-11-26 06:33:59 conchoso
    I have played this song for decades but your question intrigued me so I just went and looked at the tab... At first I assumed it would be a minor third played near a major third, which is quite common in blues-derived music, but actually... He is playing (almost) the exact same riff shifted one string higher (so a perfect forth higher) in unison/harmony on top of the original A-minor pentatonic/A-blues riff ... except for one note. The flat 3rd in the original scale (C-natural) if shifted up a perfect forth like all the other notes would be an F, but he plays an E (twice in the riff, first higher up, and then an octave lower), presumably because the E sounds better mixed into the Aminor chord than F.

  3197. musictheory 2018-11-26 07:50:16 Jongtr
    > So what is written as middle C on the staff is played as 5th string 3rd fret on guitar, but that note will sound an octave lower than middle C. IOW, it's not "middle C" according to any kind of sensible definition. ;-) The C below treble clef in guitar music is not piano (concert) middle C, it's not in the middle of the guitar's range, it's not in the middle of the notation. *Actual* middle C fits all those bills: middle of the guitar's range (roughly), middle of the stave (roughly), same sound as piano middle C. Middle C in piano notation is likewise in the middle, between treble and bass. Guitar is a mid-range instrument, which is why the staff is lowered so it straddles middle C, to cover the central range of the instrument. (I know you know all this.. ;-))

  3198. musictheory 2018-11-26 09:21:57 65TwinReverbRI
    The logic exists in the same places it does for Violin - in the musical style, and the restrictions of the instrument. You can play Quadruple stops, but you can't play every single voicing can you? Guitar is the same way. We can play chords in numbers of different ways, but there are definitely more common ones and more stylistically common ones. Likewise, there are no rules - we do it based on the sound we want to achieve - and again the limitations come in the form of what is physically possible on the instrument, what one's knowledge about making chords on the instrument is, and to some degree, if one feels it appropriate, what is common or not common in the style. I could absolutely voice an E chord with the low E string open, the B string open, and the G# on the 16th fret on the high E string. But it's probably not going to be all that practical, especially for playing music that you want to "sound like" the music others - let's say, The Beatles, have made. Really, the answer is to learn guitar - and learn actual real parts from actual real songs to see what they do. We play a lot of Cowboy Chords (Open Chords), Barre Chords, and other Moveable shapes and Partial chords. But a lot of guitar players - and a lot of pop songs - never use anything beyond Cowboy chords. We can say this about guitar: Voicing in 3rds is difficult except primarily in partial chords, and especially for 7th and higher structures. So "close position" voicings are unidiomatic in general - many are possible, but it is not typically the guitarist's bread and butter. Open voicings, or a mix of open and close voicings are more common and more idiomatic - they fall under the fingers more easily. This is why you'll often see Jazz tutorials about Drop 2 voicings and so on (though that's only one approach). The Open Position chords are voiced like so, low to high: E - B - E - G# - B - E G - B - D - G - B - G or C - B - D - B - D - G A - E - A - C# - E C - E - G - C - E D - A - D - F# It is possible on those 4 and 5 string versions to play additional lower notes, especially if they're open strings (E and A). It's also possible to "skip strings" or otherwise deaden them - for example, it's quite common to play G as G - (B) - D - G -B - G so the low 3rd is not in the chord (can sound muddy in some contexts). Other chords are possible to play, but some are more difficult. The minor, 7, and minor 7 versions of E, A, and D are all well within reach, and in some cases a finger gets freed up to make different voicings. But some chords, such as B7, are really only possible in one way: B - D# - A - B - F# It's not really practical or easy to play any alternate voicings of that chord in that position. Likewise, C7 is generally: C - E - Bb - C - E It would be possible to do Bb - E - G - C - E but it's not really common or again, easy to get to and make sound good (though certainly with practice, could be executed well). Any F, F#, G#, Bb, C#, and Eb chords are really unidiomatic for this position. They all involve fretting all the strings in most cases so are not considered "open" position chords or, if you can make an open string, it puts it in inversion, or is otherwise in a hard place to get to. For example, Bb Major would require (F) - Bb - D - Bb - D - F but the problem is it's really hard to hold the low Bb and have the D string open, then cover the remaining notes which all also have to be fretted. Again, unidiomatic. You can look up some open position chords and hopefully find one with pitches listed too, and see what is common. To see what's possible, in general, we can look at Barre Chords, and Moveable forms. Barre chords essentially replace the open string with a fretted note. E major is this: 0 0 1 2 2 0 This takes 3 fingers for the 3 fretted notes, and then we can just play the other strings open (lowest sounding string on the bottom - so this is E - B - E - G# - B - E ) We can "barre" with our First Finger, which means to cover all 6 strings (there are also partial barres covering some subset of 2-5 strings as well, with 2 and 3 being more common). If we do so, we can "move up" all the notes, so to play an F chord, we could do this: 1 1 2 3 3 1 Notice that they're all just 1 higher than before. This is F. If we want F#, we just move them all up another fret. We can actually play every single major chord this way! With all 6 strings barred like this, it becomes a "moveable" form, we can simply move up and down the neck, So any voicing of a major chord of R-5-R-3-5-R is ok. You just don't want to have to jump from F to Eb as it involves a 10 fret jump. We can also reach the following forms very easily from there: Minor - R-5-R-b3-5-R 7 - R-5-b77-3-5-R m7-R-5-b7-b3-5-R Major 7 is possible, but rarely used because of the m9 interval between the M7 note and the first string Root, but you could just not play the 1st string. We call these an "E Form" because they are based on the E Open position voicing (shape) and we also call them a "6th string form" because the root of the chord is on the 6th string. There are 5th string shapes based on the A open chord, which is A-E-A-C#-E and played like: 0 2 2 2 0 (0) - this note being an E, and optional, but since the root of the chord is on the 5th string, we usually write them this way to emphasize the root and the form to differentiate it from the 6th string version). This is R-5-R-3-5 Other easy forms are Maj7 - R-5-7-3-5 7 - R-5-b7-3-5 m - R-5-R-b3-5 m7 - R-5-b7-b3-5 Again, we can barre these chords up - add 1 fret or more to all the notes, so a Bbm chord would be: 1 2 3 3 1 (1) and still R-5-R-b3-5 The major form, with 3 notes on the same fret, is actually kind of hard for a lot of people and a lot of people "cheat" in some way - either not playing the top string, or using strange fingerings - the latter can still produce the right voicing but some players prefer to play the Major form on the 6th string forms, and the Maj7 on the 5th string forms, because those are the 2 that are easier to get to on those string sets - the rest are equally easy. "Moveable" forms include barre chords, but there are also ones that aren't barres. Some can be moveable or made into barres or quasi barres, but it depends on the players finger reach and so on. But, C7 is the classic moveable form - it's R-3-b7-R on strings 5-2 like so: x (could be played, but ignored for this) 1 3 2 3 x Since all the strings are fretted, all one has to do is move the shape up the neck. You want D7? it's now x 3 5 4 5 x Lots of shapes are like this. But what this means is, Major and Minor triads on the upper 3 strings, and strings 2-3-4 are quite common, as you can make close position triads. If you look at the upper 3 notes of the 6th string E form, it's G#-B-E. the minor form is G-B-E (first 3 strings open). This means you can move that shape up to make ANY major or minor triad in first inversion in close position. The D chord's upper 3 strings (C chord as well) produce major and minor 2nd inversion shapes that can be moved up to play any chord, and the A chord shape produces a root position form that operates the same. The same principle happens on the 2-3-4 string sets, based on the E chord, A chord, and C chord. You can do these shapes - which happen to be subsets of the full barre chord, on strings 1-2-3, 2-3-4, 3-4-5, 1-2-3-4, and 2-3-4-5! As long as the 3rd of the chord is on one of the strings in the subset, the other notes on either side of it (one or two strings distant) will be the root and 5th, so voicings like: C-E-G; E-G-C; G-C-E and C-E-G-C;-E-G-C-E and G-C-E-G are all possible and common (though minor 1st inversion is less common and often more like an Eb6 form rather than Cm/Eb). Because the C and D shapes, and the G and A shapes are closely related, this gives us 5 forms that can really get you a LOT of mileage on guitar. Because of this, many use a system they call C-A-G-E-D which uses various Barre and Moveable shapes based on these open forms (the most common ones, and ones mentioned earlier above). You might want to google a "Chord Encyclopedia" as they usually have plenty - and more you'd probably never use, but the best thing to do is put your hands on the guitar and figure out where the notes are and maybe learn to play a bit! Obviously it will help to learn real parts from real songs, rather than arrangements. So I hope that gets you started. There's obviously a lot more to this, and I didn't really go into 7ths and 9ths, but playing 6 note chords of R-3-5-7-9-11 are not possible and the voicing has to be restructured and usually, certian notes omitted. The common 9th chord form is R-3-b7-9 but other voicings involve some pretzel fingerings sometimes. Luckily like violin, we usually have other instruments filling out harmonies, or carrying a bass note, so we can usually leave out stuff for "higher tension" chords to no ill effect.

  3199. musictheory 2018-11-26 11:03:17 MessianicAge
    I just looked at the video. I'm assuming [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzP7-BNNMUU) is it. There are a total of four chords, one of them is a B major chord, one is a chord with D#, G# and A#, so D#sus4, another is G# minor, another is a chord with E G# and A#, so Eadd#11. One section has the following three of the chords: the B chord, the D#sus4 and the G# minor chord Another section the following three of the chords: the B chord, the D#sus4 and the Eadd#11 The third second has the same chord functions as the first section, but with the chords played a little differently In some areas of the song the synth goes to the G# two beats early. the B major chord is played with the root on the 7th fret (as one can see in the video) of the lowest string, then the 3rd on the 3rd string and the 5th on the 2nd string. so 7 x x 8 7 x The D#sus4 chord has the D# on the 11th fret of the lowest string, the 4th on the 3rd string and the 5th on the 2nd string, so 11 x x 13 11 x The G# minor chord has the G# on the lowest string on the 4th fret, the minor 3rd on the 3rd string on the 4th fret and the 5th on the 2dn string on the 4th fret, so 4 x x 4 4 x The Eadd#11 has the root on the open low E string and the 3rd on the 3rd string and the #11 on the 2nd string, so 0 x x 13 11 x This chord is basically played the same way as the D#sus4 chord. ----------------------------------- so the first section (beginning to 1:06) is as follows: 7 x x 8 7 x 11 x x 13 11 x 4 x x 4 4 x ---------------------------------- The next section (1:06-1:36) is as follows: 7 x x 8 7 x 11 x x 13 11 x 0 x x 13 11 x --------------------------------------- The third section (1:36-2:05) has a hammer-on from the 6th fret to the 8th fret on the B chord x x x 6 7 x x x x 8 7 x then a D# minor seventh chord for the chord based on D# x x x 8 7 9 then a D# minor triad (implying G#m9) over the G# bass note x x x 8 7 6 ------------------------------------- The next section (2:05-2:35) is the same as the first section 7 x x 8 7 x 11 x x 13 11 x 4 x x 4 4 x ----------------------------------------- The next section (2:35-3:04) is the same as the second section 7 x x 8 7 x 11 x x 13 11 x 0 x x 13 11 x --------------------------- The next section (3:04 to end) is the same is the third section x x x 6 7 x x x x 8 7 x x x x 8 7 9 x x x 8 7 6

  3200. musictheory 2018-11-26 11:38:34 Atheia
    Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, Op. 133 (1826), is considered to be one of the most enigmatic and complex works ever written. Its counterpoint and rhythmic drive were utterly inexplicable to contemporaries, and more than a century later, critics dismissed it. The casual listener today upon first listen still tends to find it repulsive. In my opinion, there were few truly "revolutionary" pieces written during the Romantic era, though there were certainly important landmarks, the most often mentioned would be Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique (1830) and Wagner's Tristan und Isolde (1859). Debussy's Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun (1894) revitalized harmony - his later compositions would also blur the line between melody and harmony. The last movement of Schoenberg's String Quartet No. 2, Op. 10 (1908), is atonal. Not quite fully, as there are still some fragments of tonality in there, most prominently being the F-sharp major chord at the end, but it is regarded as one of the first atonal pieces written. His Drei Klavierstücke, Op. 11 (1909), can be considered his first opus without any tonality. Other composers soon followed independently away from tonal harmony as we know it (for example, Scriabin's Feuille d'album, Op. 58 (1910), cannot be analyzed as tonal in the usual sense). Later, Schoenberg would refine the music of free atonality into the twelve-tone method. His innovation was the so-called "emancipation of dissonance," which has reshaped how subsequent composers thought about pitch organization. Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring (1913) is very famous. It features irregular rhythms, meters, bitonality, and perhaps most scandalously, a provocative original choreography by Nijinsky. It has reshaped how subsequent composers thought about rhythm and meter. Stravinsky's primitivism and subsequent neoclassicism was a heavy influence on the sound of American classical music.

  3201. musictheory 2018-11-26 17:00:57 CriticalCook
    Does anyone know a jazz standard that is just a string of 5-1s? Not 2-5-1, but just 5-1 alone EDIT: something like: G7 - Cmaj7 - Bb7 - Ebmaj7 - Db7 - Gbmaj7 - E7 - A maj7 - G7 - Cmaj7 Soo this is going round the circle of fifths in minor thirds

  3202. musictheory 2018-11-26 19:16:05 LicoriceTattoo
    It is just a matter of practice and reinforcement. &#x200B; In a way, you answered your own question - you CAN remember music. You might have to listen to a song 50 or 100 or 1000 times, but your memory of it will become more detailed and sophisticated the more you repeat it. &#x200B; When you spend a lot of time listening to music, your brain becomes better at recalling things you have heard before and you'll be able to remember sounds faster. If you're a composer or otherwise involved in music, you'll listen to music a lot more *actively* because you try to conceptualize what you are hearing so you can use those concepts in your own creations. &#x200B; This makes a huge difference in how you memorize sounds because you're trying to understand the *system* behind the music - i.e. you don't hear some series of notes, you hear an *ascending major scale* or an *arpeggio*. You don't hear a percussionist playing some rhythm, you hear a *waltz* or a *4/4 swing*. You don't hear some string instruments playing together, you hear a cello quartet harmonizing a melody. &#x200B; Hearing things systematically like that helps immensely when putting things back together from memory. You don't really memorize every single note played on every single instrument, but you kind of have the concepts in place to memorize *patterns*. You gain these concepts by practice and repetition, and of course by applying theory.

  3203. musictheory 2018-11-26 22:38:02 Dandalf_the_gay
    I am writing something on guitar in the key of G major, in which I slide an open C major chord to a Dadd4add9. I basically slide the C to a D, the E to an F# and the higher C to a D as well, but I leave the open G and the open E right where they are. Sliding back and forth between these chords makes a beatiful sound. Especially when you play the notes of the Dadd4add9 in descending string order. So that's E, D, G, F#, D.

  3204. musictheory 2018-11-26 22:54:29 wollollo_
    No. (Sorry!) There might be one, but what you're mostly going to find is a string of 2-5s. Roughly speaking, 1 chords don't lead anywhere - in your example, there's nothing about the first Cmaj7 that's draws the ear towards the Bb7. Dominant chords, on the other hand, need to resolve, and can do so in a number of different ways, hence the many different ways to string 2-5s together.

  3205. musictheory 2018-11-27 00:14:31 SharkSymphony
    The number of composers listed where the recommendation is "any of them" kind of brings up a point: demanding the point of revolution _in a single song_ disadvantages plenty of revolutionary figures whose revolutions took place over a longer frame of time and greater number of pieces. Not to mention revolutions involving multiple composers! Take Debussy, for example. Undoubtedly a revolutionary composer, but can you point to any _one_ of his pieces and say that was the revolution? He turned out crazy, groundbreaking stuff almost his whole career, and his most famous works come some way in. Or Schönberg, for example. Surely his departure from tonality and founding of the so-called Second Viennese School has to be considered one of the most revolutionary events in 20th century music, right? But as https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2013/jan/24/schoenberg-anti-revolutionary points out, even that revolution is only clear well after the shift started to take place – at the time of his 2nd string quartet, perhaps it only seemed like one of many evolutionary directions music was taking.

  3206. musictheory 2018-11-27 02:03:11 jenslarsenjazz
    # Content: [0:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=0s) Intro – Arpeggios are Melodies! [0:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=52s) The Minor Blues Example [1:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=102s) Phrase #1 The Essential Triads [2:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=145s) A few thoughs on Triads and Finding Triads for a chord [2:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=170s) Practicing Triads and Inversions [3:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=206s) Phrase #2 Quartal Arpeggios and Altered Dominants [5:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=311s) How To Practice Quartal Arpeggios [5:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=351s) Phrase #3 Shell-Voicings [6:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=403s) Break up the groove with 4-note groupings [7:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=444s) Exercise for Shell-voicings [7:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=462s) Phrase #4 Quintal Arpeggios and Sus4 Triads [8:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=497s) Sus4 Triads[8:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=517s) Quinatal Arpeggios Exercise / Message in a Bottle [9:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=544s) Sus4 Triads on a 2-string set [9:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=580s) The Two “Weird” Sus4 Triads (That Joe Henderson Knew) [10:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=625s) Phrase #5 – Spread Triads [11:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=665s) What are Spread Triads or Open-Voiced Triads [12:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=729s) Technical exercises with Spread Triads [12:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=771s) Phrase #6 – The Major b5 Triad (That you didn’t know you knew) [14:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=877s) Move the b5 triads through the scale (as a 1 3 4 structure) [14:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=895s) Thoughts on moving Interval Structures Through a Scale [16:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bl6uCOLCTA&t=962s) Like the Video? Check out my Patreon Page!

  3207. musictheory 2018-11-27 04:14:32 NoGlzy
    "middle c" is typically used to refer to C4 though right? which is 2nd string 1st fret on a guitar in standard tuning. On a typical acoustic shape where you can get to roughly the 14th fret, that actually is the C nearest to the middle of the guitars range too!

  3208. musictheory 2018-11-27 06:45:02 vfdsugarbowl
    idk, I mean I think Spotify is still pretty transparent. Their ads are about 1.25x louder than the music, and sometimes they're pretty blatantly "SICK OF HEARING THIS VOICE? BUY PREMIUM!" A year or so ago I had a string of them playing ED pill ads. Like, what else is that other than an obvious attempt at getting me to silence ads?! Those ads probably sold more premium accounts than boner pills and I don't trust it. I too am pretty conspiracy oriented when it comes to big corporations. Like, I got an ad on Spotify for a brand of butter about a week after I randomly decided to switch to it. First of all, ok, what is a butter company doing with a Spotify ad. Secondly, how the fuck did they know about that? I didn't google it or post it on facebook, it's just butter. Ugh. It's creepy but I don't even know what to do about that because let's be honest I don't have another option for the same service, and if it is out there, it's probably just as creepy. Speaking of, the ability to switch between exactly what I want to hear and some random playlist is a pretty huge deal. I don't know of another service that does that other than maybe YouTube or YouTube Red, but since the latter is a pay resource I haven't tried it yet. Maybe therein lies my problem, I don't want to pay but complaining about the service getting revenue from me another way makes me fodder for r/ChoosingBeggars

  3209. musictheory 2018-11-27 07:15:18 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, Jazz players have the desire to improvise, so they want to figure out keys so they can know what pitch resource to use for improvisation. It's the same with "chord-scale" theory - the chords aren't in the key, so they need to figure out some way to legitimize or justify some kind of note resource to "work" over various chords, in the absence of any other information. Really, Giant Steps is pretty much Atonal (in the broad sense of "not establishing a tonal center"). It simply is a string of chords and sequences. And those sequences are what holds it together, not any sense of "key". And that's why it presents such a challenge to solo over. There is of course a logic behind the relations of the chords and chordal cycles, and that also helps hold it together, but it essentially avoids a key in doing so. It's not unlike Atonal music like Dodecaphony where, in the absence of traditional key centers, something else was felt to be needed to "tie it together" and for composers like Schoenberg, that was the Tone Row. There were a lot of late Romantic period composers who worked with 3rd cycles and other symmetrical divisions of the octave because, there's a logic there which can be treated sequentially and in "cells". But there is even early music that uses "familiar chords" in "non-tonal" ways. Listen to the opening of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dVPu71D8VI What key is it? Again, it's a string of chords held together by some voice-leading. We have this obsession with "what key is it" when not all music is really key based. Even if you can make a key "fit" that doesn't mean that that is aurally perceptible by listeners. So I'd say, theoretical key changes might be necessary for finding pitch resources, but perceived key changes need time to to be hinted at, established, and even confirmed. Traditionally by the way, a "key change" or "Modulation" had to be confirmed by a cadence. So GS is not really "going through all those key changes" but is merely hinting at or pointing to other keys - but again, at best all we hear is shift shift shift shift shift - oh wait, no, shift, oh wait, no, shift ooh two sounds in a row, shift... That's not "establishing keys" in any traditional sense of the word, even though people have analyzed it as such - for the practical purpose of improvising. Even Trane's solo is essentially chord tones, with 6th and 9ths added in and he's really playing to the chord, not necessarily any "key" (though sometimes 2 or 3 chords can come from a single key, and some with borrowed/altered notes, so all kinds of justifications are possible). But there are a lot of experts out there on GS since it's so well-discussed (and has achieved mythical status, thus also generating a lot of myths) and I'm not one of them so hopefully some of them can chime in with specifics. But me, I just hear it as a string of sequential progressions, with a hint at a key here and there, but maybe I'm just not smart enough to "get it".

  3210. musictheory 2018-11-27 19:30:56 raballar
    The fastest way to get better at reading sheet music is to practice reading sheet music, a lot. Can’t really short circuit that one. If you keep shifting and playing by ear then work on sheet music you aren’t familiar with. You will have to start simple and slow. To add to point 8) above, memorize the 5 root shapes and practice finding all of a given note on the neck (only 1 per string every 12 frets so not that intimidating!) Then you can apply your scale practice using your root knowledge to move the scale all over the neck. Pick a random key to play in every day. I would also implore you to spend less time on pure scales until you have arpeggios under your belt. Learning the arpeggio shapes from every root position will allow you to easily follow chord progressions and sound more with the band when improvising. Once the basic arpeggios are under your belt then start working in the rest of the scales while consciously recognizing the arpeggio shapes inside the scales. I like to think of the arpeggios as the lines in which you draw a picture, the rest of the scale is how you color in between the lines, or intentionally outside of the lines!

  3211. musictheory 2018-11-28 00:24:03 vornska
    Ultimately everything is just string theory amirite? (Fundamentally I agree with you, but here's another way of putting it: everything is just heuristics that we use to make predictions. We call the simplest heuristics math, the next simplest science, then the complicated ones are humanities and we scoff at those.)

  3212. musictheory 2018-11-28 05:18:44 65TwinReverbRI
    V+ is use to move to I, and I+ to IV. The latter is kind of acting like V/IV to IV, but as V+/IV to IV. Traditionally, + triads only resolve to Major triads, because the 3rd of the + chord as well as the raised 5th both continue upwards by half step like so: G - G B - C D# - E So notice if the C chord were Cm, the D# of the G+ would end up going to the Eb of the Cm chord and that doesn't really "work" as a resolution (though it could work in some other contexts one of which I'll hit below). In essence, the + triad "arises from" voice leading, and that is taking the 5th of the V chord, or some secondary V chord, and raising it chromatically, to lead into the 3rd of the next chord. Since I and V are the only two chords that have a dominant that's also a 4th below and in the key, they're the two most common ones. But, you could have D+ in the key of C move to G, so like V+/V moving to V. You could also do it to Eb, Ab, and Bb either in minor or borrowed in major. So you could have a progression like: C - Bb+ - Eb - G7 in C Major. _____ Another way they're often found is through voice-leading as well, but as more of a Chromatic Elaboration of a Static Harmony (CESH) AKA the "line cliché. Cm - Cm/B - Cm/Bb - Cm/A etc. gives you a static Cm chord with a descending chromatic bass line. But very often, the additional C is omitted from each chord, so you get: Cm - B+ - Eb/Bb - Am7b5, etc. This is the "Chim Chim Cheree" progression (which we'll probably start hearing a lot more of with the impending Disney cash grab). Another one is "String of Pearls" by Glenn Miller, which goes: C - Cmaj7 - C7 - C6 - C+ C with a chromatic line that goes C-B-Bb-A-Ab - and it's that Ab (or G#) that produces the C+. Most peopled don't consider it "functional" in that context though as it's really "resultant of chromatic line" and not "independent". Even though the traditional use above is also originally from a chromatic move, + and 7#5 chords are often found as "stand alone" chords as well, especially now - so they've shed a lot of their origins and act on their own. But you can absolutely non-functionally and as "color" chords, when they "sound right" so don't dismiss that outright or anything. This piece is famous for using them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYKl41e_hoU I'm sure you know the + triad is symmetrical, meaning it can resolve in 3 ways, so it can be used for enharmonic modulations, though I can only recall ever seeing one piece that did this (Schubert or Schumann) and that property was never really exploited in classical music, and I'm not sure anyone really has done it in any contemporary music either. HTH

  3213. musictheory 2018-11-28 13:11:53 zemps22
    Wow thanks for the detailed response. I’ve written a few string quartets, done the band scene in Nashville, and sold tracks to licensing companies. Still haven’t felt like I’ve found my “thing” so that was helpful. I’ll check out your site when it’s up!

  3214. musictheory 2018-11-28 15:10:28 HideousRabbit
    When I first started I strung my guitar incorrectly. I wish someone had told me that the thickest string is highest from the ground.

  3215. musictheory 2018-11-28 17:39:53 Jongtr
    My favourite explanation - or at least *illustration* - is to take a stretched string (as in a guitar, piano, violin, etc) and divide it up into simple fractions. 1/2 = octave (fret 12 on guitar) 2/3 = perfect 5th (fret 7) 3/4 = perfect 4th (fret 5) The point about these fractions is not just that the math is simple, but that they produce *consonant sounding intervals*. (They're called "perfect" for both reasons.) As you can see, they divide the octave in an irregular way: 0-5-7-12. All that remains is to divide up the two bigger spaces. What's the easiest way to do that? Take the 5-7 space as a unit, and fit two and half of them into the 0-5 and 7-12 spaces. The various ways we can arrange those two and a half steps gives us most of the modes in common use: |W W H | W | W W H | = ionian mode, or major scale |W W H | W | W H W | = mixolydian mode |W H W | W | W H W | = dorian mode |W H W | W | H W W | = aeolian mode (natural minor) |H W W | W | H W W | = phrygian mode |W H W | W | W W H | = melodic minor The scales missing are: harmonic minor (which has an augmented 2nd step between 6 and 7, i.e., 3 half-steps in one); lydian (which has a raised 4th W W W H W W H), and locrian (which has a lowered 5th, H W W H W W W, and is hardly ever used). NB: There are one or two historical issues with this viewpoint! (1) the ancient Greek system had a few more modes, and they sometimes used quarter tones as well as half-steps; (2) the principle of dividing or multiplying by 2 or 3 (the so-called Pythagorean system) could be extended to produce an entire scale, supporting those modes. E.g., 2/3 x 2/3 = 4/9, which can be halved to 8/9 to give an exact whole step. (The math doesn't stay simple, though... ;-) The Greeks used the basic "tetrachords" - those 0-5 and 7-12 spaces- but apparently abandoned the math when dividing them up, working by ear.) (3) the European medieval system was based on dorian, phrygian, lydian and mixolydian only; (4) harmonic and melodic minor were not (originally) scales in their own right, just adjustments to aeolian (natural minor), once the major-minor key system (based on Ionian) had kicked in. (5) a later tuning system used fractions of a 5th as well, which supported the major 3rd (4/5 string length, fret 4 on guitar) and major 6th (3/5 string length, fret 9 on guitar). Obviously you can research all this stuff in more detail if you want.

  3216. musictheory 2018-11-28 19:00:44 Jongtr
    Sounds contain various different frequencies, known as "partials" or "overtones". These can be "harmonic" or "non-harmonic". The harmonic partials form a "series" of exact multiples of a fundamental pitch. The "1st harmonic" is the fundamental, the "2nd harmonic" is the octave (2x fundamental frequency) and so on, so the number always represents the multiple. This "harmonic series" is sometimes known as the "overtone series", but in that case the octave is known as the "1st overtone". Otherwise the phrases "harmonic series" and "overtone series" mean the exact same thing - the clue being in the word "series". Non-harmonic overtones or partials would not be part of this series. More [here] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone) The difference between string instruments and brass instruments is that the latter base their scales largely on the harmonic series, with the overtones becoming distinct pitches - so overtones are more significant for them. With string instruments, they may use harmonics occasionally, as special effects only.

  3217. musictheory 2018-11-28 23:48:30 PlazaOne
    BbMaj7#11 is actually pretty easy because it could be a shape where you can take advantage of the open E string: * x 1 3 2 3 0

  3218. musictheory 2018-11-28 23:57:28 65TwinReverbRI
    Oh, and "harmonic" is used by players - guitarists, violinists, even flute, to refer to things that aren't necessarily perfect harmonic overtones. We say "play the harmonic at the 12th fret" instead of "partial" or "overtone" (whether it's truly harmonic or not) as that's just become the common term for them in playing instructions. So yes, an overtone is any "tone over" the fundamental. Each of these, including the Fundamental, are called "partials" as in, they're "part" of the whole vibrating body. Harmonics are specifically integer values, and thus assumed to be Harmonic Overtones (or Partials above the Fundamental). Those overtones that are not harmonic are "inharmonic" or "non harmonic". But, musicians, who don't usually need to know about all that ;-) just call the thing we make when playing a "harmonic" is a general term, whether it's actually harmonic or not. We have what are called "natural" harmonics, which are played on open strings, and "artificial" harmonics, which are played on fretted strings (I'm not sure string players use that distinction, but they have words like "touch 3rd" and "touch 4th" for various artificial harmonics). Guitarists also have "pinch" harmonics which are produced by the fleshy part of the thumb of the picking hand, as well as "RH Harmonics" and "Tapped Harmonics". What any player is doing is "forcing" the vibrating length to divide into smaller portions. I've heard arguments that these are not even really overtones because of the method of production, but I'm not up enough on that to comment further.

  3219. musictheory 2018-11-29 03:32:40 JMB_Music
    Thanks. I use that voicing for Maj7 chords often. Cool that the #11 uses an open string in this case...which would be hard to fret farther up the neck. The F#m in this case is really just a passing chord...I almost didn’t wrote it on because it’s really just part of a triplet riff that gets us from D to Bm.

  3220. musictheory 2018-11-29 07:41:51 jayteejay
    You could use it as the third of V7/ii (in this case it would be A7 going to Dm, or you could make a string of secondary dominants going A7, to D7, to G7, then finally back to Cmaj (Cmaj 7 if you wanna be REALLY colourful)). It could also be a vii°/ii, replacing A7 with C#-dim7 going to Dm (or D7) in my first example. That, or you could use a C# major chord in that spot which creates what can be called a "neapolitan" chord, a bII. This is nifty because it sounds super cool if you follow that C# major chord with a G7 in the third inversion (F in the lowest voice) which then leads to C major. There is also the tritone substitution option, using it as D-flat7 going directly to C. You have almost limitless options as to harmonize a note, both functionally and non-functionally.

  3221. musictheory 2018-11-29 08:40:23 65TwinReverbRI
    Forget Ionian. B Major. With the given info, yes, that's correct. As logan said, more context is really needed though. this could be E Lydian. But it's also only the chorus. Key of SONG is not really determined by just one section. The rest of the song could in fact begin and/or end on I and it just doesn't in this section. We don't know because you didn't tell us! But, songs don't have to begin or end on I, they just need to emphasize it in some way - and the melody and bass line could be a big part of that, which we also don't have. IOW, Key, or Mode, is more than just a string of chords. But in pop/rock you should kind of start with the assumption that something is Major or Minor, and once you've ruled those out you can move to other things. If there's nothing to really rule it out, then Major or minor is pretty typical and so common that it's often your best choice.

  3222. musictheory 2018-11-30 02:23:21 eyeshake
    I took a seminar at New England Conservatory about perfect pitch training a few years ago. According to the instructor, it's something people can acquire with a massive and constant amount of training. He worked with a grand piano and stuck to the C major scale. The method was to associate the sound of the air movement with the pitch - sounds odd, and it was. From what I remember, C had a heavy sound and you could hear the air dropping. A had a spiral sound, and E had a flat sound with a sudden rise at the end. I can't remember the rest, but by the end of the seminar I was able to identify C, G, D and E in any octave on a grand piano. No luck with the rest, though. I'm still pretty good with recognizing those pitches on most keyboard or string instruments, not including bass, as a major tonic only. Other than being a party trick, I don't make use of it at all and don't see how it could benefit composition, improvisation or transcribing because I'm ultimately relating pitches to each other rather than thinking in absolutes.

  3223. musictheory 2018-11-30 11:53:52 65TwinReverbRI
    Ok, there are two "families" of meter: Simple and Compound. Simple meters are, well, simple - the upper number tells you the number of beats in a measure, and the lower number tells you what kind of note gets one beat. So 2/4 is 2 beats per measure, and a quarter note gets one beat. Thus there are are "two quarter notes" per measure, just like the fraction implies. Simple and Compound meters are also both grouped by the number of beats they have per measure - 2, 3, 4, etc. 2 beats per measure is called Duple Meter - so 2/4 is Duple Simple Meter (or Simple Duple, doesn't matter). 3 beats per measure is Triple meter, and so on. What makes 2/4 different from 3/4 is where the "accent" or "emphasis" falls. If we have a string of quarter notes like: note note note note note note note note note We can't tell what the meter is. But if it goes NOTE note NOTE note NOTE note NOTE not then the accented NOTEs appear in groups of 2, so it's Duple Meter. ____ Compound Meter is a bit trickier. In Simple meters, each beat can be divided into TWO equal parts. So we count 2/4 like: ONE two ONE two ONE two when we are counting the beat, or quarter notes. But, since it's a Simple Meter, each beat is divided into two parts, which we count: ONE and Two and ONE and Two and etc. We call this division "division" actually - the division of the beat, or just division. If the meter is 2/4, then quarter notes get 1 beat (and there are 2 of them in a measure) and each of those quarter notes (or each beat) is divided into 2 8th note counts. In **Compound Meter** each beat is divided into **three** equal parts. So what this means is, if 8th notes are the division, then a beat is worth 3 of those, which makes a dotted quarter note. The problem is, we don't have a "fraction" for "two beats per measure with a dotted quarter note as the beat" - it would be like 2/4.5 or something weird. So what they did was find a mathematical equivalent using the *division* rather than the beat for the fraction. So 6/8 actually means there are TWO beats per measure, and a dotted quarter note gets a beat. So 6/8 and 2/4 are actually both two beats per measure, but in 6/8 you could count the divisions like so: ONE la le Two la le ONE la le Two la le (we usually use "la" and "le" instead of "and" because we want a different term for the Compound Meters. You actually couldn't tell the difference between Duple Simple (2/4) and Duple Compound (6/8) if you were only counting the BEAT - because they're both just ONE two ONE two. What's important is the **division** as that's the thing that tells you if it's simple or compound and we do usually count at the division level typically. 2/4 = ONE and Two and ONE and Two and 6/8 = ONE la le Two la le ONE la le Two la le If you could line up ONE and Two right on top of each other in what I just wrote, you couls see that the same space between beats only is two parts (number and "and") where it's like "in thirds" in the 6/8 (number and "la" and "le"). Basically in terms of number of beats per measure: 2/4 = 6/8 3/4 = 9/8 4/4 = 12/8 But the LH column is Simple, and the RH column Compound. If you know what "Triplets" are, 6/8 is like 2 beats of triplets, 9/8 like 3 beats of triplets, etc. So this brings up another common issue - that is that both 3/4 and 6/8 contain 6 8th notes. But 3/4 is classed as simple, thus the numbers represent what they are - 3 beats per measure, quarter gets a beat. So it's THREE beats like: ONE and Two and Three and while 6/8 as we've seen is only TWO beats, but Compound division, like: ONE la le Two la le So even though they have the same number of divisions per measure, it's how those divisions are grouped together (which also happens by musical accent or emphasis) that determine how many beats it sounds like - Three groups of 2 divisions (3/4) or by contrast, two groups of 3 divisions (6/8). There are many "Rhythm Trainer" type apps available for mobile devices you can use any time you get a short break in your day so you should maybe download some and try them out and find one that seems intuitive to you. A Metronome or Metronome app (especially one that does divisions) could be a good thing to have as well. There are also simple You Tube videos that explain all this. Here's a really good one to get started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmxbVeuyIVc There are some exceptions to this, and there are other things like Asymmetrical Meters, Irrational Meters and so on, but by and large, Duple, Triple, and Quadruple meters of both the Simple and Compound types are the most common. But a good simple thing to say is, if the upper number is 6, 9, or 12, it's usually compound. HTH

  3224. musictheory 2018-11-30 14:58:59 jimjambanx
    How long is a piece of string?

  3225. musictheory 2018-11-30 19:35:21 PlazaOne
    Wilko sell it as a [40 metre ball](https://www.wilko.com/en-uk/wilko-string-ball-40m/p/0299456), although the website didn't seem to identify whether it is pure organic string or some kind of plastic hybrid.

  3226. musictheory 2018-11-30 23:15:32 ZackSerah1
    This all Depends: I was in the best Aural class for my year at conservatoire 100% off the back of my perfect pitch. In detailed analysis or an exam a teacher would request a ‘missing harmony’ in a sequence and I could always identify the key but had no clue as to the function of that chord in the progression X-D - they always just assumed that meant that I knew the function of the progression. For our final exam they gave us a dictation which sounded like it was on period/gut instruments in 4 parts (so we basically had to transpose everything we heard up a semitone to show the written pitch). A sounded like G# to me - absolute kryptonite and I utterly failed. Transposing into other keys by ear is incredibly easy/I’ll often transpose pieces by ear on the spot if I know them. Along with dictation being easy I can also play things back within about 1 second - if you started playing a piece and I started a second after you and had to learn it from you as you played it that would be fine - I often imitate improvised ornamentation (or unintentional mistakes) from colleagues this way. If I have to tune to 432 myself then it’s difficult to read one pitch (the A I’m used to which is 440) and hear another at first but I get used to it - it always feels a bit weird though. If I have to detune one string and leave the rest as they are (e.g. Mozart’s sinfonia concertante) it’s almost impossible for me.

  3227. musictheory 2018-12-01 00:48:17 vornska
    > If I have to detune one string and leave the rest as they are (e.g. Mozart’s sinfonia concertante) it’s almost impossible for me. I don't have perfect pitch, but I too *hate* scordatura. It's the worst.

  3228. musictheory 2018-12-01 04:08:10 AlveolarThrill
    >Practicing my instrument is hell. I often find myself giving up out of sheer frustration because I can tell every little tuning mistake I make, especially during easy sections. If I have a reference tone (like a tuned low E string on guitar), I sometimes do too. With only good relative pitch. My guitar also isn't perfect, all frets are about 3 cents too sharp. When I played cello, I used to repeat every section about 7 times because I played an interval of 410 cents instead of 400. And while I still hear this kind of thing, I don't care anymore. It annoys me when I focus on it, but I learned not to focus on it. >^^And ^^if ^^anyone ^^asks ^^me ^^to ^^switch ^^my ^^brain ^^off/ ^^just ^^feel ^^it/ ^^stop ^^worrying/ ^^roll ^^with ^^it: ^^fuck ^^you. That's the only thing you can do, though, if it bothers you so much. It's not impossible. Go to a mindfulness class.

  3229. musictheory 2018-12-01 05:01:23 65TwinReverbRI
    In my personal experience - which is gigging with cover bands constantly for the last I don't know, 30 years or so, it depends on the style of the band and the type of song and so on. For guitar-based rock music, that uses certain keys as a part of the sound, transposing them does not seem to work well generally. You can't take a song that has those giant open E chords and transpose it to Eb. It just won't work. You could tune the guitar down to Eb and that would work, or if it needed to be in F, you could use a capo, but you can only extend either direction so far even with keeping that same basic open chord shape for "that" sound before it looses it's power (or gets too muddy, etc.). However, songs that don't use a lot of open position voicings can generally tend to be OK - especially those that already use a capo - it's not that big a deal to take a song you play with a Capo on the 5th fret and move it to the 4th or 6th fret, or even 3rd or 7th, etc. But for most "non-guitar" type rock music, changing key a few steps in either direction is not so bad. Now, when it gets too far, **I** notice it, but I'm not sure that the general listening public knows or if they do, cares. On keys, or with larger combinations of instruments, it really doesn't matter so much. Likewise, with songs that have already been covered in many different versions and in many different keys, it doesn't matter so much. I've played Mustang Sally a billion times, and usually it's C, B, or Bb, but playing it in G, or D or Eb doesn't really do too much damage to it, because it's rare that any time I play this in a group we play any one particular artist's version, and it's really a mish mash of a bunch of versions. I did "Rock and Roll" by Led Zeppelin, in C, rather than the original E, but also did it like a totally different kind of Boogie Woogie Jump Blues kind of thing. That's way easier to get away with than taking something like "Mississippi Queen" by Mountain, and playing that "up" in C and trying to cop the original - it has to have that big fat open E sound or it won't work (and it didn't in that band). But we've played "I Will Survive" by Gloria Gaynor pretty much note for note except in Gm instead of Am because of the female vocalist's range and no one is the wiser, and it doesn't bother me as player once I do it once or twice (the bigger issue becomes remember which group does it in which key and not getting mixed up on stage!). If it's your own arrangement, then put it in any key that makes you sing better - because ultimately, that's what the audience is going to remember. If you can't sing a song in the original key, and it's primarily guitar based, and it has a lot of open string voicings, if you can, tune down or use a capo to capture those same voicings, but if not, don't try a note for note cover and make your own arrangement instead. (note for note as I'm using it doesn't mean "exactly", but closer to the original than an arrangement).

  3230. musictheory 2018-12-01 07:20:57 wollollo_
    I suspect you could find a pattern for rate by listening to good singers or violinists, in both cases there's a physical sweet spot, and then it probably depends on the tempo of the piece. Depth is more of a stylistic choice. Typically this is linked to the mod wheel on a synthesizer, because it's the parameter that you want to change as you play. I really don't think there's a generic best setting for this. I think another good thing to consider is attack: Usually you want to start the vibrato just as the note is ending its attack, string players pretty much always do this. If you can link vibrato depth to the amplitude envelope, you'll get a decent curve.

  3231. musictheory 2018-12-02 00:43:58 otherben
    It looks like he's talking guitar riff, meaning the riff starts on the 7th fret of the B string (7 semi-tones up from B), not the 7th scale degree.

  3232. musictheory 2018-12-02 01:15:43 65TwinReverbRI
    No on can tell you, "oh, soaring, well that's "A Friggin Mode" ". It doesn't work like that. However, there are things that have been done so much in TV/Movies/Games that people do **associate** certain things - musical clichés - with certain kinds of scenes. The only thing you can really do is start paying attention to what you consider "heroic melody" in music by other people, and start copying the ideas. That's how people do it. There's no "inherent" image/mood in a set of notes. It's more about how you present them. And one way of presenting them is with Text, Images, or Motion Picture. If you had a Poem that was intended to be read along with the piece, people would get that imagery. That's like Vivaldi's "Four Seasons". It might also help if you title it "Falcon's Journey" subtitle "life in 3 scenes" and "Scene 1: A Little Girl Finds the Egg, and the Falcon Hatches", Scene 2: The Falcon Learns to Fly and so on. You do that, and like someone else said, you could probably write it all in C Major and people would still be like "Oh, I can see it now..." You say you have a plain idea of how it should sound - which probably means you're thinking about things you've probably heard before that remind you of these things and you want to create them. And this is a big problem for artists - you MUST have the TOOLS and CRAFT to be able to realize in whatever medium (sound, color, sculpture, etc.) what you "see" (or hear) in your head. I went through this myself when I was young - I'd "hear" these great ideas in my head, and I also drew so I'd see these great space ships I wanted to draw - but when I tried to make music or draw a picture, it never lived up to what I imagined - not by a long shot. Because I lacked the skills necessary to make these things come to life. You really didn't talk much about music at all - sounds like you're imaginative, but we have no clue as to how much music you know or don't know, but the answer to your question is, check out how other people do it and learn from them. But there's no "right or wrong" - no one can just say "use this" - aside from things we already have heavy associations with - musical clichés. They can help, but then, your music is a string of clichés rather than anything more creative.

  3233. musictheory 2018-12-02 02:10:51 Suli406
    I wasn't talking about the beginning phrase. Later on in the song, the lead starts playing and the first riff starts on F# on the B string

  3234. musictheory 2018-12-02 06:06:54 SomeEntrance
    I don't know what that stuff is you're playing, but you're referring to a string tremolo, back and forth on one note, used all the time in symphonies, like measure 19 in Mozart A major symphony 29 https://youtu.be/UPfotKeEZKQ?t=28

  3235. musictheory 2018-12-02 09:05:19 waveduality
    Thanks! That's an excellent description of the style. I think the fact it's in three or four part harmony makes it distinctly different from the string tremolo example given by another poster.

  3236. musictheory 2018-12-02 15:34:45 SomeEntrance
    Beautiful, from the Mother Goose Suite. Transcribing Ravel often sounds great. He did sos much of that himself, like this piece, or Le TOmbeau de Couperin, transcribed for orchestra. THere's the famous use of string bass harmonics in the minuet. A good Ravel piece to get ideas about guitar figurations, might be his Introduction and Allegro. The wonderful harp part is also idiomatic to the guitar. Or this guitar duo version of Le Tombeau..,.https://youtu.be/KB5HG2Qdmck

  3237. musictheory 2018-12-02 18:44:02 thedrunkenapple
    Wow! I find this all facisnating. Thank you thewoodsterix for posting my question here. The chord is being played on a guitar with the bass note being an open E - C# - E - F# - A# - B (highest note on an open string). My biggest issue for asking was to find some way to add a name it for the chord chart for the song I wrote so to share it with my band mates so they can play along. I think an F#7/E may be the easiest to read, though the second guitar may just play an F#7 in a higher register with a capo. Thank you for your help and advice!

  3238. musictheory 2018-12-03 03:03:19 raevDJ
    I appreciate it! All I have left to finish at this point is adding articulations and dynamics and whatnot to the score. Otherwise the first movement is already pretty much done. My main concern is finding a string quartet to perform it haha.

  3239. musictheory 2018-12-04 00:43:35 65TwinReverbRI
    If it can be danced to. Seriously, that's about it. There are infinite kinds of "dancing" so it's not really fair to pin it down to what people do in a EDM club or whatever. I played a gig once for some Ballroom Dancers. It was kind of funny because we didn't feel like our material was the best for "older folks" who danced more "choreographed" type dances like "Fox Trot" would have been decades ago. But we were booked for the gig and assured by the agent our material would be fine (which was a lot of up tempo dance songs - disco, etc.) We play "Crazy Train" by Ozzy Osbourne because we were running low on dance material (and we usually played this in our party sets anyway) and I watched a couple just stand there by the edge of the stage, listen to the tempo for a second, and then it appeared they decided it was the perfect tempo for the dance they wanted to do, and got on the floor and burned it up. Most people wouldn't think of Crazy Train as a "dance" song or even "danceable" but - to them, they didn't care what song it was - as long as the tempo/beat was right, they danced to it. Now, for the way most people dance though, I would say that there is a "range for slow dance songs" and a range for "uptempo songs" and they can be too fast, or too slow. There's also sort of this grey area where it's too slow to fast dance to, and to fast to slow dance to - I call these "mid-tempo blah songs". But realistically, if you can sway to the beat, and we call that dancing, someone can get on the dance floor and go. And of course, some people dance with no care about the beat or tempo at all.... Now, we also typically don't dance to a Symphony, or a String Quartet. You could, but we usually don't. But as long as the piece or section has a consistent tempo that's not to fast or slow, it could be danced to. I've always wanted to go out on the floor and Head Bang to Beethoven 7 then slow dance to the 2nd movement. But a lot of classical music falls into that too fast or too slow range, or changes tempo a lot, has dramatic pauses, and so on - but if you think about it, Ballet is "dance" and classical music is danced to in that way. A lot of people consider Jazz "listening" music, but certainly people danced to Big Band Swing and there's Tap Dancing and the like. Maybe the question should be, what makes it "undanceable", and that would typically be inconsistent tempos. I've seen people dance to songs in 5/4 without really understanding what 5/4 is just because they hear a steady beat. But trying to dance to the intro to "YYZ" by Rush would mean you'd have to know the song. "Subdivisions" would be interesting because of all the meter changes, but really, there's a consistent pulse someone could follow throughout. Interestingly, something like "The Rite of Spring" by Stravinsky is not something most people would put on and dance to, but it was danced to - it's a ballet. But not something you'd do the Watusi to (well, someone might try...)

  3240. musictheory 2018-12-04 02:11:18 TaigaBridge
    For what instruments are you writing? Is one person playing all the voices? (On a piano or a guitar or something else?) or are several people reading off of the same part? If you are aiming your writing at a particular very narrow audience, you can probably convey a very specific message with your notation. If not, be aware that different musicians are going to interpret things in different ways. A pianist needs to fit notes into the space under his hand. A string player needs to play one note per string. On the violin it's far easier to play sixths than thirds. An accordion player using a chord button isn't choosing his voicing, he's accepting whatever is built in to the mechanism. If you care about the exact voicing you want, in SOME fashion you're going to have to communicate that. If you choose to use the staff, you have a good chance your players will play the notes that appear on it. If you choose something else... you may succeed in getting your message across or you may not. (To take one simple example -- in your post you wrote "C9 says play 1 3 5 7 9" but I might say it means "play 1 3 7 and 9, and maybe also 5 if it's convenient and you have five voices available.")

  3241. musictheory 2018-12-04 18:38:01 Jongtr
    What it is is almost the chord sequence for Hotel California! The only difference is HC has an Am between the G/B and final B7. HC is in the key of Bm, but the guitar intro is played with a capo on 7, so uses the exact same shapes as yours. (One small difference is the A/C#, where the 12-string intro plays Em/C# - x-4-2-0-0-0 - but it's an A major chord in the main sequence.) "Why it works" is mainly that descending bass line (nice voice-leading). You can (if you want) interpret all the chords as belong to E minor (various minor modes), but that's not an "explanation", only a description/analysis: E aeolian: Em, D, C, G (and Am if used) E harmonic minor: B, B7 (and Em, C, Am) E dorian: A (and Em, D, G) This kind of "mode mixture" is very common. Other aspects worth remarking on (again based on HC): Em - D - C - B7 = [Andalusian cadence] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andalusian_cadence). This sequence just interposes passing chords between each pair, to provide that chromatic descent. Em-B, D-A, C-G = I-V pairs descending by whole step (ie the pattern you consciously applied).

  3242. musictheory 2018-12-05 01:53:38 crom-dubh
    It's *really* hard to know what the solution to this would be without knowing what the problem is. Usually rendering something incorrectly isn't specifically because of poor performance - if anything the rendering process will just take a long fucking time. So that makes me think something else is going on here, and I'm not really sure what that would be. Do you know where his samples (strings, etc) are actually located, i.e. is it a drive on his computer or something external? Is he able to export individual tracks successfully but when he tries to do an entire arrangement it fails, or would even bouncing a single string track be a problem?

  3243. musictheory 2018-12-05 02:43:56 einsnail
    Hi there! I think several people here will be able to lend you some advice on this but a better place to start would be the music production subreddits. If you'd rather venture out on the web SOS magazine has some great tutorials as well as each DAWs (Yours is FL Studio) website. My thinking is that he might need a better audio interface. This is the box that plugs into your computer and handles the sound processing of your DAW. He may also need a better processor or RAM if he is using an instrument with a lot of samples such as string libraries. Oftentimes if you have something like a string library loaded up it will tax both your computer's RAM and DAC unit for keeping those sounds loaded and playing them back. If he doesn't have an audio interface already that would be your easiest and best upgrade choice. I'd recommend either an audioboxUSB or a Scarlett 2i. Best of luck!

  3244. musictheory 2018-12-05 07:10:13 [deleted]
    I think there is a way to picture it on the piano but it's less natural than using a fretted (or fretless) instrument. You can picture the two notes on the keyboard and if they are both white notes count the black notes in between them (i.e. C to E has two black notes in between and therefore is a major 4rd, but D to F only has one black note and therefore is minor) but this kind of falls apart when either or both of the two notes are black. Since the fretboard is chromatic, there isn't this issue with picturing it on the guitar: G to B looks exactly like C# to F for example: down one fret on the higher string. Even if you only want to excel at piano, it's good to know at least the basics of different instruments, and learning the notes on the guitar's fretboard would really help you with the intervals. You don't have to learn them all, just the bottom 3 strings to cover one octave with frets lower than 5.

  3245. musictheory 2018-12-05 20:28:37 [deleted]
    I don't know why I'm even attempting to help clarify my point and share the perspective I have with you, given the tone of your response. Your analogy of a guitar as 6 pianos stacked on top of each other is completely illogical. A guitar is just 6 strings, there are no white or black notes like a piano has, which is my whole point. On the piano, the physical spacing between the half steps varies, with the notes from the key of C major being equally spaced as white notes, and the remaining 5 notes squeezed in between them as black notes. As a result, the physical spacing between intervals is not constant as you move up and down the keyboard. For example, playing major 3rds starting on C: C-E is 2 white notes apart, but to play D-F# your fingers span the distance of 2-1/2 white notes. On the lowest 4 strings of a guitar (or on a bass), a major third looks and feels the same to the player regardless of what note you start on - it's up one string and down one fret. I don't know how to explain that any more clearly, but if you just want to refuse to accept it and hold on to whatever misconceptions you have about the instrument, believing that the way you were taught is the only way, or pretending that I'm saying something that I'm not (that the guitar is in general a better instrument to learn theory on), then I'm not going to go out of my way to stop you. If you refuse to see different perspectives, that's your problem.

  3246. musictheory 2018-12-05 23:31:30 LyricsJR
    If you’re looking to learn your Fret board why not try some very simple sight reading examples. Start with the low E string and work your way up first position. Sightreadingfactory is a good place to start and a good investment for someone working on their own.

  3247. musictheory 2018-12-06 04:05:02 beaumega1
    Some people subscribe to the idea that the tonal center has an effect on how music is perceived. Personally, I feel like that's maybe 10% true. There are some variables that you might take into consideration, regarding the range of your vocalists/instrumentalists. If your melodies approach either the high or low end of your musicians' ranges, this might draw out different colors of your ensemble. For example, a vocalist singing mostly in their upper range might cause them to belt (or otherwise sing more loudly with more tension in their tone). Also, if you are using any wind instruments, you might want to lean toward a key with flats, as most wind instruments have flat fundamental pitches (e.g. Eb alto sax, Bb trumpet, Horn in F, etc.) and if writing for strings, they do better with sharp key sigs, as those more likely coincide with open strings (G D A or E), allowing string players to play more open strings that better resonate on their instruments.

  3248. musictheory 2018-12-06 07:12:32 gravescd
    Yes. For stringed instruments in particular there is a **big** between the timbre of an open string vs a stopped string.

  3249. musictheory 2018-12-06 11:55:17 65TwinReverbRI
    1. There's no such thing as a "4" chord. What you have as "G4" would imply a C5 chord. So the chord progression is actually: G5 - C5 - E5 - A5 - D5 - G5 The second one is D5 - G5 - C5 - F5 It's impossible to tell what key it is without more information. The first bit is probably going to sound like the key of G by itself. The 2nd one could still be G with just one borrowed chord, or mixolydian chord. But a melody or bass line could change all that. It could also be a string of keys - G, then E, then D, then C for example it's a sequential progression so it could be sequentially going through keys - we wouldn't hear it that way unless there was some other melody or bass line implying it, but it's possible depending on what else is going on. Question the 2nd: How mordents and trills have been played has changed over time. Today, Trills are generally multiple alternations over enough time to have more than just one alternation, and they start on the note above the main note historically. Mordents are just one up down alternation. If you had a C with a mordent written over it, it would go C-D-C. A C note with a trill would go D C D C D C D C D C D C D C Nowadays, a lot of people start trills on the principle note rather than the upper auxiliary, which means a trill of only one alternation ("short trill") is the same as the historical mordent.

  3250. musictheory 2018-12-06 13:28:13 MusicTheoryWithGuim
    I'm curious to know your thoughts on labelling an Augmented 6th that moves downward and doesn't resolve like in Bach's BWV 999 in C Minor. It voices an Eb(#6) proceeding to D7(b9) (this is done relative to G minor). Of course, in this piece the harmony is stated horizontally which lessens the grip of voice leading tendencies, but nevertheless, I've seen Augmented 6ths avoid their tendency to resolve up on numerous occasions. Personally, I still voice them as Augmented 6ths. I see it as being similar to a leading tone not resolving in a string of Secondary Dominant chords. What about you?

  3251. musictheory 2018-12-06 19:29:20 Bxttle
    I think I know what you’re talking about. I’d try polychords. I’ve created a similar sound I think and I did it by writing polychords that spanned a large range but where the interval between the two chords was small. Also schnittke concerto grosso no. 1 has a similar sound with some pretty big string chords.

  3252. musictheory 2018-12-07 13:47:29 sxwrthegamer
    It will also depend on the musician. Flats are more common because many woodwind instruments are Bb or Eb. There for a lot of band and concert music. String players and guitar players will usually tend to sharps. But in reality it depends on context.

  3253. musictheory 2018-12-07 14:04:00 TaigaBridge
    String players are happiest playing in one or two sharps --- but that means we can slide our hands back a half-step and play in five or six flats very easily. We just pretend we're in G or D instead of Gb or Db. I personally find 4 and 5 sharps to be the hardest of all keys on the violin. (Yeah, that means I didn't practice those scales enough when I was a baby.)

  3254. musictheory 2018-12-07 21:54:29 Apostastrophe
    Came here to mention this. Good catch. &#x200B; What I was told all those years ago in concert bands and orchestras was "Brass and Woodwind, in combination with the many transposing instruments, create their notes by pressing keys or valves to make the air have to travel LONGER to make the note, i.e. lowering the note, or flattening it, and thus flat keys tend to be easy to manage" On flute though, it generally doesn't matter. &#x200B; "String instruments have 4 strings of a discrete pitch, and they create notes by placing their fingers on the board and sharpen it, so sharps come naturally. You can't flat an open string without having to move to a different string, so flat keys are slightly more awkward for them." As a double bass first study, that was quite true. &#x200B; Obviously when you're practiced it is all one and the same, but for beginners I thought it was a nice rule of thumb and way that the players tended to settle with keys in their heads.

  3255. musictheory 2018-12-08 01:33:37 Beatlejwol
    Yes, a double stop is literally stopping two strings at the same time. I think it can apply to any string instrument though.

  3256. musictheory 2018-12-08 03:14:28 davethecomposer
    In all my years studying classical guitar in college I never heard the term used for guitar. You do hear about double, triple and quadruple stops with string instruments like violin, viola, cello, etc.

  3257. musictheory 2018-12-08 05:06:41 davethecomposer
    That's really bizarre. Even though I played classical guitar it's not like I didn't play around with other styles and almost all of my friends played steel string and/or electric and I don't ever recall hearing any of them mention double stops. Oh well.

  3258. musictheory 2018-12-08 06:05:03 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, you probably need to go back and start with Black Sabbath. A lot of modern metal, or "nu metal" or the whole "ever lower" metal (muted/thumpy/percussive low notes on 7 string guitars that are tuned down even further...) can be very hard to hear specific pitches. IOW, find "clear sounding" distorted guitar :-) I know it sounds like an oxymoron but modern production and tone can make things a bit more muddy than older stuff. FWIW, you should learn to play this kind of music too. Learning to play it and knowing what makes what sounds first hand makes it easier to transcribe it as well.

  3259. musictheory 2018-12-08 06:14:10 [deleted]
    > If you try to count frets for intervals on guitar, it really isn’t different than on piano. You are just counting frets and strings instead of keys. I think this sums up where you are missing my point. It's not about counting frets on a single string, but about the shapes formed betwern the strings. There is no counting involved.

  3260. musictheory 2018-12-08 11:38:11 Canadian_Neckbeard
    There's a difference between being "musically illiterate" as you said in your post, and having a decent understanding of music theory but just not being able to read sheet music. And making the claim of being musically illiterate (which implies you don't have any intellectual understanding of different scales, modes, chord progressions or key signatures) but are composing classical and jazz seems....off. It sounds more like you've figured out how to sound out some stuff on your own, and learned a few chords but literally don't know what notes you're playing when you play an instrument, and when you string some of them together you're calling that "composing" So it's not so much that you triggered me, it's that you set off my bullshit detector, and then tried to act like you're some sort of prodigy who looks down on people for taking the time to learn the language of music along with physically learning an instrument. I guess what I'm saying is, you don't have to lie to kick it. If you want to be able to identify the notes your're playing, learn the layout of the keyboard and fretboard. Pretending that having more knowledge is somehow "limited" is a poor mask for laziness.

  3261. musictheory 2018-12-08 12:47:42 GlennMagusHarvey
    "Dyad" is probably the technical term, but "interval" is a more common one. Also "double-stop" for bowed-string instruments.

  3262. musictheory 2018-12-08 20:46:07 RJrules64
    I agree with the others here but there are a few things people haven't mentioned A) Contrary motion (voice widening) Kind of off the back of what u/turd_fergusons was saying about it starting all in F minor with an F pedal - The voices are also relatively tight (for orchestral music). When we get to 1:45 the range (distance between the lowest note to the highest note) is significantly widened by many octaves. This gives a bigger feeling to the music, as though a pin prick of light on a black canvas has started to explode out towards the edges. This trend of range widening continues through the next few chords as the violins continue ascending and the bass instruments descend lower and lower. &#x200B; B) Instrumentation. A lot of instrumentation is introduced, and slowly increased in volume over the next few chords. Percussion (timpani rolls), Brass, and Choir. This has a similar effect to the contrary motion of slowly and dramatically widening the sound a lot coming out of the string only F minor section.

  3263. musictheory 2018-12-09 00:05:21 Willravel
    Part of it is context. You start with strings on open fifths and have the duduk and vocalist simply establish the pitch set with simple chord tones and largely treated nonharmonic tones of what clearly becomes the minor i of the key. There's sufficient activity in the solo lines to be interesting, bit it's essentially one harmony. This makes the string ensemble entrance at 1:00 more dramatic... but it still basically keeps that tonic pedal tone even as the harmony noodles around a bit. When the string swell and choir enters at 1:46, we finally get that VI (which shares two pitches with i). It's a very natural arrival point from i, but also a very natural departure to return to i because of that strong shared-pitch mediant relationship. So you get i then VI then i... and then it goes down to iv(7) which also shares some of those pitches, then to a VII to get back to i. BTW, does anyone know if the subtonic to tonic cadence has its own specific name? Or do we just group it?

  3264. musictheory 2018-12-09 08:50:35 algorithmoose
    My band teacher would sometimes ask for suggestions or give us multiple choice, especially for the pops concert (soundtrack, musical theater, etc.) since it was less "serious". There were times when he'd introduce a handful of new pieces and if no one liked one we'd drop it. These were special cases and most of the music was picked by him. I suspect a lot of this had to do with competitions, cost (a lot of newer stuff you have to pay a bunch for while public domain stuff is much nicer on the budget), and curriculum. It's also potential conflict trying to get your 60 students to agree on something. Small group/section lessons were required. Etudes and duo/trio/quartet things were assigned, but you also got to pick solo pieces fairly regularly. Competition solos (optional) were selected from a list from the state music thing based on difficulty, but the list was fairly big so you could pick your style or period pretty well. Extra-curricular groups also had more student choices than band/orchestra. Jazz groups were more similar to the large groups, but we had flute ensemble, sax ensemble, string quartets, jazz trio, and a bunch of things that were student-created (usually with moderate teacher involvement) which showed up in our usual concerts. We had a christmas concert where anyone could audition so you get these groups popping up and even some guitar, pop covers, and otherwise uncommon musical genres in music education showing up.

  3265. musictheory 2018-12-09 11:47:21 Salemosophy
    I’m not exactly sure how or why this queued up in my activity log, but I assume you’re responding to me since it came up. So I’m just going to assume you’re replying to me. First, I’m terribly sorry to hear your experience with music education didn’t meet your expectations for music education. That sucks, no doubt! I can only empathize with you that I didn’t feel like my high school program offered a deeper level of study in music either. I’m talking about growing up in a rural community here. I grew up on a horse farm at the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains in Tennessee. I stacked hay bales and shoveled horse poop on the weekends. I was very outdoorsy when I was real young, climbed a lot of trees and stayed outside all day, so composing music was like a completely new direction for me in every way. It wasn’t until college that I really felt like I was overcoming a major knowledge gap, and even after a masters program in music composition, I STILL felt like I didn’t know what I really wanted to know about music. It still showed in my writing, too. I just rewrote a piece I first wrote 20 years ago. It’s the second rewrite of the piece. After 10 years, I decided to try it again. It was still a mess. Only now does it feel like I’m doing what I intend to do, what I set out to accomplish in writing. I’m highly specialized and it still took me several years of applying myself after my education experience to really feel like I knew what I’m doing. And I realize even today that there’s still even more to learn. I’m a huge proponent of expanding curricula offerings in high school to develop a specialized, applied area. I remember writing my first band piece in high school as a sophomore. I wrote the whole thing by hand, score and parts. I literally ignored school work to the point that I had teachers telling me to put it away during their class time. I worked on it for a year! The first time it was in front of the band my sophomore year, hand written parts and score, I had no idea what I was doing. I just did it. And it... well, it was a disaster. Next year my family got our first computer. I ended up getting Finale (a standard music notation program today, but in 1990, it was a fairly unknown program outside of academia) on the recommendation of my band director (my mom may have bought it, I don’t remember). Working with that at home helped me learn how to transpose instruments, how to write correct notation, vaguely what things will sound like together... I mean, it was a game changer for me. And after working with Finale, I wrote that first piece of music that I mentioned earlier. My director came over to my house (to prank me, actually, a really funny story for another comment), listened to the piece, and said, “Salemosophy, let’s put this on the Spring Concert, I want you to conduct it, and I want it to be the finale of the concert.” And it happened. Standing ovation at the end. Parents standing and cheering and clapping. They all knew me one way or another. It was a moment I’ll never forget for the rest of my life. And though the experience was initially such a struggle, I had a little bit of luck and a whole lot of support from family, teachers, and friends. I say all of this to share that while I understand you lost the motivation to progress through performance and it seems like your teachers probably didn’t know how to help you, you’re spot on. Your experience is validated. I completely understand how this could happen and it’s absolutely something in music education that we just never want to let happen if we can ever help it. Really, it stinks. So what can we do about these situations? Well, I have a few thoughts about it. First, community bands were the first form of “music education” incorporating marching or concert bands in American public schools after the Civil War. Soldiers who marched with instruments for the Union or Confederacy gathered old instruments and recruited kids who got in trouble out in the streets or weren’t behaving at home. From this, these programs began being modeled in public school (then it was called the “normal school,” education was evolving here as well - I’m breezing through about 90 years of history in one sentence, my apologies here, lol!). So, the community School of Rock programs I see popping up in metro areas are a great sign that it’s already emerging in our culture. There’s strong advocacy going on for this, it just seems a bit adversarial toward traditional music education in public schools (understandably a selling point but also because it fills a need). I do see some of this spilling over into public schools, too! It’s just new. At one of the schools where I teach (percussion), they have a “creative music” class. The teacher uses a class guitar format and singing (she also teaches the choir), and it seems to be a “fun” class for kids who don’t like art, band, orchestra, or choir. They have recitals every year. It’s a nice program but not terribly rigorous. But then kids reach the Jr High and High School and the course doesn’t continue - they mostly take drama in Jr High, then maybe general music in high school. That might be infuriating to you... I share that frustration. If we put less emphasis on core areas and allowed more curriculum in the arts and applied topics, this would not be so limited! But like all schools are dealing with, the standardized testing movement is crippling any chance of flexibility for expanding curriculum and applied areas. Vouchers are also an issue because it redirects funding away from schools, further limiting the resources available to fund curriculum expansion. Jazz bands are also viable and growing in numbers in larger districts. These are usually after school and it’s an area of interest in our local association’s agenda. In some areas, schools have actual jazz band classes. This is not new, it’s been at least a decade or more in development. Also, community colleges are doing some really good things with incorporating modern popular music. In my area, there’s a community college with a fantastic group of directors who program for a mixed ensemble they call the Bluegrass band (I think) that’s made up of singers, a wind instrument section, string players, a rhythm section, and a tech crew. The class programs a concert in the fall and another in the spring as well as performing at local schools whenever they’re invited, occasionally. It’s good recruiting and exposure for them and great for kids who fall through the cracks of our music education programs like you unfortunately did. None of that may seem particularly useful to you. I don’t know that it would be for someone who’s talents and motivation weren’t utilized to the fullest extent possible. But do be assured that we are addressing this in our programs, you’re not being ignored anymore if we can help it. I for one see what happens to students who don’t stick with music - one of only a handful of areas that keep kids AWAY from intense drug abuse, failing grades, and dropping out of school. It’s so very important to all of us in music education (we genuinely care about this) to meet everyone’s needs when music is at stake. If there’s anything I can do to encourage you to get back into music, it’s never too late to get that guitar back out, maybe even that violin or cello, and get some lessons to build yourself back up. I direct a community band and play in two others. In my area, community orchestra, community choirs, and nonprofit music centers are all over the place. I hope you’re surrounded by a similar arrangement in your community and I’d be happy to help you seek out what you’re looking for if it’s ever something you’d consider returning to in your life. As for music theory, I’m sure I can point you to plenty of useful websites, YouTube channels, or you can seek out the resources on the sidebar of /r/musictheory if you’re interested. Again, it’s not ideal, but it’s never too late to bring music back into your life. My uncle gigs in bars on guitar. He didn’t start learning to play until he was in his forties, I think. Great guy! He’d be someone you could talk to about getting back into it. Hit me up on PM if you want to explore the options. Maybe it’s still in the cards. Be well. -S

  3266. musictheory 2018-12-09 11:47:32 Salemosophy
    I’m not exactly sure how or why this queued up in my activity log, but I assume you’re responding to me since it came up. So I’m just going to assume you’re replying to me. First, I’m terribly sorry to hear your experience with music education didn’t meet your expectations for music education. That sucks, no doubt! I can only empathize with you that I didn’t feel like my high school program offered a deeper level of study in music either. I’m talking about growing up in a rural community here. I grew up on a horse farm at the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains in Tennessee. I stacked hay bales and shoveled horse poop on the weekends. I was very outdoorsy when I was real young, climbed a lot of trees and stayed outside all day, so composing music was like a completely new direction for me in every way. It wasn’t until college that I really felt like I was overcoming a major knowledge gap, and even after a masters program in music composition, I STILL felt like I didn’t know what I really wanted to know about music. It still showed in my writing, too. I just rewrote a piece I first wrote 20 years ago. It’s the second rewrite of the piece. After 10 years, I decided to try it again. It was still a mess. Only now does it feel like I’m doing what I intend to do, what I set out to accomplish in writing. I’m highly specialized and it still took me several years of applying myself after my education experience to really feel like I knew what I’m doing. And I realize even today that there’s still even more to learn. I’m a huge proponent of expanding curricula offerings in high school to develop a specialized, applied area. I remember writing my first band piece in high school as a sophomore. I wrote the whole thing by hand, score and parts. I literally ignored school work to the point that I had teachers telling me to put it away during their class time. I worked on it for a year! The first time it was in front of the band my sophomore year, hand written parts and score, I had no idea what I was doing. I just did it. And it... well, it was a disaster. Next year my family got our first computer. I ended up getting Finale (a standard music notation program today, but in 1990, it was a fairly unknown program outside of academia) on the recommendation of my band director (my mom may have bought it, I don’t remember). Working with that at home helped me learn how to transpose instruments, how to write correct notation, vaguely what things will sound like together... I mean, it was a game changer for me. And after working with Finale, I wrote that first piece of music that I mentioned earlier. My director came over to my house (to prank me, actually, a really funny story for another comment), listened to the piece, and said, “Salemosophy, let’s put this on the Spring Concert, I want you to conduct it, and I want it to be the finale of the concert.” And it happened. Standing ovation at the end. Parents standing and cheering and clapping. They all knew me one way or another. It was a moment I’ll never forget for the rest of my life. And though the experience was initially such a struggle, I had a little bit of luck and a whole lot of support from family, teachers, and friends. I say all of this to share that while I understand you lost the motivation to progress through performance and it seems like your teachers probably didn’t know how to help you, you’re spot on. Your experience is validated. I completely understand how this could happen and it’s absolutely something in music education that we just never want to let happen if we can ever help it. Really, it stinks. So what can we do about these situations? Well, I have a few thoughts about it. First, community bands were the first form of “music education” incorporating marching or concert bands in American public schools after the Civil War. Soldiers who marched with instruments for the Union or Confederacy gathered old instruments and recruited kids who got in trouble out in the streets or weren’t behaving at home. From this, these programs began being modeled in public school (then it was called the “normal school,” education was evolving here as well - I’m breezing through about 90 years of history in one sentence, my apologies here, lol!). So, the community School of Rock programs I see popping up in metro areas are a great sign that it’s already emerging in our culture. There’s strong advocacy going on for this, it just seems a bit adversarial toward traditional music education in public schools (understandably a selling point but also because it fills a need). I do see some of this spilling over into public schools, too! It’s just new. At one of the schools where I teach (percussion), they have a “creative music” class. The teacher uses a class guitar format and singing (she also teaches the choir), and it seems to be a “fun” class for kids who don’t like art, band, orchestra, or choir. They have recitals every year. It’s a nice program but not terribly rigorous. But then kids reach the Jr High and High School and the course doesn’t continue - they mostly take drama in Jr High, then maybe general music in high school. That might be infuriating to you... I share that frustration. If we put less emphasis on core areas and allowed more curriculum in the arts and applied topics, this would not be so limited! But like all schools are dealing with, the standardized testing movement is crippling any chance of flexibility for expanding curriculum and applied areas. Vouchers are also an issue because it redirects funding away from schools, further limiting the resources available to fund curriculum expansion. Jazz bands are also viable and growing in numbers in larger districts. These are usually after school and it’s an area of interest in our local association’s agenda. In some areas, schools have actual jazz band classes. This is not new, it’s been at least a decade or more in development. Also, community colleges are doing some really good things with incorporating modern popular music. In my area, there’s a community college with a fantastic group of directors who program for a mixed ensemble they call the Bluegrass band (I think) that’s made up of singers, a wind instrument section, string players, a rhythm section, and a tech crew. The class programs a concert in the fall and another in the spring as well as performing at local schools whenever they’re invited, occasionally. It’s good recruiting and exposure for them and great for kids who fall through the cracks of our music education programs like you unfortunately did. None of that may seem particularly useful to you. I don’t know that it would be for someone whose talents and motivation weren’t utilized to the fullest extent possible in school. But do be assured that we are addressing this in our programs, you’re not being ignored if we music educators can help it. I for one see what happens to students who don’t stick with music - one of only a handful of areas that keep kids AWAY from intense drug abuse, failing grades, and dropping out of school. It’s so very important to all of us in music education (we genuinely care about this) to meet everyone’s needs when music is at stake because it could literally be the ultimate, longterm difference between life and death from a drug overdose. If there’s anything I can do to encourage you to get back into music, it’s never too late to get that guitar back out, maybe even that violin or cello, and get some lessons to build yourself back up. I direct a community band and play in two others. In my area, community orchestra, community choirs, and nonprofit music centers are all over the place. I hope you’re surrounded by a similar arrangement in your community and I’d be happy to help you seek out what you’re looking for if it’s ever something you’d consider returning to in your life. As for music theory, I’m sure I can point you to plenty of useful websites, YouTube channels, or you can seek out the resources on the sidebar of /r/musictheory if you’re interested. Again, it’s not ideal, but it’s never too late to bring music back into your life. My uncle gigs in bars on guitar. He didn’t start learning to play until he was in his forties, I think. Great guy! He’d be someone you could talk to about getting back into it. Hit me up on PM if you want to explore the options. Maybe it’s still in the cards. Be well. -S

  3267. musictheory 2018-12-10 06:38:47 65TwinReverbRI
    It's modulating in thirds, like from D, to F# to A, to C# however it doesn't wholly complete the cycle and uses the last chord to move to a different resolution. Starting from the first full measure of the Agitato: A7 D Bm C#7 F#m Dm E7 A etc. It's a string of Phrygian Half Cadence ideas if iv^6 - V7 - but full cadence on to the I chord. After the I chord, one note is changed to make that a minor chord to be the next iv^6 So D becomes Bm, and then F#m becomes Dm. So A would become F#m but he breaks the pattern there for continued chromatic movement. That's not an answer is to why it sounds so good to you. It just describes what's going on. Why it sounds good to you is maybe it's different enough from other stuff you hear that it still sounds fresh and unusual. But why things "sound good" has little to do with theory and far more to do with listening experiences and your own associations of emotions and what not to musical passages, or conditioning from other sources - like somewhere you watched a movie where a person regained hope and willpower and it had music like this. So now you associate this with that too. To me it just sounds like music. Doesn't give me any certain feelings or anything. It's absolute music for me.

  3268. musictheory 2018-12-10 16:15:08 Wheatley36
    My guess is to avoid lots of beams. One piece I can think of that's written similar to what OP wants to do is the second movement of Shostakovich's 8th string quartet. It's written in 2/2, but the whole note gets the beat (at around 132 bpm). I wouldn't want to try to do all the beaming for that if it were written in x/4 with 16th notes.

  3269. musictheory 2018-12-11 00:49:02 wollollo_
    Four part writing is still relevant for choirs, string quartets, orchestra string sections, as well as being used a lot in wind sections, and other quartets. A lot of instrument families exist in four types, or three types with two of the soprano version. Four parts is also the smallest number of voices that lets you express pretty much all the concepts of classical harmony. The strict four point harmony that gets taught as an introduction to classical arranging/harmony is stricter than any of those, and only really gets used for chorales, and even then the rules get broken. Chorales still get written occasionally, and arranged in the same way - it's the basis of a lot of organ accompaniment in churches, as well. Counterpoint and 4 part writing are kind of both the same and opposites. They're the same in that it's how you write for a fixed number of voices, and Bach is the standard model for both - and he switched back and forth between polyphonic and homophonic texture all the time. The classical rules for voice leading and resolution are also the same for both, mostly. But they're opposites, in the sense that 4 part writing is entirely homophonic, focusing on the voices blending and moving together, whereas counterpoint is about never allowing the voices to follow each other, focusing on letting each live it's own life. In practice you move between the two modes all the time - maybe a chorale has a coda with a bit of contrapuntal writing, or a large symphony could have two sections of the orchestra each in four parts but moving against each other in counterpoint. (Beethoven's Ninth for example, in the last movement.) Always keep in mind that the rules you learn are meant as a first step in learning to compose, they're much to strict to be followed once you've progressed beyond exercises and are writing real music, so the difference or not is maybe not too important.

  3270. musictheory 2018-12-11 01:37:57 LukeSniper
    >I agree on you on getting lazy with shapes by playing the same riffs constantly because they're comfortable to your hands. That's not what I meant. Thinking "I just play this scale during this chord" is what's lazy. Like I said, thinking of a different scale for every chord can lead you to some really inside-the-bar phrasing. Rather than your solo having a satisfying melodic arc to it, it's just a string of unrelated ideas. That's not necessarily the case, but that mode of thinking encourages that sort of thing.

  3271. musictheory 2018-12-11 02:30:41 65TwinReverbRI
    >Will that skill just come through time? No, because the method you're using is flawed. >Should I stop trying to associate intervals with tunes Yes. >and start just trying to label the isolated intervals on their own No. Music is all about context. You need to learn to identify intervals *in context*. The place to being is to learn "notes" in relation to a Tonal Center, or put another way, what scale degree it is. What sound does scale degree 5 have in relation to the Tonic (or the key at large). What relation does scale degree 7 have to the Tonic (or the key). Forget that 5 to 7 is a major 3rd. So is 1 to 3 and 4 to 6 in a Major key. But "ti" in relation to the key has a much different sound than "la" or "mi". IOW, you don't need to know what a Major 3rd sounds like. You need to know what scale degree 1 to scale degree 3 sounds like **in the context of the key** and what scale degree 5 to scale degree 7 sounds like, etc. Also, if you have a string of notes, like C-G-A-F-G-D-B you don't need to be thinking "perfect 5th, then major 2nd, then major 3rd down..." or worse, which song it is. Instead, you need to be thinking Tonic Dominant Submediant Subdominant Dominant Supertonic Leading Tone, or "scale degree 1, scale degree 5, scale degree 6..." and so on.

  3272. musictheory 2018-12-11 02:44:52 65TwinReverbRI
    Tremolo. It probably means to quickly alternate the notes of the chord, or the upper and lower "halves" as fast as possible to give it a tremolo effect. More context would be better - it could mean just "repeat in 16ths for 3 beats" which is common in string music but usually not so much (at least in this kind of presentation) in keyboard music. What's the piece, where's it from, can you show us more?

  3273. musictheory 2018-12-11 04:52:24 DRL47
    >More context would be better - it could mean just "repeat in 16ths for 3 beats" which is common in string music but usually not so much (at least in this kind of presentation) in keyboard music. While tremolo is usually notated with three bars on the stem, I think you are right about this one. Playing 12 sixteenth-notes doesn't seem to fit.

  3274. musictheory 2018-12-11 11:15:53 BillGrahamMusic
    Listen to how richly expressive his music is. Look at some Kandinsky paintings for a while and then listen to some Schöenberg and see if it doesn’t click a little more. I got into his music before I had much of an understanding of theory, let alone advanced post-tonal techniques. I just loved the way it sounded. The first piece of his that I heard was the Serenade for 7 Instruments and Bass Voice, and was instantly a lifelong fan from the opening bars. I’m also particularly attached to his piano music (Drei Klavierstücke, Suite, etc,) his piano concerto, and the string quartets and trio. You might also want to check out the work of one of his important students, Alban Berg, who had a very romantic-era musical conception. Check out his Piano Sonata for starters, and if you’re up for it, his first opera, Wozzeck, which is a masterpiece.

  3275. musictheory 2018-12-12 00:10:12 Jongtr
    My clue was the Abmaj7#11 chord (on "this is your dad"). It sounded like a maj7, and looked like an Fmaj7/C shape (8-8-10-9-10-x). But when I played that on mine it sounded a whole step higher. So, clearly he was tuned down a whole step, getting an Ebmaj7 sound from that position. Discovering the 6th was tuned down another whole step took a little longer - checking the other chords, because the bass string is not that audible (to my ears). That meant that the Ebmaj7 had an Ab bass (on 6th string), meaning it was really Abmaj7#11. It lacks a C note, so strictly speaking "Ebmaj7/Ab" would be a more accurate symbol.

  3276. musictheory 2018-12-12 06:41:38 PoggersLro
    The best way to indicate the phrasing you are talking about is to add slurs. Slurs in music can indicate phrasing and don't always mean the notes have to be connected or however you were taught to describe it. So a slur connecting the first chord of a harmonic progression and the last chord of a harmonic progression would indicate a phrase. For the string quartet, the slur would start at their first note over the beginning of the progression and end at the last note that accompanies the last chord of the progression. &#x200B; In wind instruments, a breath mark can also serve the same purpose.

  3277. musictheory 2018-12-13 03:18:27 65TwinReverbRI
    It's called history. Learn it. Seriously, your question is one that comes up a lot, and I don't mean to sound harsh, but it's a really "noob" or naive question. It's like saying why do we spell words the way we do. Because as stupid as some things may seem to someone who dones't know a lot about the history, and as stupid as some things maybe actually are, it is the way it is. Sorry. That's the way it evolved. Men have nipples. We don't really need them but there they are. And there are 100s of people every day who go on some forum going "this is dumb, we should change it". Again, most of them are inexperienced so they don't know any better - or know why things are the way they are, and yes, maybe there are things that can be made better, but like spelling, we can't just decide one day to start spelling everything like we want or think it should be in hopes that everyone else will follow suit. There is a long standing tradition in music and it is what it is. Get used to it. And you know what, millions of people learn it. The only people who have trouble with it seem to be the people who go "why is it this way". Screw that. It's that way because it is that way. You know what, wake up one day, there'll be some rule, and you'll follow the rule, and then it turns out there was an exception to the rule, and now you're in trouble, or owe a fine, or whatever. That's how things are. Sure, be nice if they weren't, because it's extremely frustrating when it's not Utopia. But fact of the matter is, it's like life - there are a lot of stupid things and a lot of stupid people and if can't accept that and get past it you're not going to accomplish much. As to Metrics: What is 1/3 of 10? What's 1/3 of 12? See, a foot is better. Your perspective is not always everyone's perspective. A foot is more easily divisible into more whole numbers. And those that are decimals are just single or double digits except in a few cases. How many hours on the clock? 10? No I don't think so. How many notes are there? 10? No. It's 12. As to English vs. other languages, I see people complain about English all the time. I hate to tell you, as an English speaker, I think anyone that says a Table is Male and a Window is Female or whatever is crazy. "la" or "le". Not, it's just friggin The. We used to have Thee, Thy, Thine, Thou, and all that - we've "simplified" those. I'm not saying it's perfect, and neither is music, but you need to understand that these things are the results of thousands of years of evolution so they're going to have nipples on males, appendixes on everyone, and some people are still going to think the Earth is flat. It's not complicated "on purpose". It's actually quite easy - again, millions of people learn it without a problem. The whole "it's too wacky" is really an excuse in a lot of cases. "I think this is dumb, so that means it's dumb, so I don't need to learn it" is a lot of people's attitude. All I can tell you is, accept it. It is what it is. And get on with learning it and making music. However, I do want to caution - the number one reason people often get into this situation is because they're trying to self-teach or aren't around other musicians or playing a musical instrument and so on. I'm not trying to pick on you so much, but if you've been taking lessons for a year and don't get sharps and flats, that's kind of bad. You might not have the best teacher. Or you might just have this block because of these questions. There are 7 letters in the musical alphabet because that's what there was. They added sharps and flats later. But rather than changing the entire system and confusing everyone at that time, they added the sharps and flats to the system gradually. So don't sit around worrying about what it could have been, or how you could fix it, just suck it up and say, "that's how it is because that's how it evolved" and get on with learning/making music. Now, there IS a "metric" system for music if you like and it's Set Theory where the notes are ordered 1-12 (or 0-11) and this can make more sense for mathy people. But there's so much stuff that's not written this way that it's far more practical to understand the common system - but Phrygian is Phrygian, not Frijjian, so, you know, get over it. BTW, since you're a guitarist, it's the same with tuning - some people are like "why is it tuned this way" and "why can't I just play all the notes on 1 string" and stuff like that. It's because, it's the way it evolved. If you want to try and change it, fine, that's your right, but many people have tried and failed. Traditions like this are deep rooted and slow to change - and they actually don't change because people want them to, but because musical styles develop that necessitate them. Until that happens, expect there to be 7 letters rather than 12. HTH All in good spirits!

  3278. musictheory 2018-12-13 05:56:45 brain_damaged666
    I recommend thinking with numbers of half steps. Or more specifically, number of frets for guitar. Its the same. Moving up or down a string adds or subtracts 5, sometimes 4 (between g and b). you can think of the major scale like 0 2 4 5 7 9 11 If you simply assign this to fret numbers, you can get a major scale on one string. or you can pick a different starting point. Utilize the guitars chromatic nature.

  3279. musictheory 2018-12-13 09:02:43 tchaffee
    tl;dr it's all about how a string vibrates and ratios of string length. Very much about fractions, not great for decimal / metric. I'm not an expert at this stuff, so anyone please correct me if I'm wrong. But I'm going to try to give a different answer here that might give you a much deeper insight into the nature of music. Try making the different notes of a scale on a (guitar) string and look at the ratios of string length. Take a string tuned to G. Divide that string exactly in 1/2 by playing at the 12th fret and you'll get another G, an octave higher. Now divide the string into thirds and allow 2/3rds of the string to play. You'll get a perfect fifth (D). Next up is dividing the string into quarters and allowing 3/4ths of the string to vibrate. You'll get a C, the perfect fourth. At these ratios, notes sound so similar they are called perfect. They also sound GREAT if you play those notes together. The next ratio at which things work out sounding good is 9/8ths. That's an A note, which is the 2nd note in the scale of G. Things will continue to get more and more dissonant (in relation to the root note) as the ratios increase. By the time you get to the 7th most dissonant note in the scale, it's getting pretty dark and forbidding sounding. Try playing a G and an F# at the same time. The ratio of string length is something like 243/128. Here is some of the math behind it, and better explanation than mine which includes consonance and how Pythagoras found these pleasing sounding ratios with a pretty simple instrument allowing you to easily change ratios and play the resulting two notes together: [http://www.noyceguitars.com/Technotes/Articles/T4.html](http://www.noyceguitars.com/Technotes/Articles/T4.html) &#x200B; I think what happens after historically are a bunch of compromises to allow the same instrument to play in different keys without having to retune the instrument to a new key every time you switch keys? I'm not even going to try to summarize that because it's way beyond my knowledge. The important thing I'm trying to explain is the *very physical nature* of musical notes and how they originated. It's not arbitrary. It's about how a string vibrates. And whether or not two strings vibrating at different frequencies are simple enough ratios to each other to sound pleasing. You might want to look at the actual sine waves produced by a note and its perfect fifth to see how they line up quite nicely. Compare that to a perfect 4th, the 3rd, 6th, etc. You'll be able to visually see why they sound good. It's all about ratios that repeat at regular intervals instead of irregular intervals.So we've got two things here that perhaps don't fit well with metric / decimal. First, there are 7 notes in a scale. Ratios beyond the first 7 start to get very dark sounding and not very pleasing. To represent this, you would want a base 7 number system. You could call those numbers A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. As an aside, look into the hexadecimal numbering system to see how it uses numbers + letters to represent a base 16 number system. The second thing you've got is notes that are based on ratios or fractions. Of string length really. And a ratio of 2/3 is a lot easier to understand for most folks (both conceptually and visually) than its decimal equivalent of 0.6666666 etc. I know I'm missing a lot and maybe even got some stuff wrong. But I hope this different way of looking at it helps give a tiny bit of insight into the true nature of music and why a decimal or metric system might not be a good fit. I don't get it all myself, but when I started looking at the waveforms produced by different notes and how they line up, and also the ratios of string lengths that produce those notes, it gave me some pretty big insights. I hope it helps. &#x200B;

  3280. musictheory 2018-12-13 09:45:09 cowsaysmoo51
    So I've been experimenting with chords in the Phrygian mode, and I noticed that the half-diminished chord based on the fifth scale degree resolves really nicely to the tonic. And to my ear it sounds even stronger if you leave the third out (so in the key of E phrygian, it would be B, F, and A). Almost as strong as a B7 sounds (again just to my ear). And it sounds better if the F (essentially a leading tone but in the other direction) is in the highest voice/string of the chord. &#x200B; I only just started playing around with this, and I created an account here specifically to post this and ask around to find out if anybody else knows about this. Is this something that has precedence? I'm sure I'm not nearly the first person to use a half-diminished chord like this. Or maybe there's a different term for it I just haven't heard? I'm going into my second semester of college music theory, so maybe it's a topic I have yet to read about. &#x200B; Any thoughts??

  3281. musictheory 2018-12-13 10:56:13 denim_skirt
    one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that this is a very guitar-centric way of looking at notes. I thought similarly for a long time, and guitar was my first instrument too. I think there's a thing where a guitar doesn't have white or black keys, just frets, which make it LOOK a lot more 'metric system-y' than it actually is. I mean, an octave has 12 tones, a guitar neck uses 12 Fret for each of them... but the reality is that the layout of the fretboard doesn't reflect the way the notes SOUND. similarly, I think that strings seem gridlike in relation to each other because of the intervals used in standard tuning. I mean... tune your a string down to g, play a little, and see whether everything still feels as 'metric.'you just get used to thinking of a grid. i dunno man I'm p blazed and might not be writing clearly. I just want to point out that the layout of the fretboard can almost obfuscate the actual relationships between the notes your playing - especially if you read a lot of tabs and think of the notes you're playing as fret numbers instead of, yknow, their names.

  3282. musictheory 2018-12-13 13:56:52 incredibolox
    He really should not have been downvoted here. Provided above is literally tab for C scales on the B string of a guitar. At least you can do math with numbers, which is what musicians end up doing anyway just by remembering notes' relationship and distance from each other. u/Bebop_Ba-Bailey below mentions the Nashville number system, which I definitely recommend. e.g. A Minor scale is then: 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 starting in a lower octave. Explaining harder stuff like scale alterations is no more difficult but you can go crazy with modal mixing and it's just so powerful.

  3283. musictheory 2018-12-14 05:44:15 DDONALDPUMP
    Little variations can make these chord progressions sound a little bit more interesting yet still keeping that catchy predictability you want. For example adding the G note on the e string when playing a c and incorporating a 7th chord before a chorus or after one to bring the verse back in.

  3284. musictheory 2018-12-14 06:06:39 Flufflecorns
    Fretless string instruments can play intervals smaller than half steps. Violin, cello, bass, you name it. Even on a fretted instrument, you can bend a string to a microtone. Reeds can be bent. Embouchure is similarly flexible. It may be difficult, but it also leads to an ever-increasing complexity and proficiency in performance. Composition isn't the only musical medium to be explored, after all.

  3285. musictheory 2018-12-14 13:01:51 65TwinReverbRI
    A-C-E is A Minor. A-C#-E is A Major. Note it's the middle note that's different. That note is on the 2nd string. If you play your open position shape for an Am chord, then one for an A Major chord, you'll see the only note difference is that note on the 2nd string - that's the C (fret 1) or C# (fret 2) - the other strings are A and E notes and they don't change. The 3rd (A-B-C = 3) in the chord determines whether it is Major or Minor - the Major chord always has the 3rd 1 half step (1 fret) higher than the minor chord. Or you can say, to make a Major chord minor, just lower the 3rd of the chord. 7ths work somewhat similarly but it has to do with the type of "triad" (like A Major or A Minor) and then the interval of the 7th - and we also name intervals "major 7" and "minor 7" - in fact the interval that the 3rd forms with the Root (A) is also major or minor, and that's where the name of the 3 note chord comes from. A to C# is a Major 3rd, so A-C#-E is a Major Triad. A to C is a minor 3rd, so A-C-E is a minor Triad. When you add a Major 7 interval to a major triad, you get a Major 7th chord: A-C#-E + G# = Amaj7 - the interval from A to G# is a major7. A-C-E + G = Am7 - the interval from A to G is a minor7. 0 2 1 2 0 x would be A Major 7 0 1 0 2 0 x would be Am7. See if you can see how the G# moves to G, and the C# moves to C, to make the difference between the two chords.

  3286. musictheory 2018-12-15 00:36:30 ILoveKombucha
    Hey there! Good that you read music! I would never argue that tab is superior to notation - I would argue the opposite (and I think most people - here at least - would too). Notation is a better presentation of musical ideas; pitch, rhythm, harmony, etc. Tab makes the emphasis on how to play the music, not the music itself. Plus notation gives you the freedom to realize the music in your own way - maybe you want to take that note on this string instead of that one, for example. If you know your fretboard - even just a bit - you could start doing arpeggio work along with scale work. Initially just work all your basic triads within one octave, but do this all over the neck. For example, an A major arpeggio is A C# E (A). So play those notes in various places all over the neck. This will definitely help your skill and fretboard mastery. Gradually you can extend the arpeggios beyond an octave, and incorporate more 7th chords and other types. But it sounds like you are doing more of the grind kind of stuff than music, and that needs to flip! You want to do more music than anything. It's great to grind on certain things sometimes, but the balance needs to be towards music. For instance, you can do interval training till you are blue in the face, but hearing and playing and SINGING music will generally do more for your ears, I think. It sounds like you are probably easily good enough to be just learning tons of songs now. Like, once you can do barre chords really clean, and switch chords really clean, it's time to learn songs. As you learn that 40 or 50 songs, you'll probably want to take things to a higher level and get more intricate with your playing. But initially, if you can play chords to your favorite songs... you are basically doing it, man. You could be playing live, backing someone up, making your own songs, etc. It's not rocket science! :) Lana Del Rey learned her open cowboy chords and realized she could make a million songs with those chords. I doubt she can do arpeggios or shred scales, but she's a huge name in music, and has a lot of great songs. As to that song, While My guitar Gently Weeps, I could well be wrong about the nuances of those chords! My chords are really close to what you are showing, and could substitute for any of that, but what you've got may well be more accurate to the recording than what I came up with. When I figure out songs, I'm not necessarily aiming for 100% fidelity to the recording. I'm aiming for something that will get the result and make anyone hearing what I'm doing say "ah yes, that's it." Some of the nuances may be off! And that's ok :) For sure, a lot of guitar songs will incorporate some convenient open notes or easy to finger notes (like adding a 9th on a C chord, for example). That adds some extra color, but often is not structurally important. Anyway, my point being that you might find 5 different realizations of that song, and they may all be subtly different. This is why I suggested cross referencing stuff while you are learning, so that you can use your own ear as a guide and say "this one seems closest to the real deal." I felt like my realization was close enough for government work, as they say! (If it were me, I'd go with my own version - heh). Given that progression, I really question the D7. I didn't hear a 7th (there may well be a 9th though). 7th is often going to give you a "dominant" function and want to resolve to the chord a 5th lower (G major). In this context, I'm hearing mode mixture (mixing minor and major); a D chord that is major, shifting to minor. This kind of progression is really common in classical music (which I play a lot). I also am feeling a more D minor vibe over that F bass, but I may be wrong. Anyway, yeah, feel free to PM me what you've got.

  3287. musictheory 2018-12-15 05:59:59 GlennMagusHarvey
    My thoughts: Classical: * Use of V-I (and V-i) cadences. (minor) v and bVII (the subtonic) are rare chords except in sequences and modulations. IV-I or ii-I cadences (or their minor analogues) are rare, and mainly reserved for works evoking a religious atmosphere (cf. calling the IV-I cadence the "Amen cadence"). * Pieces often start and end in the same key, and on the tonic chord. Modulations usually only to nearby keys. * Strong mood contrasts between major and minor. * Instrumentation: (almost) exclusively acoustic instruments. Percussion is rare outside of orchestral works. Very common use of bowed strings. * Many instrumental works. * Use of *tempo rubato* in some works. * Straight rhythms -- i.e. not swung. * Duple/quadruple time most common, but triple time is also frequent, particularly in dance-derived forms. Occasional irregular time signatures. Simple time more common but compound time amply represented. * A variety of musical forms characteristic of classical music -- e.g. sonata-first-movement form, dance-and-trio, etc.. * Multi-movement works, lasting up to an hour or more. Movements vary in length but can easily be around 10 minutes long. * Strong focus on composer. Jazz: * Rich harmonic style, frequently using seventh chords, ninth chords, altered chords, added notes, etc.. * Flat fifth, flat seventh, and flat third common within major key writing. * Common (though not ubiquitous) use of the 12-bar blues progression. * Very common (though not ubiquitous) use of swing rhythms. * Duple/quadruple time most common but some triple and irregular time signatures are sometimes represented. * In score-writing, simple time signatures are often used to imply swung rhythms. * Instrumentation often includes brass (and maybe reedy woodwinds), backed by piano, string bass (almost always plucked), and drum set. * In a multi-instrument work, each instrument often gets its own "solo" section, where it is only lightly accompanied by the rest of the ensemble, and given a chance to show off via improvisation. It seems customary to applaud after each such section. * Improvisation is common, often chromatic, often using what might be traditionally considered non-chord tones. Pop: * Simple harmonic style, commonly (though not ubiquitously) using a repeated four-chord progression for extensive portions of a song. I V vi IV is a common choice for such a progression. Many pieces end on a non-tonic chord. * Use of "power chords", i.e. open fifths, as harmony. * Strong focus on a prominent melody, played straight. * Almost always has a vocal part. If so, almost always in song form -- typically verse 1, refrain, verse 2, refrain, mainly instrumental bridge, optional verse 3, refrain, with optional connecting/intro/outtro material. * Common instrumentation: solo vocalist(s), one or more guitars, electronic keyboard, drums. Guitars may be acoustic or (more commonly) electric (i.e. amplified). Drum set is almost omnipresent, except in some slower songs. * Swing rhythms less common than in jazz, but more common than in classical. * Almost always duple/quadruple time, and almost always simple rather than compound. Triple time occasionally represented. * No *tempo rubato* and generally constant tempo. * Tonality can change to distant keys using techniques uncommon in classical, such as the "truck driver's gear change" where something is shifted up a half or whole step, often at the end of a song. * Each piece usually lasts less than 6 minutes. * Pieces organized into albums of around an hour or longer. * Strong focus on performer, even if performer is not the composer.

  3288. musictheory 2018-12-15 19:27:01 wideSky
    I think you are closer than most. I've [commented elsewhere](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/a67mu3/what_makes_a_piece_sound_classical_jazz_or_pop/ebu3v1z/) on the surprising speed at which people can make genre classifications. It is not quite instrumentation, though, but perhaps timbre more generally. > There is a perceived "twang" to Country, for instance, and the particular timbre of the 12-string guitar was once emblematic of the genre Folk in the period 1955–1965. Similarly, enormous acoustic energy in extreme low frequencies would point to Rap and later Hip-Hop, while at the same time pointing away from the older sub-genres of Country. The formalized, "strict" tone production and articulation of Classical contrasts sharply with the "looser" values in popular styles.

  3289. musictheory 2018-12-16 07:23:38 hi_me_here
    i think it's from guitarists mostly learning to think in sharps rather than flats because of how the instrument works & is tuned, all the easiest to play/ learn major key scales on guitar, like G, E, B, A, D have sharps. if the E strings were Fs and the B string was a C i bet it'd be the other way around!

  3290. musictheory 2018-12-16 08:51:17 LukeSniper
    The easier/more popular guitar keys are definitely sharp keys, but I wouldn't count B major among them. The only open chord you get is the IV, and half the open strings are notes from outside the key. And we're just talking about the A# *note* there. F is a much more common/easier key on guitar. The iii, V, and vi chords are easy open shapes, only one open string isn't in the key, and you've got the full Bb *chord*. I don't see a reason guitarists at large can't learn that A# major chords are practically nonexistent. Just gotta tell em when they make the mistake.

  3291. musictheory 2018-12-16 13:13:10 fuckwatergivemewine
    But I think this is just a general argument in favour of tabbing as opposed to standard sheet music. Edit: should have seen it coming haha. I wasn't defending tabbing over sheet music in general, I was just saying that the argument above was defending tabbing more so than defending transposed sheet music. For fretted string instruments there's an obvious case in favour of it. By the argument above, for clarinets, saxophones and similar instruments too. Obviously for piano and non-fretted string instruments this is not the case.

  3292. musictheory 2018-12-16 17:49:24 Jongtr
    There's more than one convention. The common thing is for the notehead to be diamond-shaped, but other indications vary. Sometimes the pitch shown is the open string, with a small "o" above and a fret number, and/or the word "harm" (or A.H. for artificial harmonic). Sometimes the actual pitch produced by the harmonic is shown. [This site] (https://douglasniedt.com/Tech_Tip_How_To_Read_Harmonic_Notation.html) has a good survey of all the various methods - he counts 100s! I suggest you just pick the method that makes most sense to you. When learning a new piece with harmonics, I find common sense is the best way of interpreting them - what's the most likely meaning of what is shown? What notes are produced? What sounds right?

  3293. musictheory 2018-12-16 21:25:54 wollollo_
    If you've just started learning music, I'd try transcribing melodies before anything else. Vocal melodies, to songs you know well. Write down as much as you need to help you remember, and in whatever way works for you - but it's finding the notes on your instrument that's important. The basic idea is to go one note at a time, sing it, and try to match that on your instrument. So if you're doing Happy Birthday, you sing Haaa, and hold it, and try things until you hit - try to make sensible guesses, though, you're starting fairly low in your vocal range so guess low, and then try to hear if you've guessed too low or too high, or if you can hear what interval your guess was compared to your note. I just did this, and found a C (or third fret on the A string or however you prefer to think of these things) (with traditional songs we all start at different pitches, so you might find another note, it doesn't matter). Then I sing Happyyyy and can hear that it's the same note. Then I sing biiiirth, or maybe Happy biiiirth, and it's close to the C but higher, and maybe I can hear immediately that it's a step up, or maybe I take a few guesses - in any case I settle on D pretty quickly. And so on. My singing is atrocious, by the way, but I still do it this way. Working out music from records uses the same idea. Start by listening to the song a number of times, and focus on the element (vocals, guitar, bassline) you want to work out. Then, start at the beginning of the section you want to work on, and listen to the first few seconds, repeat a few times. Try to hear, and then to sing along with, the element you're after. Only do a few seconds at a time, because anything more gets hard to remember. Now you have a tiny snippet of melody, of a few notes, that you can sing, so you take your guitar and work it out as above. Repeat with the next few seconds, and so on. Don't try to play along with the full song, it's much better to focus on one or a few notes at a time, and work on that until you've found it. There is a benefit to playing along with the whole tune though, and I like to do this before I start on the details: it's a good way to work out what the key is, as well as a few of the chords and important notes, so that your guesses are going to be better when you get to the detail. But don't try to find everything this way, just go for a few highlights. If I want to know the chords to a song, I tend to work out the melody and the bassline. If you've picked up a bit of theory that will tell you what most of the chords are, and then you just need to listen and play along to check the few ambiguities. Practicing your ear training will make your guesses so much faster, and eventually you'll know, not guess. Knowing theory also helps you narrow down the possibilities. Some people like to use software to slow down the music, so they have more time to hear what's happening; others think that's a crutch that's going to limit your ability to hear what's going on when you're playing with others in real time.

  3294. musictheory 2018-12-17 03:08:51 65TwinReverbRI
    Phew, that Douglas Neidt site - which he must have paid to have show up as first hits in searches as it does...is as if the guy took every single instance of every single possible harmonic notation he found and included it. Of the 312 ways he says they can be notated, I've seen about 3 or 4 commonly! Let's make it simple: https://s3.amazonaws.com/halleonard-closerlook/00138161/00138161p05z.jpg (this is more typical modern pop notation, not classical but people use it for classical now commonly too) Use a diamond-shaped notehead at the sounding pitch you want. If necessary, indicate the string and fret it is to be played on as well. Strings are typically given as arabic numerals in a circle. Frets traditionally are done as roman numerals but in modern guitar music where there's likely to be harmonics played (and notes!) above the 12th fret on all strings, the common practice is just to put "19th" or something similar. If necessary "harm." could be included, especially with a bracket that extends over the notes to be played this way. Though honestly, the diamond-shaped notehead is enough. I think the diamond shape with the little "o" is total overkill and not something I've ever seen that I can recall. Usually it's a standard notehead with the little "o", or the diamond-shaped notehead, not both. But "harm." may or may not be included. I was writing something where I used a diamond-shaped notehead to play at the same time as regular notes and the harmonic notehead just got lost in the score visually - it looked too much like a whole note since it was hollow - so I added "harm." and the string and fret numbers (which were needed in this case) so it's pretty darn clear! For the RH harmonics (or Artificial Harmonics, or Pinch Harmonics), you do the same thing and just notate "R.H. harm." but the common thing to do is to write the FRETTED NOTE as a regular note, then the diamond-shaped notehead above at the SOUNDING HARMONIC pitch (stemmed together). Again, the fret and string numbers can be included as necessary (sometimes it's obvious from what fretted notes had to be played, etc.). So the player sees you play an A note on the 6th string, then it has an A diamond-shaped notehead an octave up, and you put "RH Harm." so the player will fret the low A and and produce a harmonic that sounds an 8ve higher (12 frets higher). _______ I would avoid the "old" system where the STRING's OPEN NOTE is written and then use the numerals to indicate fret. If you want a B harmonic on the open E string at the 7th fret, you'd put an E top space with the little circle, then "harm. VII". As the website u/Jongtr linked to shows, this can make the melodic line confusing (that Villa-Lobos example he goes into detail about is one of the more commonly cited problematic passages). I'd only use the note with a circle over it for simple 12 fret open string harmonics where it's obvious in a rather simple piece. (I don't like to intermix notation within a piece though). Showing the SOUNDING pitch the harmonics make always makes the melodic line or desired pitch far more obvious. Another common one is to put the SOUNDING note (standard notehead) with the little harmonic symbol "o". This is confusing with the other system and why so much confusion abounds. The 12th fret harmonic on the high E would not be written in top space with the "o", but 3 ledger lines above the staff with the little "o"! So you have to figure out a lot of these things by context - which method a given publisher is using. Part of the confusion is that for many other instruments, when the little "o" was used it was always assumed to be just an octave overtone as that was the most common one. I'd recommend looking at some classical guitar music scores, and then some modern "tablature-with-staff" style scores and see how they approach it. One thing you can always do though is put a little performance note at the beginning of your piece, "all harmonics indicated at sounding pitch" or something of that nature.

  3295. musictheory 2018-12-17 03:30:22 65TwinReverbRI
    > It's interesting, isn't it, that although the C# seems like a NCT, the music treats it as a chord tone? This is what I call "chord status". The evolution of harmony is one where things that are stand alone chords - that have already achieved "chord status" - have NCTs introduced which are at first bound by the laws of linear contrapuntal motion, then gradually achieve "chord status" - often by virtue of them simply being heard for longer periods of time. A great example also comes from Haydn where a cadential progression like: E - C B - G F - E G - C appears. It LOOKS LIKE maybe some kind of weird Em7b9 to C, but really it's a "G13" as we'd call it today - but it's a Dominant chord with an Escape Tone. I know you don't care for K/P but they call it a V7subs6 and I think that's a valid point they make - that this "thing" has achieved "chord status" by virtue of this NCT figure, and Escape Tone (so it would have been D - E - C in the upper part) has been lengthened such that the CT is no longer even present in the figure (the D) and the E, the ET, which would have often been just the last 8th note, or a 16th note before the resolution, has now been lengthened to sound for the entire harmony. Essentially, this is really how 7ths which originated as NCT dissonances "achieved chord tone status" such that we consider these structures "7th chords" and stand alone harmonies. The +6 family is a similar thing - born out of voice-leading, but seen enough and sustained enough to be considered "stand alone" harmonies - they have achieved "chord status" now. This example may be one where since we don't have a chord name for it really (in this context), it's still in it's "NCT Phase" - we're seeing evolution as it happens - it'll take until the IV7 - I in blues for it to be fully realized, but it's a start :-). I would love to see a manuscript on this one though to see if the editor changed the note ;-) What I will say is, Haydn is way under-rated. He gets a lot of credit for being the "father of classical music" and the "father of X genre" - String Quartet, Concerto, Piano Trio, Keyboard Sonata, Symphony - but he is about as crafty as one can get, harmonically, melodically, and so on. He too got more chromatic with age and really pushed juicy chromaticism along as much as Mozart or Beethoven. From an analysis standpoint though, I think the Db is still, at this point, a NCT, though Haydn is playing with us - as all great composers do - and milking it for all it's worth.

  3296. musictheory 2018-12-17 06:26:36 fuckwatergivemewine
    For unfretted string instruments it would be non-sense, same goes for piano. For clarinet and sax probably it would work if designed well and if the musicians learn it well. For percussion it would probably work great, but anyway sheet music for percussion is tabbing in disguise. For microtonal fretted instruments it's clearly better.

  3297. musictheory 2018-12-17 12:00:35 gravescd
    This video is ridiculous: First - IS there a bias towards C major? Is there more C major music than other keys? My personal experience with music does not support this. Choice of key is usually driven by the instruments being written for. Horns have a bias towards flat keys because they're transposing instruments. Like half of jazz is in Bb. String instruments bias towards G, D, A, and E because those are the open strings they all have in common. Vocalists are completely agnostic to key, and IME love to pick "singer keys" like Ebm. Second - This "system" doesn't solve any problem. You're just using an arrow instead of a sharp or flat. What's the difference between Bb and B-down arrow? And how would you distinguish between a D natural and a D# without a key signature? Third - This whole thing seems like it's driven by discomfort with reading music. The written music system is made for people who are very skilled in it, and it's very good at that. Other systems I've seen all seem purposed to accommodate the reader's \*lack\* of fluency.

  3298. musictheory 2018-12-17 14:11:18 gravescd
    That was a double take for me too. Even as a guitarist I know this. And I wouldn’t say that G is much more convenient on guitar than C. E A and D are the “open string” keys. G and C are similar, and after that you’re using barres everywhere.

  3299. musictheory 2018-12-17 23:46:28 lydiangreen
    Thanks! I’m looking forward to a few weeks of recharge after the December concert season. And I am definitely planning to do some orchestration with my group, probably approach it through arranging for some ensemble at the school. Something like: “Start with a pop melody you like and create a compelling string quartet.” If nothing else, I want my students to get a taste, and to realize there is a big world of music outside of the high school and AP context.

  3300. musictheory 2018-12-18 05:48:08 ILoveKombucha
    Hmmm... I'm not totally clear on what you are saying. It SOUNDS like you are saying you work your way around the circle of fifths on the piano by going, for example, C, G, D, A, E, B, F#/Gb, Db, Ab, Eb, Bb, F, C. Is that what you are saying? It's not really clear to me. Anyway, piano is a very transparent instrument in comparison to guitar. Guitar, in contrast, is a "mind maze." Piano lays all the notes out in order from lowest pitch to highest, with no duplication. Guitar has strings that are tuned in 4ths... except for G/B (A major 3rd), that rise in pitch, and frets that take you up by semitones from left to right. So you can go up in pitch by changing string or moving up the fretboard, or both... AND you have LOTS of note duplication (can play the same note/pitch in many spots on the guitar). There is no real shortcut for the guitar; you need to learn where all the notes are, and that is a much tougher process than learning the notes on the piano (at least an order of magnitude more difficult, if not several orders of magnitude). I have guitar students that NEVER learn all the notes (they give up), even after several years. I can teach anyone all the notes on a piano in a few minutes. You CAN learn the fretboard relatively quickly if you are very determined and have an effective way to practice. Even then... months. BUT... guitar has something going for it that doesn't quite work as well on piano. Guitar has CHORD SHAPES that can be slid around all over the neck. So, you can learn an E shaped barre chord, and that can be played at any fret, with each fret giving you a different chord (at 1st fret, that's an F, at 3rd, G, at 6th, Bb, etc). Broadly guitar has 5 shapes: C A G E D. The C and G shape are less widely used as barre chords. Some of those shapes are less useful for minor (C and G shape are virtually useless for minor). But even with just A E and D shapes, you get a wide variety of chords very easily. I would say... in some way, you can get competent at playing chords on the guitar much more quickly than piano. But guitar is less capable of playing well in all keys. Generally, guitar favors major keys on the "sharp" end of the circle of fifths: C, G, D, A, E, especially. It does well with Dm, Am, Em. You CAN play in any key, but the other keys tend to require more barre chords, and allow you to use fewer open strings (thus more difficult). Piano, in contrast, is quite playable in any key. The difficulty of playing in different keys for piano has more to do with reading music than it does with the technical side. Many people find "advanced keys" easier on piano than the "simple keys" like C major. In short, you are best off learning guitar as its own instrument, and not trying to approach it as you would the keyboard. Again, the good news is that... as a basic chordal folk instrument, guitar is probably easier than piano. You could be playing chords to songs you like relatively quickly. But it is much harder to learn the layout of all the notes/scales/etc.

  3301. musictheory 2018-12-18 06:15:24 65TwinReverbRI
    In a guitar forum rather than a theory one! Guitar Music is written in Treble Clef - I know you can read bass from the low brass, but do you read Treble for Piano well? If so, get one of those Mel Bay or Hal Leonard (Fast Track) books - they go through one string at a time telling you where specific notes are and have a couple of goofy tunes to help you practice them. Ok, there is some theory here, so let me explain: On Piano, each key is a semitone - C to C#, C# to D, D to D# and so on. Each FRET is like that on Guitar. The highest open string is tuned to E above middle C, so the first fret is literally one semitone higher - F, then F#, then G, and so on. However, guitar has 6 strings, so it's "multi-linear" whereas piano is just "linear" if you like. This means you can play some notes in multiple places. The 2nd string is B right below Middle C, so C is the 1st fret, C# 2nd, D 3rd, D# 4th, and E 5th - that means that same E above middle C that the first string open is, is also playable on the 5th fret of the 2nd string. It's on the 9th fret of the 3rd string, 14th fret of the 4th string, and so on. There are charts with all the notes online but it'll be harder to learn a chart - it'll be easier like in the book form where you play each string, learn its notes, then add a new string and its notes, and then practice enough that you learn them all eventually. Also, it's probably going to stick with you more if you figure it out yourself! Sit down at the piano, play an A, and find that A on the guitar for example. Try to figure out things you can play on guitar on the piano and vice versa (simple melodies). SAY the notes as you play them - it'll help you remember them. And just do it lots! BTW, guitar music is written an octave higher than it sounds, so our first string open is the E above middle C SOUNDING, but on guitar music it's written as E in the top space. Everything sounds an octave lower than written in guitar music. Therefore it you want to make the E in the top space from some piano music, you'd have to play it at the 12th fret (all the open strings repeat their notes at the 12th fret, because there are 12 chromatic notes!) to get the same sounding pitch. HTH

  3302. musictheory 2018-12-18 09:55:11 jimjambanx
    First learn the basic major scale in all positions on the neck. It honestly doesn't matter what system you use, be it CAGED, 3NPS or some sort of hybrid (I'm a 3NPS player, but occasionally think in CAGED), both are a means to the same end. There's been a long, drawn out debate on what system is superior and why you shouldn't learn the other, I think it's all a load of crap, both have their advantages and disadvantages, and as long as you consistently work at it you can make any system work. I'd say for rock, metal and fusion try 3NPS; for pop, jazz and country, go CAGED. From there, learn your triads, all inversions up and down the neck, on each set of 3 adjacent strings. I'd then move on to arpeggios, with roots on the E, A and maybe D string (eg you should be able to play all inversions of a G major arpeggio, starting on the E A or D string). At that point you should be comfortable enough with the fretboard that you'll know what you need to work on.

  3303. musictheory 2018-12-19 04:43:55 beaumega1
    >pianist do kind of the same sliding How do you bend a string/pitch as a pianist?

  3304. musictheory 2018-12-19 08:33:16 Mr-Yellow
    It can be done, with pedals. Check my comment above. On bass I hear this when I play a string too strongly and it bounces against the frets. It will start below pitch then adjust up as the frets knock it back into a different frequency. Man it seems Youtube knows nothing about this.

  3305. musictheory 2018-12-19 18:04:43 Jongtr
    > when I play a string too strongly and it bounces against the frets. It will start below pitch then adjust up as the frets knock it back into a different frequency. Playing a string "too strongly" means it starts *sharp* (because the wider sideways move stretches the string) - and that's especially the case if it hits the frets (fret above typically). It can't possibly start flat and then go sharp - unless you're physically bending the string afterwards. There could be some kind of psycho-acoustic phenomenon going on, so check it against a tuner next time.

  3306. musictheory 2018-12-19 23:42:41 65TwinReverbRI
    Why is the day divided into hours? Do you ever cut your food into bite size pieces? Did you ever do anything like go to the same class or job the same time every day? Because music evolved to have both "stress" and "repetition". Repeated stresses create patterns, which is what Meter is. "Meter" is used also in Language, especially Poetry, to describe stress and repetition. A very long time ago, there wasn't meter, and Gregorian chant is more like what you're talking about - a string of notes - sometimes half-dozen or dozen or so, up to 20s and 30s of notes in a string with no discernible grouping or patterns - it just "flows". Think of music with meter like: Hickory Dickory Dock The Mouse Ran Up the Clock The Clock Struck Ten, the Mouse Ran Down Hickory Dickory Dock whereas music with no meter is more like: ThankyouforcomingtoourbenefittonighohIshouldmentionourguestsofhonorbutnoIbetterwaituntilIfinishemyintroductions. Now, ARTISTICALLY, you may want to write something like that to emulate, say, a politician speaking. So it's absolutely possible. There are examples of "free" music "unrestricted by meter" throughout history - music starts that way, and people brought it back in some genres in the 20th century, and there are "non measured Preludes" in the Baroque Period, and long sinewy solo lines in some classical compostions (especially cadenzas) that may not really show any kind of regular metric stress. But it's just human nature to organize things that are pattern-based into groupings that point that out - Seconds, Minutes, Hours, Days, Weeks, Months, Years, Decades, Centuries, etc. Words, Sentences, Paragraphs, Chapters, parts of a Trilogy, etc.

  3307. musictheory 2018-12-20 05:58:52 FwLineberry
    You can just use visualization. I learned the notes and major scales on the guitar fingerboard this way. I would take a walk in the middle of my practice session and while walking I would visualize a scale on the fingerboard and name out loud which finger, which string, which fret and which note for the entire scale. You could do the same using finger and note for any given scale or chord in any given key.

  3308. musictheory 2018-12-20 06:51:11 ILoveKombucha
    Good questions. Would you expect someone to be able to write great books if they had never read great books? Would you expect someone to be able to write well if they did not know how to type or write by hand? In short, like everyone else, you have to go through the learning process, which can take years. Learn 50 songs or so, to the point where you could play chords along with the song well enough to accompany the band. (Not necessarily note perfect renditions of the songs... just enough to accompany as a rhythm guitarist). Get your technique into some shape, so that you can switch chords very well, play your scales, maybe some arpeggios, etc. Learn to sing.... sing scales, sing arpeggios, sing songs! (Sing songs while you play the chords!!!!!). Learn to target notes in a chord with your voice. Like, if you play a C chord, learn to sing the root, the third, the fifth (and the 7th, 9th, etc). If you have a string of chords, like C, Am, Dm, G, C, learn to sing any note in any of those chords as the chords come by. Sing the root of each chord... the 3rd, the 5th, etc. Maybe go through a guitar method or 3 (I recommend the Hal Leonard guitar method - what I teach my students from). Learn the rudiments of music theory; how to construct scales, how to derive chords from those scales (how to spell chords), how time signatures work, how to play various rhythms, etc. But most of all, learn about 50 songs and how they work (what are the chords, what is the melody, etc). THAT is what will teach you how to write music! No shortcuts bro!!! :D And seriously consider getting a skilled teacher to help you with all of this stuff! You can of course try your hand at writing music at any time, but you want to constantly work to get your fundamentals down, and build a decent repertoire of music that you can play. (50 songs.... gogogogogo!)

  3309. musictheory 2018-12-21 20:51:12 wollollo_
    Overtones are a big deal when it comes to dissonance/consonance. The main reason why 5/4 sounds good is not that it is a simple fraction, but that it's a ratio we find in the overtones of many instruments. The whole thing about overtones being multiples of the fundamental is sort of not true. It's true for a lot of wind instruments, and it's mostly correct for string instruments - which is how the Greeks worked it out - but not for a lot of percussion. It turns out that for an instrument with different overtones, different intervals are going to sound consonant. Which is a part of why Indonesian music uses different scales - it's all played on percussion, with overtones that aren't the same as the integer multiples of the fundamental. If you measure an octave on a perfectly tuned piano, you'll find it's a tiny bit wider than 2:1. Because of the stiffness of the string and the hammer action the harmonics are spread out a little bit more than you'd expect, and we tune to match that. You can also construct software synthesizers that have funny overtones, and the intervals in those overtone series are going to sound off, but still sort of consonant.

  3310. musictheory 2018-12-22 08:30:31 seeking_horizon
    John Paul Jones was the real technician in the band, I think. He was the one doing the string arrangements and stuff like that.

  3311. musictheory 2018-12-23 05:26:45 mmmmpoc
    Hi So an important thing to learn is memorising the the notes of the frettboard, particularly on the low E string and A string as these are where the root notes to your chords are most likely to be. From there learning barre chords will help you, if you learn 3 shapes for the E string rooted chords and 3 shapes for the A string rooted chords you will be able to play any major, minor or dominant chord in two different places along the frettboard. So basically yeah memorising shapes has quite a lot to do with it when you're first starting out. Somone else might have a better insight, I don't claim to be a master but I do have a BA degree in guitar. Hope it helps

  3312. musictheory 2018-12-23 09:49:41 LiamGaughan
    >is it possible to get passed memorizing chord shapes? Not really, it's a tuned string instrument. It is what it is, and you're no less of a player for knowing all your 'shapes'. If I hire a guitar player and the chord is G7b9 then I don't need an Allan Holdsworth voicing. I need a clear voicing, and there's only so many practical ones. Edit: just to add, really what happens on guitar more than anything is knowing what to leave out. Rootless voicings can be great for working on this.

  3313. musictheory 2018-12-23 10:27:25 Willravel
    At around 1:56 you have the leading tone in the violin while you have the subtonic in a lower string voice. This is a cool if somewhat uncharacteristically crunchy effect if it's deliberate, but based on the rest of the work I wonder if it was deliberate because it's a very tonal work with traditional harmonic structure. You do something kinda similar at 2:10 where you blend the dominant harmony back into the tonic minor seventh harmony, like a more modern interpretation of the appoggiatura chord. The structure is straightforward, the harmonic language is largely unified, there's a clear sense of trajectory, and it evokes (as many have pointed out) film scoring. Largely I think the piece works, though perhaps best as accompanying something else. If you want this to be listened to without anything else, like scoring a scene, you may want to add a little more interest. Develop the thematic material a bit, orchestrate a bit more, think about formal structure. There are very simple but tried and true tricks that work to give a musical work more interest. If you intend that this should score a scene, I think it's ready.

  3314. musictheory 2018-12-23 16:24:31 lalsldlflglhljlkl
    Extensions aren't as important as just the voicing itself, I feel like basic 7th chords that are voiced across 2-3 octaves, and across multiple instruments, will sound much more 'cinematic' than something full of extensions and complex harmonic ideas. Generally music scored for cinema takes more of a backseat role to what's happening on screen, so really complex chords are a bit too overbearing/distracting. To take your example of a I vi IV V, to make that sound 'cinematic' I'd first consider orchestration, a common one for film scores would be a string orchestra, so I would voice those chords across the orchestra to have the double bass play all the roots, cellos play 5ths and upper octave of roots, violas play 3rds and 7ths. After that it's just voice leading, you dont want any excessive leaps in any of the voices, or it will sound too busy. If you are writing music for an actual movie, you generally want to avoid strong cadences, as the music is meant to guide the viewer through the journey, so you dont want strong resolution unless youre at the end of an act (also depends on how the act actually ended, it itself might not have a strong sense of finality, so the score should reflect that), or the end of the film itself (again depends on of the ending of the film implies finality, for an ending like inception, theres still ambiguity so avoid a strong cadence.) tldr use big spread voicings of either triads or 7th chords, be very mindful of voice leading and also if you want harmonic interest, use modal interchange rather than chords with crazy extentions

  3315. musictheory 2018-12-24 10:46:45 Atheia
    I don't understand why people have a strong preference for one or the other. Debussy (parallel harmony) and Scriabin (late works, post Op. 59) have showed us that melody and harmony can be one in the same - it can make little sense to purely speak of a melody + accompanying harmony. Ravel (Piano Trio) and Bartok (String Quartet No. 5) have showed us that diatonic/chromatic harmony can supplement chromatic/diatonic melody, respectively, which can be composed in either order. And by chromatic, I mean not tonally related to the key, not just some embellishing chromatic notes to a predominantly diatonic melodic framework. The possibilities given to us by later 20th century trends are even further.

  3316. musictheory 2018-12-24 16:57:07 FwLineberry
    You can build your own chords or look at chords that have already been built and easily understand why they are built that way. The CAGED chords will give you the triad intervals up and down the fingerboard, but I would recommend taking it a step further and working at least with 3-string combinations in terms of inversions. Find C E G or R 3 5 on a set of 3 adjacent strings and then move up the fingerboard and find E G C or 3 5 R on the same set of strings and then move up and find G C E or 5 R 3 on the same set of strings. Do this for every combination of three adjacent strings. All of these inversions will be part of the CAGED chords in one form or another, but it's good to be able to see them separately as well.

  3317. musictheory 2018-12-25 01:53:38 65TwinReverbRI
    Usually, each movement has it's own form. There are lots of variations, but the "Classical" Sonata is basically a 3 Movement work that is generally Fast-Slow-Fast with the 3 movements. The first movement is generally called "the Allegro" and it's why we call Sonata Form "Sonata Allegro Form" - that form is the form of the Allegro movement in a Sonata. Sonata Form means the Exposition, Development, and Recapitulation all happen within the same movement. They are all descriptions of particular sections of Sonata Form itself. The second movement is often "the Adagio" - a slower movement. It could be in Sonata Allegro Form but would be pretty rare comparatively speaking - many are just simple Binary or Ternary pieces. The final movement is typically another Allegro, though it may be Presto or Vivace and is sometimes referred to simply as "the final movement" or "the finale". They are sometimes in SAF too, but it's not uncommon for them to be a Theme and Variations or Rondo, or some other form (as any movement could be). The word "sonata" comes from "son-" like "sonority" - it's **sound**. Way back when, there were "sung pieces" (cantata - cant- like in "chant" and "cantabile") and "sounded pieces" - sonatas. There were "Sonata de Chiesa" (Church Sonata) and "Sonata de Camera" (Chamber Sonata). The former were generally Slow-Fast-Slow, and used for solemn, sacred spaces, and the latter were F-S-F use for secular events - which is what evolved into the Classical Sonata we know now. The later classical Sonata started combining aspects of other forms, so you start to see the Slow Introduction for the Allegro becoming commonplace, and you start to see additional movements added and you start to see more experimentation with placement and so on. For example, Beethoven's "Moonlight" Sonata begins with a Slow movement in Ternary form, then the 2nd movement is a Scherzo and Trio (Scherzi often replaced the Minuet in other forms like the Symphony for the 3rd movement especially in Beethoven's works). It's only the 3rd movement that is in Sonata Form, and a Presto. More Romantic Period Sonatas started having 4 movements more similar to Symphonies and String Quartets, but if we're comparing "textbook" classical forms, the Sonata is 3 movements, F-S-F, with the first movement more often being in Sonata-Allegro Form. But it's kind of a bell curve. HTH

  3318. musictheory 2018-12-25 12:33:30 TaigaBridge
    I am surprised at the shortage of sources for Shostakovich. I had three sources just sitting on my hard drive in PDF form waiting for me to get around to reading them: Richard Taruskin, "Public lies and unspeakable truth interpreting Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony," in *Shostakovich Studies* v.1; Patrick McCreless, "Shostakovich's politics of D minor and its neighbors, 1931-1949", in *Shostakovich Studies* v.2; and the two introductory chapters to David Fanning's *Shostakovich: String Quartet No. 8* which talk about his music in general not just his quartets. All three of those sources are liberally footnoted. I expect I could have dozens of sources if I tracked down the interesting citations. These may not all be readily accessible to you, of course... but the librarian at Inter-Library Loan counter at your local library is your new best friend. When it's not the holiday season anyway, they can typically get you a PDF of almost any article in a day or two, and a hard copy of almost any book in a week or two.

  3319. musictheory 2018-12-25 17:53:40 rjmfc
    Early jazz favored the clarinet over the saxophone. The saxophone really took off when big bands became popular because it's much better for matching the volume and power of a full brass section. It's tone blends well with brass instruments yet is just different enough to provide some contrast. The tuba/sousaphone was also common in early jazz and is still used in many New Orleans brass bands and trad jazz bands. The string bass took over in the swing era due it's more percussive attack and suitability for playing CONTINUOUS walking bass lines, which can be difficult to do on tuba due to the need breathe. The violin has seen occasional use in jazz throughout its history. It's sound and attack does not really match well with brass and percussion, which is perhaps why it's not more common.

  3320. musictheory 2018-12-25 22:02:03 ShrishtheFish
    Interestingly, in early jazz, indoor performances often included a full string section and other orchestral backup. This changed drastically over time but basically it was dependent on the audience. Richer audiences would get the orchestras, less affluent ones got the big band. At least this is what I've been told.

  3321. musictheory 2018-12-25 23:35:35 rjmfc
    Not really...most wind and bowed string instruments are capable of microtonal inflections and while thats big part of the blues sound, one of the most ubiquitous instruments in jazz is the piano which has almost no flexibility in that regard.

  3322. musictheory 2018-12-25 23:36:15 nthexum
    In addition to what others have said, it's worth noting that the saxophone was designed to be easy to play outdoors. Strings are a bit of a hassle, especially the gut strings which were standard until relatively recently. They're temperamental, and can easily go out of tune (by different amounts for each string) with changes in temperature and humidity. Too cold and dry, and the wooden bodies can crack; too hot and humid and rosin stops sticking. This allowed the saxophone to find its niche among the brass instruments of outdoor military bands. This association probably carried over into jazz. Being able to easily play outside was probably also advantageous for dance bands. Someone more knowledgeable in early jazz history may be able to confirm.

  3323. musictheory 2018-12-26 23:47:15 houseofwolves2901
    That’s what I don’t know, I don’t know what the notes are exactly But I can tell you what I played I played on Capo 5 5th string: 5th fret 4th string: 4th fret

  3324. musictheory 2018-12-26 23:53:48 [deleted]
    So (let's forget the capo) you have the 5th string 10th fret ---> Which is a G, and on the 4th string you play a major third higher which should be a B (as a fellow guitar player I know more or less the interval on my neck and I'm quite bad at finding which note I'm playing) so you're playing a kind of G-major chord (without the fifth)

  3325. musictheory 2018-12-27 00:11:18 houseofwolves2901
    Without the capo, it was 5th string, 5th fret, 4th string, 4th fret

  3326. musictheory 2018-12-27 01:06:17 Play14guitar
    That's a D major if you add an A. 2nd fret 3rd string.

  3327. musictheory 2018-12-27 03:13:39 65TwinReverbRI
    Oh thanks for clarifying. But then this brings up - do you know what notes you're playing? Like if you play a D chord ("cowboy chord" - typical D major chord most people learn early on) do you know what notes are on each string? As others have said, when it's just two notes, it "isn't really" a chord but many times what we're doing when we're playing is just playing a "subset" of some chord. So it still implies that chord, or listeners can infer what chord it implies... But yes, as others said, that's called an "Interval" (or Dyad) and there is a separate naming system for those. That naming system doesn't necessarily indicate what chord they would be if all the notes were present though. So the two aren't directly linked - which makes learning it a new endeavor - again if you don't already know your intervals. If you play a C and an A together, it could imply many different chords, so without the context it appears in it's hard to say for sure. It could be part of a D7 chord, an F chord, or even a C13 - you don't know without the other notes present elsewhere, or some context that tells you - again, what it would be if all the notes were present. And sometimes, it's just a harmonized melody and isn't a "chord" at all (which is why they got named differently from chords as they're not always chords!). If you don't know your notes, or where your notes are on the fingerboard, that's a great place to start expanding. Intervals are kind of tricky because there are some things with them that at first seem goofy, but once you get the general idea (and since you know chords already that really helps) it's not too bad. So that would be the next step in getting all this stuff down. Best

  3328. musictheory 2018-12-27 05:10:38 mublob
    If you put a B in the bass (let's say 7th fret, 6th string) you could make it a B minor chord. Since it's just two notes, you have the freedom to find the sound that you want. Ignoring the notes available (as far as playability) you could add a B and a G on the bottom and it becomes a Gmaj7 chord. Perhaps you want a James bond sound--add the B to the bottom, and an A# on top. These options all contribute to the freedom baked into the statement "two notes isn't technically a chord"

  3329. musictheory 2018-12-27 12:13:33 crom-dubh
    It's just unisons, as you say, probably some sort of flute and bowed string instrument, either violin or something Indian like a sarangi.

  3330. musictheory 2018-12-28 06:32:11 65TwinReverbRI
    Think of them in terms of Language. A phrase is a sentence, or a phrase, or a clause, etc. A cadence is like punctuation. Probably the first taught kind of phrases are those in an Antecedent and Consequent relationship, because they work very much like a Question and Answer pair: "Would you like to have some dinner? "Yes, that would be great." So the question sort of "demands an answer". In the same way, an Antecedent Phrase demands continuation. Usually, this kind of phrase ends with a "less conclusive" cadence or even one that is much like a "question" - a Half Cadence, for example, which demands resolution. So a musical Phrase might be defined (and has been) as a complete musical idea, terminated by a cadence. Here's a simple example - Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville: Nibblin on sponge cake, watching the sun bake, all of those tourists covered in oil. Strumming my six string, on my front porch swing, smell those shrimp they're beginning to boil. So the whole phrase is "complete" when oil is rhymed with boil. But, this "paragraph" (or Stanza in poetry) is comprised of TWO phrases as I laid them out here. Musically - or harmonically - the first phrase is all a I chord until it gets to "oil" where it changes to the V - a half cadence, that demands continuation. Then it stays on V and finally resolves to I on the word "boil". The ending on I is essentially an "answer to the question". The first line kind of sets up the scene, and the second line kind of completes the picture. It can also work with "call and response" type figures in music. Together, the Antecedent and Consequent Phrases comprise what is called a "Period". If musically they both begin the same way, it's called a "Parallel Period", if not, it's a "Contrasting Period". ____ Now just by way of contrast, you'll notice the lyrics in that song go "stumming my six sting, on my front porch swing - now, that's a rhyme, so you might think, well isn't that a pair of phrases? But harmonically speaking, it's all the same chord - nothing happens, so it can't be a cadence. _____ Modern popular music is a bit trickier. You often have 4 measure loops with no real sense of cadence harmonically - or it's a cadence every time around if you want to look at it that way. But the LYRICS become the determining factor there. ______ Now, there are all kinds of Phrases, and all kinds of Cadences, but - there are also all kinds of Periods - there are Double Periods, there are things called Phrase Groups, or Three-Phrase Periods and so on, as well as just stand alone phrases. But you are looking for a comparatively "complete" musical idea terminated by a cadence. FWIW, phrases are usually 4 to 8 measures, and some people call other things like 2 measures "sub phrases". But it probably helps to learn them in "more obvious situations" than all the exceptions. It would really help to learn the standard definitions in Classical Music first, as pop really almost evades cadences in many ways - or they're highly modified, or we need a new conceptual understanding of what's going on. I think this video might help you out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvCFVkSnr_8

  3331. musictheory 2018-12-28 12:11:07 GeronimoTheCat
    Just to add... A 12th is the naturally occurring 2nd harmonic overtone on a resonant instrument like a vibrating string or a wind instrument, etc. Harmonic overtones are frequencies that exist at integer multiples of a fundamental frequency. So, if you have a sine wave at 100 Hz and you want to start emulating a string by additive synthesis, you'll likely be adding 200Hz (2f) which is a Perfect octave (P8) in interval terms, and then 300Hz (3f) which is a P12, etc. By changing the amplitudes of the harmonics you can get close to the timbre of the acoustic instruments we're accustomed to hearing. You can pluck a guitar string and view the audio on a spectrum analyzer and see peaks at the harmonics and their relative amplitudes to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

  3332. musictheory 2018-12-28 17:31:07 361332171
    I’m nowhere near professional, but as a cellist of 18~ years and from my experiences in university orchestras, string players and our conductors usually just don’t care. My cello strings are tuned in equal temperament, otherwise you’d have to retune the strings every time you changed keys if you wanted to use open strings. When playing in string ensembles, there’s so many of us that the pitches tend to meld together, especially when everyone’s using vibrato. I feel it’s just really impractical to get every single person in an ensemble to deliberately play in equal temperament or any other tuning system whereas having a good ear and muscle memory will usually be sufficient.

  3333. musictheory 2018-12-28 19:11:05 private_static_void
    I played violin for a few years. The collective tuning was always aural. Someone played A 440, and the rest of the ensemble tuned off of that. I'm sure at at a world class level, everyone in the orchestra is cognizant of temperament, but most every string player I played with tuning by ear would be seeking perfect intonation. How do you tune to equal temperament though, since those intervals are out of tune? I've played guitar for 20+ years. I either make the conscious decision to tune my instrument to the home key if the song is mostly based around one key, or to use an electronic tuner when that's less than ideal. It's definitely possible to tune to equal temperament by ear, but it isn't easy. Would you intentionally detune fifths (or fourths for guitar) just to make equal temperament possible? To my ear, if I didn't have a tuner, I'd just try to make everything as equally imperfect. But that isn't a simple task, especially on a fretted instrument.

  3334. musictheory 2018-12-29 11:43:33 65TwinReverbRI
    We'd probably have to take a survey of a lot of pieces. The V is just historically the most common - very typical old cadence and we still hear that a lot (or V7sus4 as well). It also depends on how strongly you want to call those patterns where say, A B C D E up and down are played more melodically over an Am chord - they produce sus2 and sus4 chords along the way, and it's a super common keyboard player thing, but they also tend to get conflated in 9 and 11 (or add 9 and 11, etc.) structures. I'm talking here where they're more specifically "chordal" than melodic, but really a chord with a moving note so typical in keyboard playing (in a lot of pop songs). We do it in guitar a lot too and certainly most guitarists are no strangers to having the open E and then the G on the E string in combination with the Dm, and the same with B and D on the 2nd string with Am - though I'd say that major is probably more common on average, it's not like they don't happen in minor.

  3335. musictheory 2018-12-29 15:11:59 361332171
    The instrument you see at the beginning is a [Jinghu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinghu_(instrument)) \- an erhu variant. The accompanying plucked string instrument however sounds to me like a synth trying to imitate a Koto, my reasoning being that the notes all have the exact same articulations and dynamics. As for the type of music, that's already been answered by other posts.

  3336. musictheory 2018-12-29 20:51:04 bmarkovic
    Hijaz would actually map pretty well to western Phrygian Dominant as a mode of Pythagorean Ionian, and thus *almost* perfectly to 12TET E Phrygian with major third. This is, I believe, why it's commonly used in middle-eastern pop music. It's easy for players of eastern instruments such as Ney, Oud or Baglama to play idiomatically while being in tune with Guitars which are tuned to 12TET and cannot be detuned due to fixed frets OTOH, synths (depending on whether internal software supports microtuning) and fretless string instruments can all be adapted or retuned to match most maqams, and even a piano can be tuned as desired albeit not between songs in a live performance as the process is time consuming. The "sad" scales are almost universally derived from Dorian. All middle eastern scales stem from the same tetrachord traditions (arguably Sumeran) as the Greek scales - so they actually share scholastic ancestry with western scales. Turkish makam traditions are even obviously influenced by Greek church chorale, and Balkan even more so. A lot of these scales and makams map to 12TET with similar fidelity as the original church modes do.

  3337. musictheory 2018-12-29 23:50:51 Czar_of_Reddit
    There are 2 common mechanics you see in classical guitar music. The PIMA system tells the player which finger to use on their right/picking hand (p= thumb, i=index, m=middle, a=ring and very rarely c=pinky). For left hand fingerings, the sheet music uses the numbers 1-4, again representing index, middle, ring and pinky respectively. [This image](https://www.guitarcontrol.com/images/blog/fingerstyle-guitar-lessons_pima-notation.jpg) shows you both systems in action - note that the numbers 1 and 3 on top don't represent the 1st and 3rd frets like in the tab, but rather the index and ring fingers. As for the down or upstrokes, I'm not familiar with how it's represented in flamenco music, but thinking about a physical guitar, the lowest string is actually physically on top when you play, so an "upstroke" is physically strumming upwards, but you play the notes from highest (sonically) to lowest. So it would make sense that on sheet music this is represented with a downward arrow.

  3338. musictheory 2018-12-30 02:27:12 crom-dubh
    >do you really think so? I'm very much in the habit of saying what I think and not what I don't think. I've not said that note selection is meaningless... that pretty much goes without saying no matter what you're doing. I'm saying that, to get a vibe like "futuristic", the production component is crucial, and you apparently agree or you wouldn't have written >and playing them in the context of the right-sounding production. Imagine [this](https://youtu.be/smpTDkLCYb0?t=85) played on solo piano with a soft dynamic, or a clarinet, or nylon string guitar, etc. I don't think there would be anything "futuristic" about it, despite the note selection being the same.

  3339. musictheory 2018-12-30 10:40:27 alldaymay
    Start with one octave scales Major Scales 3 notes per string starting with each finger. Start with 6th string, you have a different pattern starting with the index finger, middle, and pinky. Same with the 5th string Fourth string same, fingering placement will be a little different 3rd string will be the same you may find your own. Just work em til they’re all smooth at 1/8ths notes at 120 bpm Then Do 2 octave scales same concept

  3340. musictheory 2018-12-31 13:30:30 dtx303033
    How come when you harmonize the Bebop scale it goes back and forth between a 6 chord and a diminished chord? Ex: in C major, the harmonization is C6 and B°7. I can play each of the chords on the different string sets (guitar) up and down the neck in C major, but I don't understand the function of the chords I'm playing or why/how I'm only playing C6 and B°7 in each position.

  3341. musictheory 2018-12-31 20:01:59 ljgjerde14
    intervals, string skipping, and spacing are good things to think about

  3342. musictheory 2018-12-31 20:20:45 chunter16
    I usually like to have parts doing "opposite" rhythms. If you consider the rhythm as a string of eighths or sixteenths, that means you have a part playing one idea and another part only playing on the notes where the first part didn't play. This makes the parts of the song where everything is locked to the same rhythm sound strong, while the parts doing other things are "moving." Like anything, these aren't hard and fast rules or things to do 100% of the time.

  3343. musictheory 2018-12-31 20:33:38 Canadian_Neckbeard
    Here's a really fun tip that sounds silly but works really well. Read a few lines from a book out loud, preferably a children's book of some kind (trust me) Then, take those words and break down how you spoke them. Think about how your voice fluctuated rhythmically in small chunks of a few words. Once you have that sorta locked in, think about how the pitch of your voice fluctuates when you read those words. Then try to play what you just read. Match the rhythm to your speech, and apply the fluctuations to the various notes of the scale or mode you're playing in. Another idea is to put your guitar down and sing the cheesiest couple of lines you can think of, like so cheesy it makes you cringe. Then pick up your guitar and try to play what you sang note for note. Others said intervals and string skipping and all sorts of other technical ideas that are all correct, but what you're looking for is to improve your phrasing so it's not so mechanical and sounds like it's coming from you, and not every dude who played blues licks ever. The best way to get there (in my opinion) is to impart something personal on the notes your playing, so your mind and soul are playing them instead of just your fingers.

  3344. musictheory 2019-01-01 01:29:11 dtx303033
    (reposting my question from last week's thread as I posted so late in that thread) How come when you harmonize the Bebop scale it goes back and forth between inversions of a 6 chord and a diminished chord? Ex: in C major, the harmonization is C6 and B°7. I can play each of the chords and inversions on the different string sets (guitar) up and down the neck in C major, but I don't understand the function of the chords I'm playing or why/how I'm only playing C6 and B°7 in each position.

  3345. musictheory 2019-01-01 04:19:22 Oztheman
    Not exactly sure what you mean here, but it takes 3 (or more) different notes to make a chord. The simplest ones (major or minor) are the 1st, 3rd and 5th notes of the scale played together. it gets more complicated from there. &#x200B; As for tuning at the first dot, not sure what the question is. The note at the first dot is a (minor) third from the open string.

  3346. musictheory 2019-01-01 06:44:29 xiipaoc
    Everyone's saying two notes. Well, almost everyone. I'm going to be contrary and say... it depends on context. (By the way, that's the answer to pretty much every music theory question, though it depends on context.) If you personally play two sounds at the same time, even if they're both G's, even if they're both in the *same* octave (maybe you're playing two different instruments at once, or two different strings on the guitar), you're playing two notes. Implicit here is the question of what exactly counts as a note, so let's think about that. If you draw a little black circle on a staff, that's a note. If you make a sound out of an instrument, that's a note. So we have two definitions of a note: one is a black circle on a staff, and the other is a sound made by an instrument. If you play two G's at the same time, you're making two sounds out of your instrument and you're playing two black circles on a staff. Two notes. But let's throw in a complication: your instrument is a 12-string guitar, where the strings come in pairs. You're playing both members of the pair at once. Is that two notes or one? On paper, it's one, since it's just one black circle, but the instrument *is* making two sounds. Which definition do you want to go with? Here's another complication: your instrument is now a pipe organ, where one note comes out of many pipes. You're just hitting one key, but you get pipes of different sizes, including some that actually sound up a fifth, so all the sounds you're making aren't even G's, out of the one G you're playing on the keyboard. Again, it's still one black circle on the staff, but it's also just one key on the keyboard; the key is simply causing many pipes to resonate. One more complication: your instrument is now a VST plugin, which lets you create whatever combination of pitches you want, and you're not actually pressing any keys on an instrument because you're on the computer. You just have that resulting waveform that happens to contain a full G major triad. Is that a chord? Is that a note? Of course, a single bowed G on a violin *also* contains a full G major triad in its overtones. Is *that* a chord? Change of setting: you're now playing piano -- a normal piano -- and you're playing some 2-part counterpoint. One voice goes F# G A while the other, an octave up, goes A G F#. The first sound is F# A; the second is G G; the third is A F#. Minor tenth, octave, major sixth. Is that second sound a chord? I'll tell you my answers. If you play two notes, you're playing two notes, but if they're in unison or octaves, they don't form a chord. Chords are harmonic, and unisons/octaves are not harmonic. If you only perform one action on your instrument, then you're only playing one note, regardless of how complex the sound is (unless the action is explicitly chordal, like if you push a chord button on an accordion). It may *sound* like a chord, but you're not *playing* a chord. It might be weird to play a note but hear a chord, but that's what's happening. In a contrapuntal situation, where chords are happening all the time, it's difficult to decide that a particular combination of parts is not playing a chord just because the notes happen to be in octaves. On the other hand, nobody really cares about whether a combination of sounds is technically a chord or not. It doesn't actually affect the music, so who cares?

  3347. musictheory 2019-01-01 08:22:04 CyclingMaestro
    What would you call an entire orchestra playing the same pitch class at all areas, with overlapping registers and including doubling on string instruments as well as percussion and keyboard/organ, all playing the extent of their pitch classes, would that be a chord?

  3348. musictheory 2019-01-01 10:39:05 reckless150681
    No, you're tuning an open string to a known pitch. Playing at the first dot on the E string, assuming the guitar is well made, results in an A. Since the next string in standard tuning is an A, you want to make the A string sound like the fifth-fret E string.

  3349. musictheory 2019-01-01 14:38:36 windsynth
    They hired people who knew theory like string and brass arrangers tho

  3350. musictheory 2019-01-01 17:42:32 windsynth
    mick ronson, bowies guitarist, not only could read but also wrote the string arrangement for life on mars

  3351. musictheory 2019-01-01 19:02:09 kingofthecrows
    The tab specifies the tuning of each string and (assuming a 12TET instrument) the notes are implied

  3352. musictheory 2019-01-02 01:07:21 GoldmanT
    Great thank you - Musescore's default is one beam per bar and I've never liked it. If there is the odd 16th rest in a string of 16th notes, would you recommend beaming over the top of it, or breaking the beaming whenever there's a rest?

  3353. musictheory 2019-01-02 01:19:53 dustnbonez
    If you don't know any music theory you can be a musician. I've used tabs. I still use tabs. I use them way less now. I replace the numbers with notes/chords in my head and try to learn the basics theory of it. For to many years I was saying in my head "that riff is 030313530 on the high e string versus getting to know my scales better and saying you have to play egefgae.

  3354. musictheory 2019-01-02 06:34:41 all-thethings
    It's 100% a Bb7, likely 6867xx, then E walk down on A string to Eb7. As stated before, secondary dominant

  3355. musictheory 2019-01-02 17:39:32 SansPeur_Scotsman
    Very curious but I never have the time to listen to anything! Occasionally I'll listen to a new release on Spotify but I've been going through a lot of jazz stuff at the moment. I used to write a lot of music for string quartet but that all stopped when my laptop with sibelius concked out.

  3356. musictheory 2019-01-02 22:16:21 googahgee
    I’m a classically trained violinist so I’ve been doing a lot of composition for soloists or string quartet, but in the realm of music I create not on a page, I’ve been making I guess Synthwave. I’ll have some actual music soon, my goal is to release a song every 2 months this year.

  3357. musictheory 2019-01-03 05:32:32 meditate03
    Open low E and 11 on the A string

  3358. musictheory 2019-01-03 05:56:18 65TwinReverbRI
    That's an E, and a G#. It's just an interval, or a "Dyad", but, since we deal with chords like Major and Minor chords that contain these 2 notes commonly out of a set of 3, and they are so commonly used to IMPLY the whole chord, we'd say that this is an "E" (E Major) harmony (or chord). If you check, the note you're playing when you play a big open E Minor chord in 1st position will include the open 3rd string, which is G. But the E MAJOR form there has 1st finger (usually) on the 1st fret of the 3rd string, making that note G#. If you play the low open E, and the 3rd string G# together, it's the same two notes as low open E and the 11th fret of the A string. So you can kind of see these two notes as a "subset" of the full E Major chord. The song is sort of built around E MINOR, but Iommi has some fun with it and slips in some E MAJOR (or E Mixolydian) ideas from time to time in a super tasty way! So normally, we say it takes 3 notes to form a chord, but 2 of those three can imply the full 3 notes based on context or common use, etc. For example, if you play Iron Man, you should have "Power Chords" that are the root and 5th of a chord, like E and B, or G and D, or A and E, etc. Only 2 notes, but we call them "chords" because they're so commonly used that way (used to imply harmony). We can't officially tell if a power chord is Major or Minor, because it lacks the 3rd of the chord, which is important for that, but we can also infer from other chords what it might be if it were present. Usually we call a Power Chord, "E5" or "G5" etc - which implies the Root, and 5th, with no 3rd. Triads (3 note chords) have a Root, a 3rd, and a 5th. So when you just see "E" (for E Major) or "Em" (or E Minor written out, etc.) you'll have the same Root and 5th as the E5 Power Chord, plus either the major or minor 3rd, which are only 1 fret apart - as you should be able to tell if you play the big open Em and E (major) chord forms, or move that 11th fret note down to 10 (which makes the same note as the 3rd string open). Here, we only have the root and the 3rd, and NO 5th. But because the root and 3rd are enough to imply the chord - and we get the bonus of knowing if it's the minor 3rd G, or the major 3rd G#, we can call it "Em" or "E" (major is assumed without the "m") even though it's only 2 notes - or, at least we can here because the song has kind of already started on E (and it's the lower note), and later music indicates E is pretty much the center for the song. So some people might be persnickety and say "well it's not really a chord, it's just a Dyad or interval" and that's true, but in a context like this, it's also safe to say it's implying an E Major harmony at that point. So yes, it is "missing" the 5th, but the context implies it well enough that we can call it an "E Major Harmony" if not specifically an "E Major Chord". Check out the riff in "Unforgiven" by Metallica - the "heavy" part that starts about 1 minute in after the softer section. They do a very similar kind of thing with notes on the D string around the 12th and 10th frets, along with the A string open, then that idea moves down to 10 on the A and low E open. Then the whole idea moves up to the D and G, and then A and D strings. Writing music on a similar principle (and I'm sure they learned a little BS in their youth!)

  3359. musictheory 2019-01-03 16:05:46 studyingthescore
    Thank you! Would it be good to include pieces that aren't finished yet but are...unfamiliar to the composer? I write mainly for string orchestra, but I have a piece for symphonic orchestra that's like, 60% of the way there that I think is pretty decent.

  3360. musictheory 2019-01-04 00:03:42 CyclingMaestro
    Exactly. So the era, the usage, the language, the country, the semantics, the vernacular, all converge to inform vocabulary. If you were an ageless Vampire, you would see terminology change throughout music history, depending on the context. Terminology matters, particularly in the context. If you had octave strings on a Vihuela some might call it one note. or a 12 string guitar. OR A HARPSICHORD WITH CHOIRS of strings per note. I doubt very much that Handel would have said NOTES when he meant ONE note that is doubled through Organ or Harpsichord tradition. These Reddit discussions always boil down to a sense of right and wrong. It's complicated, and ultimately I always eschew the pedantic for the gesture. So the Terminology on double string instruments, may in fact provide an alternative definition. Not to mention that for thousands of years humans practiced music casually.

  3361. musictheory 2019-01-04 02:06:07 65TwinReverbRI
    I agree with the "talk to the faculty". There's no reason you can't or shouldn't contact them and at least ask for clarifications or recommendations. Personally, I prefer NOT to see "Symphonies" or "String Quartets" or other large scale Classical or Romantic forms - especially for larger scale ensembles which the candidate is not yet ready to write for. I'd rather see "small form" pieces - shorter pieces for a single or few instruments that show you have a grasp on "beginner" compositions. Think of it this way - it's the same problem for people who are auditioning on an instrument - some of them want to (naively) pick a piece they're simply not ready to play yet. You're far better off to pick a piece you can play competently - even if it's "easier" because the adjudicates can get a better feel for your abilities overall - it sucks to sit through an audition where a student just plays something poorly - it tells us 2 things - they're not ready for that piece, but also tells us we have no clue if they can even play anything simpler a lot of times!!! Same goes for your situation - we don't want to see a Symphony score with horrible orchestration and no melody, or form, or development or ideas because you've been copying (poorly) hollywood and videogame scores. It's OK if they show you can put ideas together, but you'd probably need a 2nd opinion on what you include.

  3362. musictheory 2019-01-04 02:11:56 65TwinReverbRI
    Uh-oh. I have to say, we're used to seeing "Symphonies" and "Movie Soundtracks" (unfortunately). We understand that especially Film and Game music is very hot right now, and it's driving a lot of people to compose - let's call it "faux" or "pseudo" orchestral music. I'd say it's different if you're writing pieces for string orchestra that you can get played and recorded by your high school orchestra or something, but if you're just playing around in a DAW with some orchestral samples, that can be a far cry from "actual composition" the way a lot of people do it. How that's taken at various institutions will be really really variable - some place that's promoting film music might love that kind of submission, whereas one that is more traditional will want to see things that look like maybe you've been working with an instructor already (which is what you should be doing by the way if you're not). I also agree with Xeno - I too would rather see 1 solid piece than 5 unfinished/mediocre ones. But yes the expectation level is pretty low - again, you're supposed to be learning. Put your best foot forward - pieces that show you've had the ambition to craft them, rather than just something you slapped together you like. Really, seriously, find a local composition teacher, or the composer at your local university even if you're not planning on attending that one, and connect with them and even take lessons - which if you're serious about this, that's what you should go ahead and do.

  3363. musictheory 2019-01-04 02:31:49 jazzadellic
    Guitar makes an excellent solo instrument (piano probably being no.1, and guitar no.2). Bass as a solo instrument is just objectively much more limited due to the low range and the problems with chords sounding muddy in the lower register, and just the fact that the much thicker strings are also harder to play chords on. Just look around and see how many solo bassists you find compared to solo guitarists. That gives you somewhat of an indication of what we're accustomed to seeing and hearing most of the time. Selling yourself as a solo bassist would be a very hard sell, unless you were playing at the level of someone like Victor Wooten (who can actually pull off playing solo). Guitar is just in a perfect range for doing full arrangements of compositions with bass, harmony and melody. Bass doesn't lend itself to this type of arranging as easily. I'm not saying it can't be done, it's just harder. Again, do some listening on YT or something and see how many amazing solo bass recordings you can find compared to how many amazing solo guitar recordings you can find. It's not even close. The other problem with bass is the standard 4 string design is limiting, and if you're going to go 6 string bass, why the f### not just stay on guitar!!???? Now just the abundance of solo guitar players and music isn't necessary proof that it's objectively better, but one thing to consider is that there is a huge amount of repertoire that already exists for solo guitar. You could spend your entire lifetime learning amazing solo guitar pieces and never learn them all or cover all the different varieties. The same is not true for solo bass arrangements. If you are planning to be primarily a composer, that still puts you at a disadvantage on bass --- you generally compose better the more repertoire and more variety of repertoire you have learned or heard, at least that has been my personal experience over 28 years of doing it.

  3364. musictheory 2019-01-04 09:11:08 studyingthescore
    Thanks everyone who's commented! Based on the general suggestions, I have two pieces in mind. One is a piece for string orchestra that is \~3:40 long, while another is \~1:45 long and is a...chamber wind ensemble? I'm going to dig through my Musescore folder and see what else I can clean up...Thank you everyone!! I'll update this post as needed!

  3365. musictheory 2019-01-04 09:25:24 Scatcycle
    I don't agree with his assessment that the ii following a V works because of the sonic buildup. You can take a string orchestra at a consistent dynamic and replicate the feeling one gets from the V-ii in that song easily without the drums or rhythm. It's a retrogression that reduces intensity, it's a "we're not there quite yet, sit back down". It functions this way regardless of sonic empowerment. This fits in perfectly with the song as it preps the loop to start again. I think sonic function becomes more significant in tonality by assertion. If you put a dramatic key change without modulation into piano (say from the key of i to the key of #IV), it's not very convincing. If you go from a light orchestration into massive booming brass, it sounds great. While this can be used to make "questionable" chord changes more effective, I don't think V-ii falls into that category.

  3366. musictheory 2019-01-04 09:56:23 AugustFay
    I am not an ageless vampire and it's called an out of tune unison if it is an out of tune unison because that's the western terminology we use today. There's a difference between people at the forefront of their fields defining the terminology and some guy on reddit making up random terms to overcomplicate a simple concept that already has a definition. The mechanisms of those instruments you mentioned include more than one string to sound. When you play a piano you are also playing multiple strings... but that is not the same as more than one person playing multiple instruments. If you decided to play those notes on one instrument individually.... then there is no reason why you wouldn't call them two separate notes. That's not the same as two different people playing notes on two separate instruments, along with different timbres, attack times, decays, etc, etc. Why are you like this?

  3367. musictheory 2019-01-04 11:10:21 Ontanium
    Thanks for your feedback. Yep, you got me, I'm no music theorist although I do find it interesting. Yep I did muddle this up a bit, which is why I left brainstorm in the title for now. I'll definetly update this page as things progress. I am bit slow at site reading (actually very slow) but I able to identify different modes and keys... Just takes me a little longer. Oh, the reason I wanted to do it this way! I basically find this gyometrical shape and position of the guitar easier to get on with. Once I know a molody in one position I find it easy to move around. And lastly, I just really like move though the modes in this position as if playing the chords (ultimately that does resolve back to G Mjr). So I think I see your point. I like the idea of having a pedal tone though, like E playing around 7th frett A string, but of course this would be more just scale and ear practice juxtaposed with themes/melodies. Thanks for your input. I will check Jeff Beck out, I have heard of him. I think he plays in 430hz, I'm pretty sure it's not concert pitch.

  3368. musictheory 2019-01-04 11:27:21 Scatcycle
    The first point isn't an assumption, it's a documented phenomenon. The notes of a perfect fifth share such a closely related set of overtones that movement of parallel fifths removes the sensation of multiple voices. It's a bit like how you don't hear 20 voices (the overtones) moving within a melody, you just hear one. This is the same with octaves. Even thirds, if consistently parallel, will be perceived as one voice. I think we agree in that we both think the merit of voice leading is questionable in popular modern music. While I think that good voice leading is inherently pleasing to the ear, it's clear that with enough musical interest in other areas, this can be forgone and not have too much of a detrimental effect. This is more subjective, so there's not really much to be said here. Tonality doesn't require the expression of dominant function. Tonality simply requires that a single note be heard as the tonic at a given time. Which literally every pop song ever follows. For whatever reason, the human brain likes to pick a note and all notes then have some sort of relation to that note. Thus, all popular music is based off this. You can write a piece that sits on I the whole time, just because no V doesn't show up doesn't mean it's not functional. You have to realize that function is not dictated by raw chords. You can have a whole string of weirdly notated chords and their function still all be either tonic or dominant. Take this excerpt for example https://youtu.be/WP0Mastn3gk?t=150 . It's something like V-iv-III+7-V6/4-i. The functions are actually just V-i though. Through prolongation you can add musical interest while not changing function much. Jepsen's song goes through the same functional changes without outright expressing V. There is certainly dominant function in the song, especially evident when the leading tone (F#) is played. This idea that function is not contingent our well known chords isn't exactly taught at lower levels, as it is pretty complicated and would only serve to confuse the student at a lower level. Schenkerian Theory reconciles pop songs and the issues you're bringing up. Ultimately, everything comes back to Tonic and Dominant. Essentially, tension and release. This is hardwired into our brains and cannot be helped. Though tonic and dominant may disguise themselves at time, if you look a little bit closer you will see they are evermore present in pieces like Call Me Maybe.

  3369. musictheory 2019-01-04 16:28:14 jazzadellic
    For reading and theory the best way is two parts really: 1. Master your fretboard and 2. Get a degree in music (this is how I did it). I added no. 1 because I have seen people barely squeak by with a degree, but still hadn't really fully mastered the fretboard. I was dedicated enough to master the fretboard, or at least 90% of the way there, before I even started college, and without any lessons. What do I mean by master the fretboard? Simple: 1. Be able to instantly name every note on the fretboard. 2. Be able to play every chord, in all positions, all string groupings, from any root. 3. Be able to play all the basic scales in any key or position, like major, minor, harmonic minor, melodic minor, diminished, whole tone, etc... 4. Be able to play all basic arpeggios in all positions from any root. 5. Numbers 1-4 without little to no thinking, from muscle memory, at any speed, no mistakes. That is what I would call a basic mastery of the fretboard. It doesn't mean there isn't anything more you can improve with your fretboard knowledge and fluency, it's just like getting your black belt in karate. After that you can still get ranks on your black belt ;o) The 2nd best way would probably be take lessons with someone who has a degree in music - and is good at teaching what they learned. But I won't lie, learning to sight read on guitar is very long process and takes many years to get good at it. Guitar is for sure one of the hardest instruments to learn to read on, if not the hardest. Whenever an adult who has played guitar for many years comes to me and signs up for guitar lessons and says "I want to learn to sight read on guitar", I always have this thought pass through my head "Oh boy, they don't know what they are getting into, and how much work it will take..." Needless to say, they always give up pretty quick. My best readers have always been young people. My fastest learning reader ever was a 5 year old.... Learning on your own will not likely go too far unless you are extremely self disciplined and driven. Even with the aid of someone you have to be very disciplined and driven. I've never met a good reader that was self-taught. Don't want to discourage, just stating my experience.

  3370. musictheory 2019-01-04 18:02:17 Jongtr
    Learning notation is obviously where you need to start. You can do this yourself. https://www.musictheory.net/lessons takes you through it step by step, with sounds where it helps. (NB: no need to learn bass clef. And it may help to know that guitar transposes down by an octave. Middle C is the sound of 2nd string fret 1, and is written under the staff in piano (concert) notation, but on the 3rd space up in guitar music.) If you want a guitar-friendly book, I recommend [this.] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Leonard-Guitar-Method-Theory-Online/dp/063406651X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1546595630&sr=1-1_) OTOH, if you want to go down the serious classical route (lots to recommend it, in terms of re-learning good technique), there's [this.] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Solo-Guitar-Playing-Book-Instruction/dp/0825637112/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1546595690&sr=1-1&keywords=noad+guitar) (That's "solo" in the sense of "unaccompanied classical compositions", of course, not "rock widdly widdly improvisation" :-)) You can learn all you need yourself if you have the self- discipline. Once you understand notation you can - as you say "pick up any book of music and just play it, regardless of the instrument it was originally meant for" - that's pretty much how I taught myself, back in the day when there was no tab. (You won't be able to sight-read straight off for some time, but it won't take long to just be able to work stuff out.) Of course, a teacher will get you there quicker, and will be able to guide you technically, fixing any mistakes you may be unaware of. If you can afford lessons, and can find teachers easily enough where you are, I recommend it. (I taught myself, as I say, but I am a teacher now - I've seen the process from both sides!)

  3371. musictheory 2019-01-05 01:05:23 samlikesmoana
    I would recommend ditching tabs early -- it will help develop your ear. Listen to a song over and over again and try to play it, then check a tab to see if you're correct. I would also recommend pouring a lot of time into working on the basics before going on to anything more challenging. (example: make sure you can mute effectively when playing power chords so that you can strum every string and only have 2 or 3 ring out).

  3372. musictheory 2019-01-05 05:19:49 Scatcycle
    There is not room for debate when crucial mistakes are made, regardless of who is making them. It is a fact that roman numerals only give information based on a moment in time, and it is a fact that music does not always make sense if you reduce it to disparate moments of time. Unless anyone can disprove these two facts, the statement that roman numerals are the governing technicality that determine whether music (which we established is not entirely reducible to roman numerals) is tonal or not is objectively false. This is a technical thing, there's not much room for discussion here. Were someone to prove that music operates on an singular dimension irrespective of time, then we'd have something to talk about. Since no one will ever do that, as it's clear it doesn't, we can move on. I hope we both agree that roman numerals can't be used as an end all to analyze pieces. If we do, we now face the issue of "what is tonality". It is derived from tonal, which beyond its original meaning of just simply the characteristic of tones, developed the meaning of something having a tonic, a relation between notes. We can start with the basic dictionaries: Webster: "the organization of all the tones and harmonies of a piece of music in relation to a tonic" Oxford: "The character of a piece of music as determined by the key in which it is played or the relations between the notes of a scale or key." Now we can move on to a definition that moves beyond the semantic meaning and into its theoretical use: In Sommaire de l'histoire de la musique, the first documented occurrence of the word "tonality", Alexandre Choronfirst used the term to describe relations between subdominant and dominant harmony relative to a tonic. This fell in line with the ideologies in Rameau's Traité de l'harmonie, the book considered to be the first written explanation for our current harmonic system. Everything points to the same definition: The relation of functions to a tonic. If people are basing their arguments off different definitions of tonality, they're simply using an incorrect definition. People are free to say whatever they want, but any debate in an academic setting will use the actual definition of tonality. With the parallel fifths, you give too much credit to our brain's processing. Whether or not we can detect such minute differences in tuning, we don't care. Anyone who's ever heard singers off tune has still interpreted the proper functions of the notes. We don't just lose all function when a frequency is a little off, in fact I can guarantee you a string orchestra has a whole lot of frequency differential, especially with vibrato. It takes a lot more than that to throw off the brain. We are great at averaging things, and when some frequencies are a bit off the brain just rounds up or down to whatever its closest function may be. You're still going to lose the voice in parallels. People intuitively avoided this because they noticed it. You can try it out for yourself as well. I completely agree with you on the aesthetic point, as I'm sure most people do. Many a time have I used parallel fifths despite wanting voice individuality. It's especially common when you want complete upper movement of all voices in a root chord. The aesthetic nature of P5s is both subjective and contextual, whereas the physical nature can be objectively measured with regard to voice loss. No one says the texture of parallel fifth is out of place. This thought generally comes from students who become attached to the idea that parallel fifths can never happen. What people do say, is that a parallel fifth surrounded by otherwise proper voice leading causes a voice to disappear and reappear, an inconsistency that jars the listener. " If all you listened to was music that emphasized 5ths and 4ths and so on, you'd get damn good at differentiating voices in that texture, parallel or not." If this were true you would hear all overtones of a fundamental as different voices, as you've been hearing this all your life. No one does, and so I do not agree with your suggestion.

  3373. musictheory 2019-01-05 11:33:32 briandress
    I got confused by him lol. Theory is so daunting to me. I’m just trying to learn my caged shapes and not sure if the chord that I enjoy the sound of here fits into the A shape or the C shape. If it’s a c shape then the low c string note is a 3rd I believe. If it’s an a shape then the low c string note is a minor 7th

  3374. musictheory 2019-01-05 21:00:53 Jongtr
    > How do you think about music while you're making it? What cognitive device are you using? Is it a mixture between things? Do you have your own unique way of doing it? Inasmuch as I think consciously at all, I think much like you - numbers, as interval relationships, not pitch names, because that's how music works. The numbers represent actual musical effects (2nd, 3rd etc), while the letters (Ab, Bb) are just labels. But then that also works in communication, which is why we use I, ii, iii, etc, to convey the same cognitive stuff we use when playing. We might start from "Ab" when talking, but easily slip into "ii" or "2nd" after that. Same (privately) when playing. I know to begin with that the key is Ab - I'm thinking "Ab" in that sense - but the way I'm conceptualising the rest is as numbers in relation to that. I.e., obviously I know the note names too, but it's the interval relationships that I'm dealing with. But also, there's the issue of instrumental technique. As a guitarist, I think in visual fretboard patterns, as placeholders for the intervals. I know, eg, that a perfect 4th is *this* shape on the neck, a minor 7th is *that". (Shapes can vary depending on string choice, but I know them all.) A pianist would have a different visual/tactile system, a horn player yet another. IOW, intervals become intimately linked with *fingering*, and that becomes the nearest thought process to consciousness, IME. Obviously, that's even less conducive to communication between musicians than note names. Intervals (numbers relative to tonic or root) are, in a sense, a half-way point.

  3375. musictheory 2019-01-05 21:40:00 Ontanium
    Oh, that makes sense now. I forget the song but it was a guitar instructor teaching the chords to one Jeff Becks songs and he insisted that the student tune the guitar to match his/the album. I always used to think why would anyone do that, so that makes sense. &#x200B; p.s my guitar is pretty beat up right now. It's a sort of classical flemenco style guitar that I got £10 years ago. I actually like it better than the £400 Manuel Rodriguez (student guitar). But the 6th string tunning peg has this habit of slipping now so I have to play 2 steps down. It's still my favourite guitar

  3376. musictheory 2019-01-06 02:55:06 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, there's a difference between "Prelude" and something like "Pas dans la neige". One is such a typically-used term in English with no other real substitutes that it *is* essentially an English word. But the latter can be a little pretentious - unless you're writing something directly inspired by that, or it's the name of a poem you're using as inspiration, or it's in a particular style... for example, "Etude" is the common term for a "study" piece. "Studie" in German - which Stockhausen named some of his early Electronic Music pieces, and "Estudio" in Spanish. Many people have written a "Study" using the English title. But it's probably more common just to use "Etude" because we've seen that word so much again, it's become part of the lexicon. But, if I were writing a piece for Classical Guitar in the style of all the Estudios written by Spanish guitar composers that if you study classical guitar, you're going to run into a lot more frequently than other names - especially if it were at all "Spanish" in flavor, I might choose "Estudio" to invoke that (hopefully) in the performer's and audience's minds. (damn singular and plural possessives...) There was a discussion somewhat recently about all the "new age" kind of names for pieces too that can be cringey to many. "Desolation". "Lonliness". "Sunrise". and so on. These all get a bit corny now. But, naming your piece "Sonata" or "Divertimento" is also a little old-fashioned. Here's my suggestion: Name it what you want. BUT, be INFORMED about how people name pieces. Don't be that person who writes a piece and naively puts "Opus 1" on it. Publishers assign Opus numbers, not composers. If you write something that is essentially a Sonatina, name it Sonatina. But know what a Sonantina is and if your piece is actually a Sonatina or not. Don't write for 4 strings and call it a "String Quartet". While some names like that have historically meant various things, they came to mean very specific things which still holdover today. It comes off as either naive or pretentious when you call a 16 bar experiment a "String Quartet" - or even if it's 4 pages and you call it "String Quartet no.1 Opus 1 "The Dawning of a New Era" ". It shows that you really don't understand the history and it's kind of the mark of an amateur and something a lot of people snicker about and use as examples of what not to do. And if you're not famous, it really doesn't matter. Make yourself happy, and don't worry what everyone else thinks. If you are famous, you can do what you want anyway. Personally, I'm not a fan of the whole "goofy names just to be goofy" or "anti-establishment" and all that crap - that just comes off as an ulterior motive or shtick. Frank Zappa could get away with Sheik Yerbouti. But "Seymore Butts" or "Harry Palms" becomes a little disingenuous if you're otherwise writing serious music. Writing "The Curse Suite" with movements "Shit, Fuck, Bitch, Damn, Hell" might get a laugh on 9gag, but unless the music is really good, or the composer has a catalog of solid music, save that for the "do you really want to be remembered for that" category.

  3377. musictheory 2019-01-06 07:17:26 mickleby
    Yes. And a really clever jazz wind or string player can create a lick that uses is sub minor interval in a way that you won't even recognized as unusual!

  3378. musictheory 2019-01-06 07:24:14 65TwinReverbRI
    It can be - but it depends on the type of vibrating body. A string, tensioned, and supported by a bridge at each end, and free to vibrate, will produce a note, like a guitar does. If you halve the length, it doubles the frequency. It depends on HOW you halve it - like you can put another bridge under the middle, but that's actually going to take away a very small amount of the string length, so the two halves won't be exactly double in frequency but a touch high (it's really small though). Also, if you double the tension you'd get a doubling of frequency. It is really that simple! With slight caveats - and not always true of all vibrating bodies - strings, air columns, stuff like that, yes. A solid metal pipe, not necessarily. Try plucking a wine glass that's exactly half full, then fill it up and see what happens.

  3379. musictheory 2019-01-06 07:26:45 mickleby
    And don't even get me started on other musical traditions. Indian music as much more intervals than we've talked about. In Indian music you don't even need to use an established interval. You simply need to "state" the interval and then use it in a way that makes sense. A good sitar player may play one song for maybe 30 minutes. In that time the player will spend almost all of the time using the intervals of the overtone series up to the sub minor. But this is an unfretted string instrument.

  3380. musictheory 2019-01-06 08:44:19 88melter
    Is this whole thread about microtonal music, or not? The terms in the opening blurb had me muddled as hell, and I do jazz and atonality and all manner of weird-ass musical stuff. I don't do micro-tones. There ARE instances where vocalists and string players make adjustments, and that is as far as I go.

  3381. musictheory 2019-01-06 10:34:20 Larson_McMurphy
    Half-whole is useful for altered dominants as an alternative to super locrian. I don't use whole-half much. What is interesting is that there a lot of amazing triad patterns in the diminished scale. alternate between two minor or major triads a tritone apart. minor triad first inversion, move bass note up a half step, major triad second inversion, move bass note up a whole step and repeat You can also play off of 4 major or minor triads whose roots are the notes in a fully diminished 7th chord. You can also find many pairs of chord shapes that aren't necessarily triads. Pick a collection of notes that are in the diminished scale. Move each of them up either a half-step or whole-step according to the scale. You now have a different shape. Do it again and you have the first shape again, but up a minor third. Rinse and repeat (the alternating minor first inversion and major second inversion pattern I mentioned above is one such possibility) Also I really love the sound of broken 4ths in the diminished scale because every other one is a b4 (which is basically a major 3rd) Then there is the famouse Brecker Brothers lick. Pick a note: down a whole step, down a major third, down a whole step, up a fourth, repeat repeat repeat. It sounds badass!!! I love this scale and it has so many possibilities. Check out Herbie Hancock's solo in the middle of the Miles tune "Madness." Check out Ravel's string quartet! It has diminished scale stuff in abundance.

  3382. musictheory 2019-01-06 14:33:19 frenchtoastkid
    *Plays Mad World melody on string bass*

  3383. musictheory 2019-01-07 02:41:32 Quardener
    From what I’ve heard, trombonists, string players, and pianist tend to be better at music theory simply because they have an easier time envisioning the relation between notes, due to the nature of their instruments.

  3384. musictheory 2019-01-07 03:11:25 bennoabro
    8 string guitar, 6 string bass, piano, upright bass, trumpet, mellophone, french horn, baritone, and euphonium. Also I can read music for alto recorder just as a joke between my friends and I if you want to count that.

  3385. musictheory 2019-01-07 03:12:31 Grimstache
    Trumpet, trombone, euphonium, French horn, clarinet, flute, sax, piano, B3, percussion, banjo, guitar, violin, plectrum banjo, tenor banjo, accordion, and bass. Learning the string instruments and keys has given me better insight into comping and understanding chord progressions.

  3386. musictheory 2019-01-07 03:24:03 dazmo
    I dabble in whatever I can get my hands on but I main the six string and jam rock metal and country mostly. A little classical and jazz on occasion too.

  3387. musictheory 2019-01-07 03:26:19 victotronics
    Viola da Gamba. Some of my golden eared colleagues pull the first fret on the top string apart so that they can play both an equal-tempered Eb and just intonation. I'm 1. not that crazy 2. not sure why the Eb is so important.

  3388. musictheory 2019-01-07 05:38:14 Cello789
    Cello. Helped me greatly understand circle of fifths (seemingly easier than people who don't play classically tuned string instruments) Also helped learn and understand overtone series (harmonics on strings) which might be the same as registers for brass instruments? Some of these seem quite obtuse on piano, but on keys you get to see things like chord voicings and altered chords a bit more easily. Anyone who plays classical and studied bach understands leading tones in different voices (counterpoint stuff), but when you get a Db half diminished in an Eb major prelude, it's a bit jarring for unaccompanied cello, where on a piano you can voice the chord so it makes more sense in that context (and see the lines moving within their lanes)

  3389. musictheory 2019-01-07 07:08:15 Matt7738
    6-string fretted electric violin. The huge range (it goes more than an octave below a violin) allows me to explore a lot of cool extended arpeggios and the frets allow me to visualize the fingerboard a lot differently than a fretless instrument.

  3390. musictheory 2019-01-07 07:44:04 PlazaOne
    I studied guitar and bass. Beyond those I've dabbled with lots of other instruments, including other fretted string instruments: Irish bouzouki, tenor mandola, ukulele, bandurria, mando-banjo. Also non-fretted: hammered dulcimer, autoharp, Nordic lyre, lap steel. Lots of hand percussion including: djembe, bhodran, bones, caixixi, boomwhackers. Wind instruments: fife, low D whistle, harmonica. Plus I've also had several keyboard instruments, including a foot-pumped harmonium. I found it very insightful switching between different instruments. For example, chord shapes are not transferable between guitar and bouzouki, since one is tuned in (mainly) fourths, and the other in fifths. That helped open my ears to the significance of using different voicings. Some instruments, such as the low D whistle and Nordic lyre, are diatonic; which forced me into being more creative with my ideas, rather than over-relying on, say, simple trilling or chromatic runs. Playing hand percussion really helped me develop my appreciation of accents and dynamics - not so much a theory topic maybe, but still pretty important.

  3391. musictheory 2019-01-07 08:06:13 Xenoceratops
    Trombone is such a cool instrument. I’m guessing thinking of all those overtones is also conducive to relational thinking. It’s kind of like how string instruments have the same note in different positions, but you have to locate it in the overtone series. (Or maybe I’m off base on this. I’m a guitarist, what do I know?)

  3392. musictheory 2019-01-07 10:17:53 Chaos_Kiwi
    5 string violin, alto saxophone, and piano

  3393. musictheory 2019-01-07 10:50:09 MGTOWtoday
    Guitar (electric, acoustic, classical, 12 string), lapsteel, banjo, mandolin, violin, viola, electric bass, contrabass, drums, harmonica, piano/keyboards.

  3394. musictheory 2019-01-07 12:30:33 Ludisia
    Classically trained in piano since forever and learnt Western music theory on it; also play the traditional Chinese plucked string instrument, the guzheng (古筝). I dabbled in the Japanese koto (筝), but hardly with any intent. Learning the guzheng, and being exposed to the repertoire definitely exposed me to a whole new world of subtlety when it comes to ornamentation, and the level to which seemingly small nuances can completely transform a piece. And it forced me to look at some basics of microtones, since they're often used in the schools of guzheng in southern China and other parts of southeast Asia.

  3395. musictheory 2019-01-07 12:49:36 JustSomeGuy2600
    I've had a rough journey on my way to becoming a better improviser myself and here's a few things I gathered along the way. 1) In the great words of Adam Neely - *"Repetition legitimizes"*, If your improvising sounds like a mess, try and play a simple melody that isn't too complex and build off of it. 2) If you want to link some of your licks, find some notes they have in common and use those to pivot to the next lick. Alternatively you can arpeggiate a harmony that could lead to the next lick (A V/V for example). 3) Try embellishments after you've established a lick. Put a few grace notes or extend it to make it refreshing yet familiar. 4) There are no notes you should avoid playing. If you're trying to play in a certain style, (you gave blues so I'll use that) then you should use typical progressions but not particularly typical notes. First practice with the blues scale, then once you can make any note sound good in that scale, practice leaning into the wrong notes through chromatic approach tones for example. What makes a good solo is making it sound like it was meant to be apart of the music, so make sure you stick to your gut. 5) I'm unsure about that "harmonic" part in the solo and I'd need an example, but to put it simply, play harmonies that fit the style and that fit what you've been playing thus far. If you're improvising a smooth jazz tune for example, you wouldn't stay on a simple major triad for too long, and to mix it up instead of using ii-V-I's you could use a tritone substitution for example. 6) When starting to play fast, don't play a string of notes that all have purpose because you'll, in a way, "run out" of notes. Focus on going from one note to another. In improvising it's somewhat the journey to the next note more than a note by note breakdown. Hope this helps you in any way! &#x200B;

  3396. musictheory 2019-01-07 18:55:22 mmzz7
    Not future genres, but a classification system for (present and) future genres: &#x200B; O1, O2, O3, O4, etc. &#x200B; Where O-base, or O1 means the basic system where an octave is divided in up to 12 semitones (maybe tuned with temperate, Pythagorean or any other system). So, a pentatonic scale, a major scale a chromatic scale, are all O1. &#x200B; O2 means a system where the octave is divided in up to 12 \* 2 = 24 semitones (again, with temperate or any other tunings). O3 means a system where the octave is divide in up to 36 semitone (12 \* 3), and so on. &#x200B; Related observation: &#x200B; Pierre Boulez was one of the leaders and innovators of avant-garde music and some of his stuff was so crazy and dissonant as to be hardly distinguishable from random noise. &#x200B; Pierre Boulez was also a classical orchestra director, and he was known to have a good musical ear. As in "you, mister third violin, your D string is not tuned properly, check it and fix it" kind of good ear. &#x200B; So, perhaps, once one's abilities reach such levels, 12 semitones in an octave perhaps start to feel too few. New challenges, new subtlety is going to be required...

  3397. musictheory 2019-01-08 01:35:38 FadedXO_OwO
    In 12 equal temperament (12TET) which is used in much of Western music, this is a matter of semantics: an interval comprise an interval number and its quality. The interval number is determined by staff position/note name. So even though an augmented second and a minor third (e.g. C-D# vs C-Eb) are enharmonically equivalent in 12-TET, they are regarded as different. There are also instances where such semantic matter in practice, such as for instruments like the Harp, where D# is accomplished by sharpening the D string, and Eb by flattening the E string - the timbre and fingering differs between the two. &#x200B; (Of course, in the case of other temperaments, they would be totally different intervals altogether.)

  3398. musictheory 2019-01-08 06:23:56 poetically_incorrect
    I can follow this .. I'm just not naturally a good organizer and it seems with so many permutations possible, it's like an endless pursuit. I am still learning every note on the fretboard so that when I think of a staff note, I see them on every string. Then working at intervals and eventually chords, all the while involving my ear so I can hear what I'd be playing instead of guessing its sound. Practice .. yea.

  3399. musictheory 2019-01-09 01:02:47 Downvotes_Everybody
    First and foremost, if the goal is to be able to jam with buds, don't focus overmuch on technique. It's wildly important, but once you have a base level of skill, it's more important to know your theory implicitly and have strong musicality for jamming. Theory helps you understand why you want to play what you want, musicality gives you a better "feel" for the song and grows your imagination for improvising. For technique, I'd say there are four categories: picking-hand, fretting-hand, coordination, and rhythm. **Picking-Hand Techniques**: You mentioned you do finger-style, but you play rock and alt-rock. Finger-style has its benefits and its downsides. The main downside is that most people, most of the time can play much faster with a pick. Some techniques to practice: * Alternate picking * Most common type of picking for rock and blues. Practice your alternate picking at a slow speed, then slowly ramp it up over time as you get better with it. * Economy picking * Less common in rock and blues, but this is a useful skill for any guitarist and is especially useful if you move to metal. It can vastly speed up your arpeggios and is useful in a number of fast licks. Some people prefer this to alternate picking overall. I would recommend being comfortable using both types of picking AND switching between them mid-song. * Muting with your pick hand * don't overlook this one. When you play live, you won't notice, but when you record you can hear sympathetic vibrations. In other words, if you play a G on your low E string, it can resonate with the other open strings and create some noise in recordings. Both of your hands are responsible for muting those other strings. This is huge for your cleanliness. * Velocity * Often ignored by guitarists. Pay attention to how hard you play each note. You will want to accent some notes and play other notes softly. Ensure you're *conscious* about these decisions. You can improve your overall sound like crazy by thinking about this. When learning songs, don't just learn the song... learn the *feel* of the song, too. Maybe the chorus is played louder and the verse more quietly. Maybe certain notes get accented to deliver a motif. Whatever it is, don't ignore this. * Pinch harmonic accuracy and consistency * Tremolo picking * Not used a ton, but still a nice skill to have. **Fretting-Hand Techniques**: Your techniques here can depend a lot on whether you're a lead or rhythm guitarist. They have very different focuses * Bend accuracy * One of the more overlooked techniques to practice. Don't just bend notes. Make sure when you bend, that you're pinpointing the note you want. Sometimes you'll want to be intentionally off of the note. Sometimes you'll want to hit a note directly. Whatever your goal, ensure you're conscious about exactly where you're bending to. Nothing worse than intending to bend to a clean C and instead landing in some no-man's land between B and C. * Trills * Exhausting. Do 'em anyways. Improves strength and helps you be consistent with your trill tempo. * Finger strength * Don't neglect your pinky. Do some bend practice or trill practice with your weakest fingers. A strong little finger is very useful, especially if you ever want to switch to bass. * Spider exercises * This is a 16-part chromatic exercise to a metronome. Play every combination of four frets (e.g., 1-2-3-4, 1-2-4-3, 1-3-2-4, 1-3-4-2, etc all the way to 4-3-2-1) up and down every string, in time to a click-track. For example, you might play frets 5-6-7-8 on E, 5-6-7-8 on A, all the way up to the high E string, then all the way back down. This will get your fretting hand comfortable with all kinds of motions, practice your rhythm, and improve fret/pick coordination. * You can get creative with these. Try skipping strings, moving the pattern up and down the fretboard, or combining multiple patterns (1-2-3-4 on E, 1-3-2-4 on A, 1-2-3-4 on D, etc). * Chord cleanliness and chord transitions * Practice your chord forms. Open, fretted, barre, triads, extended chords, inversions. Then practice swapping between them. You can combine a lot of this with theory practice, learning forms of different inversions and learning how to form the same chord all over your fretboard. * Don't just hit the chords. Ensure every note rings clear and no unwanted notes show up. Ensure your transitions are clean. Do this at a slow speed until it's perfect before you increase speed. * You can practice scales here too, but that's better done in a theory perspective or musicality. **Coordination and Rhythm** I'm not going into these in detail because I'm bad at them. Don't ignore these like I did. Rhythm practice is very important. It's frustrating for your bandmates if you're going out of tempo. Practice normal rhythms and irregular tuplets. These can quickly become muscle memory. A common practice technique for triplets and other tuplets is the Table of Time. Set a metronome and play whole notes to the track. Then half notes. Then half-note triplets, quarter notes, quintuplets, sextuplets, septuplets, and eighth notes. You can keep going as far as you want, basically, but the idea is to play the same tempo, but keep increasing the number of notes per measure. Never move onto the next rhythm until the current one feels innate and natural to you. Sweeping is a good coordination tool. This will also help you if you decide to transition to metal.

  3400. musictheory 2019-01-09 02:45:24 Jongtr
    Right. That guitarsage video is a good demo of the principle, and you can also try it in reverse: play a note on the guitar and try and hum it. Tip: if you're not sure you're hearing your voice correctly (which is one of the problems for those of us who think - often correctly! - that we "can't sing"), you can either use a mic and headphones, or (old-school method) sing into the corner of a room, as close as you can get. You then hear your voice as it really is (as others hear it) rather than through the bones in your head, which colours the sound. Another tip is to hum the lowest and highest notes you can comfortably hold on pitch. That establishes your natural range, which will help you when learning songs in future (when you become A Singer :-)). For an adult male, that's likely to be somewhere between bottom E on guitar and middle C (B string fret 1). Tenors can easily get higher than that, as can most men with some vocal training. But the average guy (IME) is naturally in bass/baritone register. (Adult women will be roughly an octave higher than that.) The point here is to know the ballpark to aim at when hunting for the random note you're humming - it's probably going to be on the bottom 3 strings, probably on a low fret. Don't hunt on the top 2 strings! (In that guitarsage video, at 7:44, he finds a note he calls F#, but actually it's a C# he's playing, and it's fret 9 on the top E, whereas the C# he's humming is fret 2 on the B. An odd lapse on his part...)

  3401. musictheory 2019-01-10 01:55:02 Jongtr
    The way I think of "perfect" intervals (related to their consonance) is frequency ratio. Unison = 1:1 Octave = 2:1 Perfect 5th = 3:2 Perfect 4th = 4:3 These are all *Pythagorean* intervals too. Pythagorean tuning (a medieval system) worked everything out from factors of 2 and 3 (e.g., a 9th would be 3:2 x 3:2 = 9:4, meaning a major 2nd would be 9:8.). Whatever system you use, though, other intervals mean more complex ratios, which is partly why they are less consonant. If you play guitar, the guitar string makes a good test bed for this principle. Fret 12 (octave) = 1/2 string length; fret 7 (P5) = 2/3 string length; fret 5 (P4) = 3/4 string length. I take your point about microtonal music. But a "minor 5th" would imply there must also be a "major 5th" - quite reasonable if you think about a microtone above and below the perfect 5th (presumably less than the augmented and diminished intervals).

  3402. musictheory 2019-01-10 06:16:07 65TwinReverbRI
    Err. OK, first, you're using different words. Transcribe means to listen to a piece of music, and learn it by ear, or more typically, write down the notes (scribe) on paper. It can also mean making a piece originally for one instrument for another instrument, as in, "I've transcribed this piece originally for Lute to Guitar". Could be by ear, but could also be from music in that case. The result of either - copying out a piece from ear, or changing instrumentation, is a "transcription". "translate" is not a musical term in anything beyond its normal use in non-musical settings. "Transpose" is what you're actually talking about, which means to take a piece in one key and change it to another key. The typical way this is done is with numbers. So you sort of are doing it right. However, most of us use "chord numbers" - Roman Numerals for most people, but in Nashville they have their own system called "Nashville Numbering System" by most. In either case, we take the Tonic chord and call it "one" (I, or 1). So the basic idea is - OK, we could use "translate" or "transmute" here :-) You take a chord progression like G - Em - C - D and "convert" (ha, avoided the issue :-) them to numerals - I - vi - IV - V (or in NNS, 1 - 6 - 4 - 5 ) Then what you do is, you know what those chords are in other keys by virtue of your knowing all your chords in other keys! For example, if someone says "transpose that to Bb" (or just, "let's do it in Bb" then it's Bb - Gm - Eb - F. You can do it with melodies too. We usually use "scale degree" numbers for melodies, which when written in text are usually done with a "caret" over the numeral, but sometimes that symbol is difficult to use (as here it means superscript) so people will just use 1, 2, 3, to refer to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd notes of the scale. Since so few people outside of Nashville use NNS, luckily it's not too confusing and context usually is clear whether you're talking about notes or chords. For most people, they're playing a chordal instrument and accompanying a vocalist - vocalists don't care what notes they're singing - they just sing in key. But we, if we've learned the song in one key, we have to convert it to other keys. You could of course do this by saying it like this: "OK, I'm in G, but need to go to Bb, so that means every chord is going to be up a m3, so the Em will become Gm, the C will become Eb..." and so on. That is really cumbersome and it doesn't help you learn to do this for all keys, just only certain transpositions. So the first step is learning all your chords in every key - at the very least the more common ones - which would be mostly the keys towards the top of the circle of 5ths - C, G, D, A, E and F Bb Ab Eb Db - wind players tend to use the flat side more, and string players tend to use the sharp side more (like on Guitar, E is a common key for us, while Db is not, but when I was in Wind Ensemble, we got pieces in Db quite a bit - piano can go either way). It really just takes a lot of practice - and memorization - I mean, you should be driving to work and thinking "the chords in the key of Eb are, Eb, Fm, Gm, Ab, Bb, Cm, D^o and Eb is I, Fm is ii, Gm is iii, Ab is IV - etc. You should also be able to roll a die and if it comes on 2, go through a bunch of keys and name what the ii chord is - C = Dm G = Am Ab = Bbm and so on. You need to be able to do that fluently, but when you can what it means is, is you see G - Bm - C - Cm you can immediately go "damn, they want me to play "Creep" one more time" - no, seriously, you can go "that's I - iii - IV - iv" and then if they call the key of E Major, you go "well then it's going to be E - G#m - A - Am through the song". Jazz tunes can of course have a lot more chords in them but the basic strategy is the same - "what number is this in the original, and then what chord is that in the new key". And of course if someone gives you the numerals - you should just be able to go. If you're interest in Jazz, I would say the following exercises might be the best place to start: ii - V - I in all major keys, and ii^o - V - i in all minor keys (or they would be 7th chords, but same principle). Then, 12-Bar blues in all keys (at least the major form that uses I7, IV7 and V7 to start off with). You should be able to play a Blues in Bb, C, D, E, Eb, F, G, Gb, Ab - whatever. That's a great place to start this because it's such a common form and has a limited number of chords - and those chords tend to be the "guideposts" of the key. In blues, the chords may all be dominant 7th chords so you may not learn the qualities as effectively, but at least you learn where the ROOT of each chord for 1, 4, and 5 are. That's a great place to start. Then you can start with jazz tunes - but you could just start with 1 section or 1 simple pattern - such as ii-V-I or also common, vi - ii - V - I After you get good with those, you can start dealing with ones that have chords that go out of the key. Funny (to me) story - years ago I had to play "Mack the Knife" which was a song I as unfamiliar with - I might have heard it once or twice on TV or something but didn't really know how it went. I was handed a chart that had the chords written out - easy enough right? Just play the chords... Problem was, they were just written in a string of text with no discernable pattern to me - each line had a different number of chords - someone just scrawled them out as they came and as they had space for on the page. A friend in the band knew me and knew this wouldn't make any sense to me, so he goes, "here, it's just I - ii - V - I - vi - ii - V - I (or something of that nature - notice the ii-V-I in there twice!) and then we move up a whole step with the V of the new key. This made perfect sense to me. We started in whatever key we started in, and I "numeralized it" all the way through. I'm not sure how solo instrumentalists do it, as they practice transposing by sight but again it comes down to really knowing your keys and scales. But for chordal instruments, we have to be able to do the same and know our chords (and of course is a solo is improvised we just need the key and chords, we don't necessarily transpose the original melody unless we want to). HTH

  3403. musictheory 2019-01-10 14:25:01 whosthatmatt
    Sorry, I‘m from Switzerland we call it Flageolett, I google the translation and it said flageolet. But I think they are called Harmonics too (?) It‘s the technique where you don‘t press the whole string, but just put it onto it so that the note gets higher than you normally could play. Sorry for the confusion.

  3404. musictheory 2019-01-10 14:50:25 UncertaintyLich
    Oh, okay! So harmonics are actually kind of a pain in the ass to notate on bass, but they're also one of the better sounds on the instrument. You might not even notice, but bassists are actually playing a lot of the notes you write as harmonics just because sometimes it's easier and sounds nice. So for most natural harmonics, you should just write the note you want to sound and then put that little "o" on top. And then if you're doing a less common natural harmonic like maybe something on a bottom string or low on the fretboard, you should probably write the note that you hold your finger over instead of the note that actually sounds, and use a diamond notehead. For artificial harmonics, the note that is actually held down is written with a normal notehead, and above that you should have the note that your other finger is only touching written with a diamond notehead. &#x200B; The notes themselves work the same as they do on the other string instruments, so just follow the overtone series. It's hard to recommend rep to look at, because most solo bass music doesn't notate harmonics at all as they just assume it's obvious to bassists which notes should be harmonics. A composer who uses weird bass harmonics pretty often in his scores is Ravel, so I guess you could check out some of his stuff maybe? I think Tzigane has all the string players playing plenty of harmonics. &#x200B; I could probably help you better if I knew exactly what you were trying to do. Could you describe the passage you're trying to write or show me a score?

  3405. musictheory 2019-01-10 16:44:30 HashPram
    > I don't think that criticism necessitates having a fully worked out alternative Of course, but let me rephrase what I said as: What would you have wanted to have studied that you didn't? > My problem with CPP theory as default is that it is relating to a style that is very specifically situated in a time and place That is undeniably true, and I very much agree with what you said about the fashions of CPP music becoming less and less relevant - as someone mentioned, a half-decent analogy is people studying Medieval medicine in med school. As far as current medicine goes it's of purely historical interest. The point at which the analogy breaks down is that tonal harmony is still widely used worldwide. What's not used worldwide - and where the genre conventions are becoming less and less relevant - are the intricate and seemingly endless voice-leading rules to do with SATB harmony. Great if you love writing chorales, or you want a deep understanding of tonal Western art music from the 17th thru early 20th century but useless if you want to write music influenced by James Blake. > About your point on technology versus "pure music" : I would argue that technology has always informed the development of music - whether that be keyboards and their influence on tuning/temperament....or the technology of written music, and so on and so forth. Oh for sure but for me the interplay between music and technology is a question of emphasis. If you know how to write and arrange music then writing for four synthesizers is a similar compositional process to writing for string quartet. You're looking to explore what the synthesizer can allow you to do that other instrumental forms might not - in the same way that writing for string quartet allows you to explore musical ideas you wouldn't be able to explore if you were writing for solo oboe. It's not that I'm opposed to technology, it's that I think people get excited by the tech but the proof of the pudding isn't in the tech but in how people use that tech to express themselves musically and that process is a process that can be done with or without modern tech. Boulez, for example - regardless of whether you like his work or not (tbh I'm not a fan) - wrote for both electronics and orchestra. What makes him interesting from an influences point of view is his work with electronics but without that grounding in orchestral composition it's doubtful whether he would have had much of interest to say using an electronic medium. The quality of music isn't found in the technology used to express that music. I guess also I've watched / listened to numerous production videos, courses, magazines and there's always some new gizmo that promises to give you some amazing sound that will set you apart from everyone else. But what sets great musicians apart from everyone else isn't that they play the 98-string electronic timbre manipulator - it's that they use what's at their disposal in new, interesting and creative ways. The orchestra, for example - you can use it to tell a story of longing and loss as Mahler did, or violent and intimidating pre-Christian rites as Stravinsky did, or paint a picture of the sea like Debussy did ("The audience expected the ocean. Something big, something colossal, but they were served instead with some agitated water in a saucer" - Louis Schneider). > Finally, with regard to pop music... I strongly disagree with you and your point about "window dressing." To me, this seems like a matter of priority. I suppose this is my songwriter's mentality showing through. If a song sounds good played on an acoustic guitar and sung by singer with a voice of questionable quality then it will sound great with polish. OTOH there are songs that are just polish and when you take that polish away you realise the song was shit and what made it sound good was the producer. I overstated the case though - I don't think all or most pop music is like that. Hell, I mostly listen to pop music for pleasure because to my ear orchestral works start to sound quite samey some time around the half hour mark. Certainly modern production techniques are able to provide a much broader timbral palette than a standard orchestra, and streaming services mean I can go from one kind of music to another in a few clicks and keep my ear engaged far more easily. I suppose my main point here is that if you have a good song you can dress it up however you like but you can put knickers on a pig and it's still a pig. If you're paying to go to music college wouldn't you rather end up being able to produce things that aren't pigs?

  3406. musictheory 2019-01-11 02:31:33 smk4813
    Brass and string volume swells over triads.

  3407. musictheory 2019-01-11 06:27:17 FwLineberry
    The most common dyad used on guitar is a root and 5th. This is usually referred to as a power chord. The easiest way to make a power chord is put your index finger on a note, then put your ring finger on the note ones string towards the floor and two frets towards the body of the guitar. This works on every set of two strings except the G and B strings. There, the second note has to be three frets toward the body. You can sub this chord for just about any other chord. You'll also find many songs use this chord instead of major and minor chords.

  3408. musictheory 2019-01-11 06:58:34 65TwinReverbRI
    >These are called dyads, right? Yes. and thank you for not calling them "diads" :-) Traditional chords begin with 3 notes as a "triad". You can think of a Dyad as just a "subset" of the triad. C-E-G you could have C-E, or E-G, or C-G (Power Chord) and you could also have them in any order - so G below C, or E below C ,etc. These have specific names that are too complex to get into right now, but we also just call them by their "generic" name like a "third" or a "sixth". a C-E dyad is a "third" (C-D-E - 1-2-3 - see?). So you can make Dyads out of any chords. But your last part of your question is the more complex thing - you can take a note, like Bb (which is A#, but let's use Bb) and add a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. above it to make a Dyad. It will IMPLY some chord, but it may not be a Bb chord. The example I gave above of C-E-G - see the E-G dyad isn't an "E" chord of some type in that context - it's a subset of a C Chord. So we usually use the context in which they appear to better comprehend them. IOW, a lone Dyad of "F to D" could be any number of chords - because we're not sure if the other note is Bb, B, A, or Ab, etc. So we name them differently than we do chords - it would be a "sixth" but we also use a specific name - this one's a Major 6th or "M6". But, if it were a Dm chord these two notes were sounding as part of, then we'd say it was implying the Dm harmony, even though it's not a "full" chord. ______ Aside from using them as "subsets" of chords, most Dyads we encounter in a melodic context (i.e. instead of as Power Chords) is as a harmonized melody. We take a melody, then add a 3rd above it. So if the melody goes E-D-C-E-D-C, we add G-F-E-G-F-E above it (this is exactly what "Three Blind Mice" does BTW). But the catch is, the added line IS FROM THE SAME KEY (or scale) as the original. Harmony guitar parts like you might hear in Iron Maiden (who used them extensively) or Boston (where a lot of the main lead intro lines are harmonized) do this - take a main melody and add a harmony line a 3rd above, or a 6th below, or some other combination (and sometimes the interval varies over the passage). Some of these will agree with the harmony and some will not. For example, if the chord is G, and you have: B - C - D G - A - B the A and C dyad isn't a G chord, but it's just "passing" between two other dyads that are part of the G chord, so we're cool with that. So they don't always have to appear as part of a chord - they can be part of a harmonized line. Other instrumentalists - especially violinists and string players call them "double stops". HTH

  3409. musictheory 2019-01-11 11:48:33 MustBeThursday
    It's kind of like a metronome, but that plays more complicated rhythmic phrases. Playing drums and picking a guitar aren't really all that dissimilar. The form is different, but the function of keeping rhythm is basically the same. Rudiments in drumming are little rhythmic phrases that drummers practice like guitarists practice scales. Because they're just rhythm, and don't have any value in terms of pitch, you can apply them to guitar in all sorts of ways. You can just pick the rudiment on one string, across several strings, you can incorporate scales and melody into them, or add them to a strumming pattern for chords. Tons of stuff. It's helpful because regardless of what your fret hand is doing, your pick hand is basically just playing drums, and a lot of the same ideas apply. Also, if you're having problem with the fundamental technique of picking you might find [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqwpdddKBpQ&t=6s) helpful.

  3410. musictheory 2019-01-12 01:47:17 Jongtr
    [Here's] (https://imgur.com/iugKyxu) a pic showing how string divisions determine the prime divisions of the octave: the perfect intervals marking out two [tetrachords] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachord) separated by a tone.

  3411. musictheory 2019-01-12 02:32:21 ja3k3l
    parallel chord movements in minor 3rds major 3rds (just about anything stanky), playing the melody on the top voicing (or string), when you build a chord (like a cmaj9) try cutting out the 5th and just stack extensions on the top, 9 chords (not to be confused with add9) are huge in this style as well as sus chords (try Amaj/B), chord planning (like in impressionism) is big when vamping a chord (lots of quartal voicings in this stuff), nowadays playing arpeggios up two notes at a time are prevalent as well as noodly descending pentatonic licks (tons of triplet stuff and odd note groupings lend them self to this), and the real answer to this is to check out true gospel guitar players and funk.

  3412. musictheory 2019-01-12 05:40:13 phalp
    Kind of depends on the composition, what the best way to tune would be. I'd probably start by retuning just one string, probably taking B down by a quarter tone, so that maybe it would be possible to play adjacent quarter tones. Check out [xen.wiki](xen.wiki) and /r/microtonal for learning.

  3413. musictheory 2019-01-12 09:43:03 ElectricPB
    King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard made a quarter-tone album using guitars with extra frets added between the normal ones to make the new notes. To my understanding the whole album used one scale, F# minor with neutral (halfway between major and minor) second and sixth. I've tried fiddling around with tuning every other string to the quarter tones, but it's hard to play anything too complex with that setup.

  3414. musictheory 2019-01-13 04:22:54 CapriOrange
    Well, I'm also seeing things from my point of view .. I was kinda nerdy and better knowing when young .. Theory was easy for me, so I learned a whole bunch of it quite quickly But I only learned to play, when I started listening, transcribing and getting phrases into my fingers .. then they got into my ear. It's like language, you learn a few words, you use them .. then you learn more etc. The great benefit of theory for me is that I can communicate better with other musicians and that I have an easier time memorizing tunes as instead of memorizing 32 individual chords, it's more just a couple of key phrases like, tune starts on this chord then it's a long string of 2-5s towards that chord followed by a turnaround ending on a dominant sharp five chord and repeat.

  3415. musictheory 2019-01-13 06:01:29 65TwinReverbRI
    No. If you see C-D-E and there is a marking that says "legato" or any other indication that the notes are to be played legato, or where legato is assumed to be the default manner of producing notes on the instrument and no other thing to the contrary is present, you will play the C, and then when it's time to play the D, play the D and "replace" the C - so that the C sounds all the way up to where the D sounds. Same with D to E. With no break in sound between C and D, and D and E. ______ There may be a language issue here: Legato comes from words like "ligature", which mean "tied". But with Legato, we treat that as "connected" - because we have a different word for the other - which is in fact "tie". But in some other languages, "tie" uses a word closer to the root word - Ligature. Most English speakers know Ligature as the thing that holds your reed on a Clarinet or Saxophone. But in the old days Clarinet reeds were tied on with string - with a "Ligature". So "ties" in music "tie together" the value of a not. A C note, followed by another C note, will be a TOTAL of the duration of both notes, and only the fist note is struck - the sound is just held through the duration of the 2nd note So you said "2 notes connected but notes in between" - well, do you mean a C connected to a C? If so, that's a tie. Would have to see the "notes in between" to know what you mean if it's different than the previous example I gave. BTW, Ties connect notes of the same pitch. Which means you make be talking about: Slurs. A Slur looks like a tie (and I think they too might have a word similar to ligature which gets confused with legato (more on this in a minute)). A curved line that "connects" C to G, but with D E F between the C and G (as in a melody line) means that all those notes are "slurred". That means they are not only to be played Legato, but also played in a manner where each note is not articulated or re-articulated, etc. This varies WIDELY from instrument to instrument. On Piano, you can't really do anything but connect the notes as much as you can, however there can be more overlap to "cover the attacks" of the new notes to emulate what happens on other instruments. On Violin: C - D - E - with no slur line - means you alternate bow strokes so each note is re-articulated - C is played down bow, D is played up bow, and so on for example. Instead, C-D-E with a slur line from C to E (the D is then "included in the slur") is played under one bow - the violinist bows in one direction only, while the fingers just change. Bot of these produce Legato, however by not re-articulating the notes the notes sound that much more connected. ______ Here's another point of confusion: A lot of people who don't learn the proper use of terms have started calling slurs on guitar "legato" and "legato technique" unfortunately. On guitar, notes should naturally be played Legato. This means you pick every note and again, make each note sound until the next note sounds, with no break in sound between notes. But, traditionally, guitarists also use Slurs. When the C-D-E example with a slur line is seen by a guitarist, the first note C is plucked with the pick, then the D and E are played without picking, by "hammering down" the fingers necessary to play these notes (hammer on and pull off are the two terms for doing these ascending and descending respectively). This creates an effect similar to the violin example, where the notes sound even smoother and connected, because they are not re-articulated. _____ Trills are generally produced on most instruments by slurring rather than re-articulating notes. Piano re-articulates them because it has to. But on things like woodwinds, it's too difficult to repeatedly tongue the note so they play it "under one tongue" - no different than any long string of notes under a slur, but a Trill is just two notes in alternation, usually very fast. On violin and guitar again - violins will do a trill under one bow direction (at least for as long as they can in that direction) and guitarists will hammer on and pull off in alternation as long as is needed. This means only the first note is plucked, and the rest are slurred (and by nature will be legato as well). You could potentially pick every note of a trill, or bow every note of a trill, or tongue every note of a trill, but that's not how most people do it. _____ Trill = 2 notes in rapid alternation Legato = play notes connected, with no break in sound between successive notes. Slur = only articulate the first note of a slurred group and don't re-articulate the rest. This will naturally produce legato and in some cases and even smoother sounding legato than the normal means of legato playing. Tie = adds the duration of tied notes together. Ties are always the same pitch. Ties and Slurs look similar (or identical in some instances) and Slurs can be used on repeated notes for some effects so the context needs to be clear in that case. And trills are generally automatically Legato by nature of how they're produced. Finally, guitarists mis use the term Legato and should be using the word Slur for what they're doing, though Slurred notes on guitar do produce a smooth legato effect by nature of how they're produced. HTH

  3416. musictheory 2019-01-13 06:13:22 65TwinReverbRI
    >I want to put together a four-part composition that will sound just as good as either a vocal piece or a string arrangement. Then you need to spend years, even decades, learning 4 part writing techniques, studying music written this way in order to learn to do it effectively. >First: is it better to start with the melody or the chord progression? Either. Bach's Chorales, which are the standard teaching tool for 4 part harmony, used existing melodies to which Bach added 3 more parts. But 4 part music can be written as just a succession of harmonies, with various points of interest. There's polyphonic counterpoint, imitative counterpoint, and all kinds of other means of writing 4 part pieces. You can even do what most people who haven't really learned how to do it well, and that's just come up with 4 part chords and voice them for whichever group you want. >Would it sound better if the fourth were higher (say alto) or in between the other three? Standard 4 part writing is Soprano, Alto, Tenor, and Bass. Alto is typically a female voice (as is Soprano) while the others are male. Writing for Alto, Tenor, Baritone, and Bass would be OK, but it would be a lower register. If you wanted to make this music for strings, it might not be the best register to write in because of their range. Did you know that Viola reads Alto clef? That's because it's basically an Alto instrument. So you're trying to put your HIGHEST voice as the THIRD LOWEST instrument. It could potentially work, but it would depend on how it's written. Likewise. Alto goes above Tenor. Period. If your Alto is always singing below the Tenor, you pretty much don't know what you're doing. Or, basically the Alto is singing the Tenor part, and the Tenor is singing the Alto part. Which won't agree with their vocal ranges at the very least. There are probably Millions if not hundreds of millions of examples in the world. Most western music is written this way, or based on it, and there are forms of it that are very clearly laid out in 4 parts and others where it's more obscure.

  3417. musictheory 2019-01-13 06:19:16 BillGrahamMusic
    Is there a reason you’re wanting to score for that instrumentation, rather than the standard violin 1/violin 2/viola/cello string quartet?

  3418. musictheory 2019-01-13 06:37:31 Jazztifying
    Sorry if I was unclear! I wasn’t 100% sure of your instrumentation. I just automatically thought of standard string quartet instrumentation (2 violins, viola, cello) (Visual reference would be really helpful so I am just assuming) I would start by writing down the pitches as they are originally. I assume that you are correct; some pitches in the Double Bass part would visually look as written above the cello part but they will sound lower than the cello part since the bass sounds an octave lower than written. I would also experiment a little bit with the range between Bass and Cello. You might find that if you drop the bass an octave lower, you might get a much fuller/open/rich sound. Also, I would be careful with writing a very high part for a double bass. Depends on the player; it might be very difficult to perform in tune and with a good tone. Again, sorry if I am being ambiguous; feel free to post an image of your score if you want. Hope this helps!

  3419. musictheory 2019-01-13 06:39:24 Jazztifying
    Sorry if I was unclear! I wasn’t 100% sure of your instrumentation. I just automatically thought of standard string quartet instrumentation (2 violins, viola, cello) (Visual reference would be really helpful so I am just assuming) I would start by writing down the pitches as they are originally. I assume that you are correct; some pitches in the Double Bass part would visually look as written above the cello part but they will sound lower than the cello part since the bass sounds an octave lower than written. I would also experiment a little bit with the range between Bass and Cello. You might find that if you drop the bass an octave lower, you might get a much fuller/open/rich sound. Also, I would be careful with writing a very high part for a double bass. Depends on the player; it might be very difficult to perform in tune and with a good tone. Again, sorry if I am being ambiguous; feel free to post an image of your score if you want. Hope this helps!

  3420. musictheory 2019-01-13 18:25:50 Jongtr
    Learn to read notation. Simple answer. It's not hard. Practice like trombonor says: find new pieces of music (in bass clef obviously) every day and read them. They wouldn't have to be for bass guitar or double bass, any bass clef instrument would do - even piano, picking out single note lines from left hand parts. https://www.musictheory.net/lessons will give you the basics. (Remember bass transposes an octave down. Your bottom E string - assuming you play 4-string - is the ledger line below the staff, your open G is the top space. So you will sound an octave lower than a piano playing the same notation would.)

  3421. musictheory 2019-01-13 22:57:12 88melter
    There are two fundamentally different and mutually exclusive chords you describe, let's say Fm6 and Fm7. Fm6 has a tonic minor function, and Fm7 has this subdom function you describe. Mozart wrote a passing min7th chord in one of his string quartets, as a contraputal solution. Now, if one is playing Chopin, you WILL find Fm6 as a IV chord in Cm. Also, in minor, the ii chord can be a half-dim7th, same pitches different root. Do not confuse the two. The min7th chord is never a tonic function, however, in tonal music. It is always subdom. It's tonic function wouold only apply in modal music, like F Dorian or Aeolian. Barry Harris is quite adamant on these points. Best of luck, music theory is great stuff!

  3422. musictheory 2019-01-14 00:01:28 Jongtr
    "Octave" is from the Latin for "8th". It's an interval, same as 2nd, 3rd, etc. It refers to the fact that the 8th note - after you've counted 7! - is the same as the first. (Same "pitch class", in the jargon.) Acoustically, an octave is double the frequency of the lower note. Every octave doubles the frequency. So A notes (all those on a piano) are equal to 27.5, 55, 110, 220, 440, 880, 1760, 3520 Hz (cycles per second). As for the division of the octave into seven irregular steps, that's best understood by dividing a stretched string in simple fractions. (This is easier to see on the guitar). 1/2 string length (2x frequency) = octave 2/3 string length (3/2 x frequency) = perfect 5th 3/4 string length (4/3 x frequency) = perfect 4th Because of the relation to the harmonic series, all these interval sound pure, strongly consonant, so make ideal initial divisions of the octave (they are the "perfect" intervals". They are the roots of the three primary triads in a major or minor key. The space between 4th and 5th is known as a "tone" or "whole step". The other spaces (1-4, 5-8) each measure two and half tones, which is where the semitones come from. Here's how the interval patters works from any given root note R . . . . . . . . . . . . P m M m M P P m M m M P 1 -2- -3- 4 5 -6- -7- 8 (P = perfect, m = minor, M = major) If you apply that pattern starting on C, then you get all the white notes of the piano. (The black notes are all the minor "m" intervals, plus the one between 4 and 5, F#/Gb.)

  3423. musictheory 2019-01-14 00:43:57 Ah-Um
    Yes! I replaced mine with string the music stand thing is what got to me.

  3424. musictheory 2019-01-14 02:25:08 reckless150681
    The ending of Largo from Dvorak 9. Probably the most famous slow symphonic movement ever, I absolutely love the way it ends. String trio brings back the famous theme, followed by a brass chorale reminiscent of the opening chorale except down an octave. But the way it ends? In the basses. They play what I think is a close-position chord once, then rest. Then again, and then the movement ends. I think that tiny quarter rest in between the two articulations is just the most bittersweet breath of relief, and oh my goodness is it poignant.

  3425. musictheory 2019-01-14 13:04:01 65TwinReverbRI
    >Why don’t you have to specify on say a piano song not only the key but the octave as well? How do you know which C to start on if it says to play in the key of C? Notes. Notes written on paper. On the staff. C4 is a specific position on the staff. You've got two kinds of problems here. Music is music, not Physics. Trying to understand SOUND from a Physics perspective is easy, but trying to understand MUSIC, which is an art form, from a Physics perspective is very difficult. The "art" part of it is very far removed from the Physics part of sound. And, since you've never played an instrument, that doesn't help. Musicians actually don't think about any of this stuff. They get taught on day 1 where Middle C is. And they learn to play music. ____ Is every key a harmonic of the first? No. C4 is a fundamental of C4. C5 is a fundamental of C5. The first overtone (which is a harmonic) of C5 is the same frequency as the fundamental of C5. But notes - pitches we play on the piano, have nothing to do with Harmonics. Some notes are the same frequency as some of the partials (overtones, harmonics) of other lower notes, but we don't really care about it. We're told to play C5 so we play C5. It's that easy. ___ "Key" is a different concept. Think of "Key" as like the 7 letters you might get when you play Scrabble. You can make a lot of different words out of the letters you're given. A different Key would have 1 different letter - so you might be able to make some of the same words as the other group of 7, but you might also be able to make some new ones not possible with the other group of 7. A4 is A4 is A4. It is the same note, and same frequency in any Key. It's its relative position to the "key note" that changes, and whether it's part of the 7 letter you draw or not! So in the key of C, you would have drawn an A - it's part of that group, and it's the 6th note of the key of C. It's still the same frequency though (assuming it's A4 of course). But if you are in the key of D, it's the 5th note. Still the same A, just like the A is the same letter in Deal and Delay - it's just in a different place in each word. ____ Guitars aren't tuned to certain keys really. Pianos have 1 key for each of 88 notes. But when we tune a guitar, it only has 6 strings - so each string is tuned to one note, and other notes can be played on that string - but it's the "open" string we tune. For example, on Piano, we have a C4 key. We could tune a string on Guitar to C4 as well. But, to play the note D, we'd play it on the 2nd fret on the same string. But on piano it's a different key - not "putting your finger higher up on the same key" for example. What this means is, instead of 88 keys to play all the notes with, we have to choose to tune the 6 string in a way that allows us to get a lot of other notes easily. This could really be anything, but the standard tuning is E-A-D-G-B-E - the highest E being E4. We say this is "in E" but it's not really. That's just a short way of referring to the lowest note - E. We can play in ANY key on a guitar tuned that way though. Some keys are more convenient because they contain more open strings (which means more fingers are free to do other things) but it can play in any key. When we say we tune a guitar "in Eb" what we mean is that we've merely tuned all the strings down a half step. This will make playing songs that have more open strings that half step lower easier, but we can still play in any key. Basically all it really does is give you one note (half step) lower than you could usually play in the total range (also takes one note off the top) and it makes all the open strings one half step lower than they previously were - which will just make some certain chords easier to get to. It is possible then to tune the 6 strings in such a way as to favor certain keys that will be able to take advantage of more open strings. So we can in fact tune to "an open G chord" which means all 6 strings will be either a G, a B, or an D, which are the notes of a G chord. This means playing the G chord that is in the key of G is really easy because it takes no fingers to do it!!! But, that same Chord is also in the key of C (just like "ant" could be in 7 letters drawn a-n-t-d-e-c-b and a-n-t-f-g-k-q (ooh, 10 pointer!) so we're not limited to playing only in the key of G just because the open strings are tuned to that particular chord. And we don't have to play the open strings at all. We could tune it to open G, and play in A if we wanted to. It's all about being able to use the open strings or not. HTH

  3426. musictheory 2019-01-15 06:56:38 No_Vi
    Power chords on a guitar, so when I play them I sometimes accidentally hit the major third or the fourth depending on what string. For simplicity's sake I act like they're all major.

  3427. musictheory 2019-01-15 19:40:24 An_Angry_Cat
    Rhythm is the duration or length of a note. Occasionally it is also used to mean a larger metric "feeling" in a piece of music. For example, waltzs tend to have a 'bounce' to them. A melody is really just a string of notes which is generally the feature of the moment.

  3428. musictheory 2019-01-15 21:21:02 Jimmy388
    The biggest difference is the phrasing. You don't NEED a B-bender to be a good country guitarist, obviously. I think one thing that is similar between the two (blues and western) is the use of open string vocabulary. The way they're applied is different however. Sonically, there is definitely some differences in timbre that come from both the tone of the instruments and the chord progression going on underneath those guitar parts. Country is sometimes deceptively rich in terms of instrumentation and the layering used helps set the canvas for the guitarist to paint, so to speak. Let's try thinking about: Note choice. Bend intonation Pre-bends Context of the bend within the chord progression behind it.

  3429. musictheory 2019-01-15 23:08:08 dang2000
    I literally see this style/ technique used everywhere in a lot of songs. I am surprised that there is no name for it as it is something quite specific. Something similar to this would be string crossing for strings. I mean piano is technically a string instrument too eh?

  3430. musictheory 2019-01-16 04:00:00 ttd_76
    It bends the B STRING, not just a B note. So it can be used with any scale with a note that can be played on the B string-- which is all of them. You don't have the same fine control over a B-bender that you would with your fingers, but on the other hand, you can bend a strings to a higher pitch. It's best therefore for big, slow bends. Basically, it's emulating the sound you would get from a pedal steel guitar. You don't necessarily need a B-Bender to play country. But if you ever try to play country solos, you'll find you're doing a lot of huge bends on the G and B strings, and you're often bending them repeatedly. So the B-string just lets you do some of those faux pedal steel bends much easier and more pedal steel sounding. There are plenty of people who do not have B or G benders and play country. IMO, as far as guitar goes, the twangy, country sound of the telecaster comes from the string through body and giant steel plate bridge with pickups. Couple that with the right amp settings and decent dose of reverb. That gets you the right general tone. IMO, the real stereotypical love-it-or-hate-it country twang that people think of when they think about country guitar comes from chicken picking, which is more or less the same technique as popping on a bass guitar. On certain notes, country players will use one of their fingers or fingernails or fingerpick to reach underneath the string and pull it up. Sort of drawing the string back like you might on a bow. Then they let go so that the string snaps back and creates a noise by smacking against the frets. It's a really distinctive sound. There's other country techniques, as well. They do a lot of forward and backward rolls like you would on a banjo. They tend to use major pentatonic scales and Mixolydian in country instead of minor pentatonic like you would hear in blues.

  3431. musictheory 2019-01-16 05:19:16 65TwinReverbRI
    Maybe a string tone? Or more Sawtoothy? The ones that have a "vocal" sound always sound very silly to me. Piano is OK, but I understand about sustain. ____ Save it until after your *required* to publish, but have it ready to go ;-)

  3432. musictheory 2019-01-16 09:15:08 Larson_McMurphy
    The thing is that in every music culture besides the west, nobody really developed harmony. So they will often use notes that are a little out of tune to what the "equivalent" note might be in our scales, but they aren't forming chords out of these notes. Consonance and dissonance only come into the picture when multiple notes resound together. Also, in regard to Malaysian music, if you are talking about Gamelans, they have strange scales which reflect the very particular overtone series of their copper instruments. Their overtones are "out of tune" with those of a simpler resonating object like a string or air column, partly because of their material, but also because their modes of vibration occur in two dimensions instead of one. (Think about how church bells have that really weird minor third overtone for instance. Similar situation). Anyway, these gamelan orchestras developed scales which reflect the unusual overtones of their instruments. So they are actually consonant. Also, I have more thoughts about your previous comment. I think its important to maintain an objective concept of consonance and dissonance in order to draw comparisons across culture and history. If consonance is entirely subjective, and based on what people listen too and find acceptable, then modern jazz is just as consonant as Gregorian chant. Modern jazz is much more complex. How can we talk about that or make comparisons without making consonance objective. I think it is a lot easier to say that sonorities in jazz are much more dissonant, but that they are acceptable to modern ears. This makes an argument for how people's ears have advanced in what they can handle and make sense of over the past few centuries, which is actually really amazing. But just saying "well they are both consonant in their own way, its subjective and depends on the listener" doesn't offer anything useful or interesting for discussion from the standpoint of musicology.

  3433. musictheory 2019-01-16 10:09:02 ttd_76
    1. They don’t know the fretboard. They just know a scale is moving your fingers/hands in this sequence. They probably know that one fret is a half step and two frets is a whole step, but they get confused once you start moving strings. If you ask them to play a minor sixth, they can’t do it. 2. They are not tied to a key. They’re tied to only being able to play a given key in a given position. They learn the pattern for the major scale starting from the sixth string. So, they can play C at the right fret, or D at the 10th fret, E in open or 12th fret in some sort of CAGED or 3 note per string pattern. If you ask the to play a scale on just two strings, they can’t do it. If you ask them to play a C starting from the fifth fret on the third string, they can’t do it. 3. Exactly. They haven’t spent the time to learn them in anything other than straight ascending order. They HAVEN’T truly learned the scales, they’ve just learned to repeat a series of finger movements. 4. Correct. But in guitar, once you know a pattern, you can use that pattern anywhere. On piano, once you move past C, you have to know which black notes to hit. Which forces you to learn about key signatures, and why those particular notes are sharp or flat. On guitar, you just move up or down some frets, never knowing what notes being played. You just know if you start on F and play the same thing, it’s F major. Guitarists tend to have strange ideas about how models work precisely because no one has ever explained all the theory and concepts behind scales. Then they find out the Satriani played some song in Lydian, they ask another guitar player what Lydian is, the guitar player says, “Oh, it’s just the same thing as the major scale pattern you know, you just start from a different place in the sequence.” They are learning modes (poorly) without first understanding the basics of scales and theory. I’m not hating on guitar players. I am a guitar player. Yes, it’s dead simple to transpose things on guitar, and conversely it’s somewhat harder to know what notes the frets are, or to get the feel for basic harmony compared to a keyboard where every note has a shape and color and it is all laid out linearly. So as guitar players we have to be more on guard and constantly remind ourselves that a scale isn’t just a shape, or a series of finger movements because it is easy to be lazy. So that’s why I’m saying I could see how a guitar player would almost reflexively give the advice to someone that “scales aren’t patterns” and then for every non-guitar player to be like, “Huh? Of course they are.” They are musical patterns, they are not finger movement patterns. It’s not the way we should learn, but it’s unfortunately the way most self-taught players end up learning. Fortunately for me, I took piano lessons as a kid so I was aware of scales, keys, chords, basic music theory. I knew my circle of fifths, and scale intervals and what modes were. And it still took me years before I finally got off my ass and realized I was going nowhere and learned the fretboard to the extent I could just look at a fret and instantaneously know “That’s an A” the same way I could on piano. Before that, it was all patterns. I could name SOME notes and count frets to get the rest, but I couldn’t just play A, D#, Bb without thinking about it. Even knowing shapes— I did not know even all the basic triad inversions. I jam with plenty of fairly decent rock guitar players who still don’t really know their fretboard or basic theory. So I’m saying, if some were on r/guitar and said “Scales aren’t patterns” there would be people going, “Yeah, good advice. Important to know all the theory behind what makes a scale.” So the confusion over the original response may just be a miscommunication.

  3434. musictheory 2019-01-16 10:42:17 ILoveKombucha
    It's slash notation. For C/E, it means play a C chord... but make sure an E note is the bass note. Am/C means... play A minor... make sure C is the lowest note. It's a way of specifying an inversion of a chord. An inverted chord is simply a chord with something other than the root in the bass. So... C major is spelled C - E - G. In Root position, C is the bass note. You can have the rest of the notes in any order you want (duplicated, too... it's all good). So... C,E,G,C,E is how C major is commonly voiced on guitar. That's a root position C chord. If we wanted to play C/E, we could do it as: E,C,E,G,C,E Which is the same guitar chord... but allowing the open E string to ring in the bass. Sometimes you'll see "extended" chords (7th, 9th, 11th...etc) named in slash notation. So, for example, Am/F is really an Fmaj7 chord. Am is spelled A C E. F is spelled F A C. F maj 7 is spelled F A C E Am/F is the same thing as F maj 7 (F A C E). In this last case, it's perfectly ok to write the chord as Am/F, OR to write it as Fmaj7. (In this case, Fmaj7 is more common.... but the other way is not wrong). Hope that helps! Don't be afraid to ask questions. It is not a crime to be a beginner.

  3435. musictheory 2019-01-16 13:27:04 jazzadellic
    I've worked with many 5 year old guitar students, and some as young as 4. Even though I've worked with many young students in that age range over the last 20 years, it's still a struggle each time. The largest factor in determining success or failure is really does the child actually practice or not, and in most cases this is a solid no. It really helps if parents get involved and I try to get them involved. I invite them into the room to watch the lesson so they know exactly what their child should be practicing at home. As they watch I point out the important things that they can watch out for and help their child correct. Simple things like how to hold the guitar properly or how to hold down a note with the finger up on the tip, both knuckles bent, on the front side of the fret, etc...One problem we have as guitar teachers is the lack of good guitar books for different ages and skill levels. Take a look at the selection of piano books and compare it to the selection of guitar books and you'll know exactly what I mean. Piano teachers have a series of books for every age and every level. We don't....Our difficulties are compounded by the fact that guitar is simply just more difficult to learn both physically, and reading on guitar is one of the hardest instruments to read on, if not the hardest. And whereas the majority of piano teachers know how to read music fluently, the same can't be said for guitar teachers. This naturally limits the effectiveness of a guitar teacher in that area, or completely cuts that option out of the picture. &#x200B; With a 5 year old you have to have very simple goals each lesson. The first couple lessons I just try to get them to understand how to find a note on the 1st string by counting up to different frets and playing the note. I try to get them to hold the guitar right and hold their fingers properly, and press hard enough to get a clear note. Keeping their thumb down in the back and in a good low position is also important. This can be the focus of at least the first two lessons, sometimes more are needed. Once they can find and play notes on the 1st string we might try the 2nd string. I'll then usually give them "Twinkle Little Star" tabbed out on the 1st string. With this they can continue to work on finding and playing notes on the first string, but now try to make it sound musical (i.e. played rhythmically). You can easily spend a few weeks on that before they start playing it close to right. I get extra mileage out of Twinkle by then having them play it on other strings using the same pattern, which is also good for getting them used to playing on other strings. I usually then introduce some 1 finger chords like G, G7 or C using just 1 finger versions. I'll then start introducing basic rhythms like whole notes, half notes & quarter notes -- and these can all be played either with the 1 finger chords, or single notes on the fretboard or even open strings. I introduce rhythms by first not showing them any notation, instead just counting and telling them when to strum, i.e. strum on beat 1 for whole notes, beats 1 & 3 for half notes, all 4 beats for quarter notes etc...And after they can strum all those patterns easily, I then show them the notation for it. From there you can slowly add more complex rhythms like dotted half notes, and eighth notes, over time. At about that time I have them get a book like [Progressive Guitar Method for Young Beginners](https://www.amazon.com/CP18322-Progressive-Guitar-Method-Beginners/dp/0947183221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1547615533&sr=8-1&keywords=progressive+guitar+for+young+beginners) . By the time you get to this stage, you've already set them up for knowing how to strum chords in rhythm, and play notes in rhythm, and from here on out it's just a matter of do they keep a practice routine going or not. You can and should also supplement the book with fun 2 or 3 chord songs for them learn. Use children's songs, nursery rhymes etc...The final thing I would say is realize you're working with a 5 year old, and every small accomplishment is an important accomplishment. There is no rush. Parents will be happy with every small victory -- that one chord they can strum, or those 3 notes they can put together are sure signs of progress. They don't need to be playing Bach in 6 months. If they can just strum a couple chords rhythmically, play 1 or 2 children songs, and a couple simple melodies using tab or notation, that will be just fine. You may find yourself on rare occasions with a 5 year old that makes amazingly fast progress, but that is the exception. I had one 5 year old (actually the first 5 year old I ever took), and he turned out to be a music prodigy. He quickly became my best sight reader within a year...That may be more of a testament to the laziness of my older students, but he was a genuine prodigy as far as I am concerned. He \*\*was\*\* playing Bach within 6 months. He was truly incredible. Unfortunately, within a year, his parents decided to pull him out and switch him to piano...Maybe it was for the best. &#x200B; &#x200B;

  3436. musictheory 2019-01-16 17:51:42 Jongtr
    Just to supplement ILoveKombucha's list, you might like this list of harmonics of the A string (chose because the math is simpler): HARMONIC - FRET - FREQUENCY - NEAREST NOTE - cents away from ET fretted equivalent 1st 0 110 Hz A string 5 fret 0 2nd 12 220 Hz A string 3 fret 2 3rd 7, 19 330 Hz E (329.6) 2 cents sharp string 1 fret 0 4th 5, 24 440 Hz A " fret 5 5th 4, 9, 16 550 Hz C# (554.0) 14 cents flat " fret 9 * 6th 3 660 Hz E (659.2) 2 cents sharp " fret 12 7th 2.7, 9.7, 14.5 770 Hz G (784.0) 32 cents flat " fret 15 * 8th 2.3 880 Hz A (880) " fret 17 9th 2 990 Hz B (987.8) 4 cents sharp " fret 19 10th 1.8 1100 Hz C# (1108) 14 cents flat " fret 21 * 11th 1210 Hz D# (1244.5) 49 cents flat " (fret 22.5!) 12th 1320 Hz E (1318.5) 2 cents sharp " fret 24 13th 1430 Hz F (1396.9) 40 cents sharp 14th 1540 Hz G (1568.0) 32 cents flat 15th 1650 Hz G# (1661.2) 12 cents flat 16th 1760 Hz A (1760) 17th 1870 Hz Bb (1864.7) 5 cents sharp 18th 1980 Hz B (1975.5) 4 cents sharp 19th 2090 Hz C (2093.0) 3 cents flat * nearest fretted notes (noticeably out of tune with the harmonic) Notice that only the octaves are "in tune". Also, when I say a harmonic is sharp of a tempered pitch, it kind of makes more sense to say the tempered pitch is flat of the harmonic, because the harmonic is "pure". That's why the notion of equal temperament being "in tune" is debatable. It's "in tune" because we say it is, not because it's "natural" in any way.

  3437. musictheory 2019-01-17 01:22:01 RadioUnfriendly
    [This vocal melody starts lines on the 2 a lot](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTLnlkrCK8c) Judging by the video the guitarist has a twelve string guitar tuned a half step higher. So the opening chords are E♭, E♭maj7, E♭7, E♭maj7. Vocal lines are often starting with an F but then are pulled back to the E♭ and B♭. I watched a 60 minute video of some dorky guy on keyboards, and I got one good thing out of it. That was the concept of the passing note. If you go C, D, E in a melody, the D is considered a passing note. The interesting thing is that you can hit C and then go to D and hold it out as long as you want to really emphasize it, and even more interesting is that you can have a passing note come first. So you can go D and then E and the D is sort of retroactively attached to the C chord by the E that comes after it. I still have a lot to learn, and a lot I'm wondering about. Like if the chords go G and then C add 9 (C, D, E, G), does this enable the D to function as a chord note? I know if you're in C major with no switching or complications and the bass player is going jugg jugg on a C note, that implies the whole C major chord by itself even without the E and G being there.

  3438. musictheory 2019-01-17 01:45:08 RadioUnfriendly
    I don't have any real level of piano skills, but piano/keyboard works great as a layout of the notes with no insane overlap complications like on a guitar. On a 24 fret guitar, bottom string E can be played on every string. On a piano every note occurs once. As a beginner I learned the basic stuff on a keyboard like every note has 3 notes. The formula for a major chord is root, 2 steps up for the major 3rd, 1.5 steps up for the 5th. Then I noticed the minor chords going 1.5 steps up and then 2 steps up. Then there was the B dim with the 1.5 up and 1.5 up for a diminished fifth. It would've been so difficult to see this on a guitar.

  3439. musictheory 2019-01-17 08:41:13 65TwinReverbRI
    A "minor 2nd" (m2) is a half step or semitone. On guitar, that is 1 fret. It doesn't matter if it's in the scale or not. If you are to form a m2 above A, that note will be one half step higher - Bb (in order for it to be a "2" of some type, it has to span 2 letters - A-B - A to A# would actually be a "1" of some type). You don't really play a "m2 in A minor". You instead play a m2 above X note. In Am, (as with all major and minor keys) there are two spots where the notes in the key are also a m2 apart - E to F, and B to C. The rest of the notes are a WHOLE STEP apart, or M2 (Major 2nd). That's why you'll see minor scales listed as: W H W W H W W or T S T T S T T The "H" or "S" is where the half-steps or semitones are - which are m2. But, you can create a m2 above (or below) any note and if you were to do it on all the notes in Am, you'd have A-Bb then B-C, then C-Db, D-Eb, E-F, F-Gb, and G-Ab Playing a "harmonic interval" of m2 on guitar is not so easy as it's a stretch (but reachable) on 2 adjacent strings but it's possible using an open string. So D# on fret 4 of string 2 and E open 1st string is a m2. So is F on fret 6 of the 2nd string and E open 1st string. Playing a "melodic interval" of a m2 is really easy - 1 fret to the next one up or down!

  3440. musictheory 2019-01-17 10:28:52 sfz-sfffz
    You definitely do not need to downtune to a low E, which is 7 half steps down on that low B string. You'll either have no string tension at all, or the string will be half an inch thick. There are some 6-strings strung up F#BEADG but they're usually 40" scale, you probably have 35"? You are correct that the same key is all that matters, but you'll be competing for the same sonic space. This is actually a good chance for you to go up to the high notes. As for your friend's stubbornness..just show him I guess?

  3441. musictheory 2019-01-17 11:57:59 junction182736
    That will turn your B string into a fluttering mess. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

  3442. musictheory 2019-01-17 11:59:36 sxwr909
    having the high c string is nice at times. when i was playing bass would get 6 string sets so i could have the high c string instead of the low b string. i dig the user name by the way :p

  3443. musictheory 2019-01-17 12:33:46 othersuper
    Why does he need a bass player with an 8 string guitar? Go find another band to play with and play your bass tuned however you like. My band tunes guitars 1 full step down and we play in D standard and the drop C. I could care less if our bass player drops or not as long what he's playing works well.

  3444. musictheory 2019-01-17 14:01:40 ResidentPurple
    There are lots of bands who use different tunings, including King Crimson (CGDAEG vs EADGBE vs whatever Chapman stick/Warr guitar tuning they use). Lots of bands have 5 string basses and 6 string guitars tuned standard (Cynic, Metallica) Whatever it is that you want to do, you should offer to try it with your current setup first. Maybe you'll hear the other person's style and decide it's not worth setting up your instrument again. Maybe you'll want to tune much lower.

  3445. musictheory 2019-01-17 14:42:45 kvlopsia
    I just want to know why someone with no knowledge of music theory is playing an 8 string guitar.

  3446. musictheory 2019-01-17 14:47:18 universal_rehearsal
    “There’s a reason why people always play in the same tunings” - that’s some dumb shit right there. You play in the same keys/registers but I don’t need to use a 4 string bass in drop D when I have a 5 string in B standard where I can play the same stuff. Another reason he has no clue what he’s talking about - the string gauge/tuning for his super low E is going to have a similar timbre and thickness to your G string, your normal E string will be thicker and have heavy timbre. Using the 5th fret E on your B string will give you even more thickness on it. You don’t need to change anything. You might want to keep your options open if he persists. Some people are just really uninformed and will just make shit up and spread myths/mistruths, I see it all the time with gear related stuff.

  3447. musictheory 2019-01-17 17:24:32 Jongtr
    Tuning a string down will do your bass no harm. But (to show how little he knows) the low E he wants you to tune to is a 4th below the bottom A on piano, at a frequency of around 20 Hz. That's barely perceptible as a pitch at all, that string will be flapping around. (Even one heavy enough to not flap against the frets - if such a gauge is available - will hardly be audible as a pitch.) Of course, he may still think that sounds really cool.... He has a kind of point, in that if he tunes his 8th string down to E, it will be the same E as the 4th string on a 4-string bass. So it makes sense (at least to his brain) that you should be an octave lower. Same as with a 6-string guitar and 4-string bass. You could just tell him that if he plays an 8-string tuned that low he doesn't need a bassist anyway.... (and then you politely walk out ;-))

  3448. musictheory 2019-01-17 17:51:46 the_simple_things
    That low drop E on his guitar is the low E on a bass... If he wants to play that he should play a bass guitar, its the only way it will sound good... To play that E on a bass I dont think most people would hear it, you'd need a longer scale sub-bass guitar and much bigger speaker cone amp to move that air at a reasnoble volume... Its not feasible. I wonder if half the issue is if they like it low and heavy, so when they play at home there is no band, drums or bass guitar, and the guitar there can sound a little higher pitched and thin given its on its own / just a solo part. Thats what the bass does, it plays that octave lower and really fills out the + reinforces sound, its team work. So I suspect when they are at home that rediculous tuning gives them that "filled out" sound they want to hear. All I can suggest there is if they are open, get them to play in drop d or drop c or even b, with your bass you can fill in the low note and record that as a thing. See if he can head / appreciate that the 2 instruments working together can create that low sound better then hacking it on 1 and trying to get the other to play impossible sub-bass. As an aside, alot of times people who play +1 or +2 string instruments (i.e. 5 string bass, 7 string gutiar, 8 string guitar) dont use that low string as the low root. A problem with the low string being the root is you cant go below it, there are literally no more notes on the instrument (ignoring whammy). That means there is no way to play below the low root and resolve upwards. Alot of 7 string guitar playes use that low string as extra low notes, for example, rather than playing in B, play in E and have 5 extra lower notes you can resolve up to to low e root. &#x200B;

  3449. musictheory 2019-01-17 20:23:17 MegaDeox
    Tell him to listen to Meshuggah. They are actually really interesting, because they play a half step down with both 7s and 8s, so the bassist uses a five string bass, up a half step, and then drop, so AbEbBbFBb. He plays the 8 string stuff on his fourth string, and the 7 string stuff on the fifth string. &#x200B; Also search youtube for basses that tune down to F#, F or E. It doesn't sound like anything.

  3450. musictheory 2019-01-18 02:02:18 TheCoolSquare
    Your guitar player sounds like arrogant ass who probably doesn't even know how to use that 8-string well. Most bands with 8's don't even tune the bass down to F#, it's just not necessary. Who cares if it "fucks with the shapes"? Shapes don't matter, notes do. Sounds like typical dumb guitar player talk from someone who doesn't know enough about what their talking about. As a guitar player myself, these people make us all look bad. If it were me personally, I'd refuse to play with him if he can't get his head out of his ass and maybe learn enough to realize how much he doesn't know.

  3451. musictheory 2019-01-18 02:41:07 HashPram
    Sorry ... Very long post I'm in the middle of the $100 course at the moment and I'm enjoying it and finding it useful. I've written songs in singer/songwriter, rock and EDM genres for many years so I'm familiar with the basic idea of just making stuff up and assembling it into a larger units, but eventually I felt like I wasn't really developing as a writer and was getting bored with just writing songs In an effort to combat boredom and push myself a bit I decided to go back to music theory textbooks and try and learn composition from a more academic standpoint. I wanted to know how to write longer pieces that were coherent enough to be developed from one or two simple ideas but varied enough to sustain interest. As part of that I took composition lessons with two or three teachers of composition but I found this to be a frustrating process. The first teacher began my composition lessons by asking me to compose for string quartet but I wasn't happy with anything I created because I didn't feel like I had sufficient grasp of harmony, melody or form to get anywhere or really learn anything. I felt like I was just rambling around without any clear direction. I had a similar experience with my second composition teacher and the third composition teacher started off better- asking me to compose short pieces (8-32 bars) for single instruments - but then headed off at a tangent into microtonal composition and once again I simply felt lost and directionless. I think in hindsight the problem may have been that my teachers were trying to encourage me to pursue an idea and invent material whereas I was already quite comfortable with that and my problem was more to do with limiting the material I could create, and structuring it.

  3452. musictheory 2019-01-18 03:42:02 kvlopsia
    Chugalug is fun and all, but if that's the case he should just buy a baritone and save his hands from having to reach across that fretboard. That's what I did before i got my 7 string, i bought a guitar with a 30" scale length and tuned to A standard.

  3453. musictheory 2019-01-18 07:55:23 demieert
    Try listening to the first couple bars of Arnold Schönberg's 4th String Quartet. The tone row is presented as a Melody in the first violin, while the other instruments play 3 note chords from adjacent notes in the row as an accompaniment. Because the row and with it, the accompanying 'chords' get constantly repeated, it does feel like a chain of resolutions to me. I coloured the first few measures and I hope it is somewhat clear what I mean. https://imgur.com/kRmvgDR.jpg

  3454. musictheory 2019-01-19 23:13:30 markjohnstonmusic
    Realistic-sounding string samples do not exist. You're not going to achieve your goal.

  3455. musictheory 2019-01-19 23:35:18 SalamiWhore
    Honestly just pirate a driver suite of string samples

  3456. musictheory 2019-01-20 02:30:18 65TwinReverbRI
    I'm going to throw in a bit of advice, and an opinion: Opinion: If you're going to try to emulate "real" instruments, don't. Instead, use real instruments. Learn to write for them and get actual players to play the piece. By the time you buy Vienna Symphonic Cube, you could probably hire an orchestra ;-) (though only once...) Advice: Because of this, and because of the cost, time, and skills necessary to get to the level of the best Hollywood scorers, a more practical way to approach this is to go the opposite way - just use a sound you like, that has a "string like character" or "brass like character". Most people who listen to it won't care, and maybe won't even know. Another opinion: there's a lot of crap out there. Technology allows people to produce "aurally indistinguishable" results, but not MUSICALLY or ARTISTICALLY similar results. We've got amazing sounding artificial orchestral soundtracks and what not that consist of nothing but boring whole notes (that real players wouldn't have the breath to hold...) which equate to chordal pads. I understand that's the style now, and that people want to emulate that because they think that's the way music is written and should be written, but there's a lot of much more artistically and compositionally interesting and more complex music out there. I would argue that most people need to spend less time learning how to do things like adjust velocities and instead should spend more time learning to compose captivating music. Personally, I'd much rather hear a captivating idea played on a cheesy synth sound than a boring idea played - even by real orchestra.

  3457. musictheory 2019-01-20 03:01:23 TheaOchiMati
    Definitely spend more time on the strings. It needs some more attention with the attacks on notes and the phrasing as a whole. String parts are tough to mock up really well when they aren't a larger ensemble

  3458. musictheory 2019-01-20 03:19:22 65TwinReverbRI
    These are always tough questions. You know, my snarky answer would be - well, we invented synthesizers, so we why are we still writing for Saxophone, or Violin. Those things are "ancient" (in younger musician time-scale). It's so - well, hypocritical I guess - people are like "2/2 is so old fashioned" - then they compose a Symphony. Or write for String Orchestra. Or write for "Orchestra" period. Hell, why are we even writing Time Signatures anyway - why isn't eveyrone doing "new" things like Metric Modulation, or "Ametric" music. Why the hell are we still writing for notes, when we can now play any note we want - why no notes between C and C#... Oh, I think the old notation system is stupid because I'm lazy and don't want to bother myself to learn anything, so I'm going to invent a "new" system that millions of people have already invented... See, it's very difficult, because the answer is "tradition" and it's hard to get people to understand how and why that's important. But if you pick up an "ancient" instrument, and you play "ancient" music - let's say something from the late 1800s to put us into Sousa March territory, why are you only complaining about the meter ;-) It's important to learn conceptual differences. Some people just aren't going to care about that though. But it's an important step towards "getting" things in life, or in music, etc. that "reading the notes off the page" don't get you. But there are plenty of people who lead ignorantly blissful lives...

  3459. musictheory 2019-01-20 05:55:30 Thevisi0nary
    That’s not really completely true regarding realism. Different libraries have a very distinct character and different scripting, so they excel at different things. Spitfire has a very beautiful timbre and is recorded in a lovely room, it excels at a more modern-classical style. Their libraries also have a plethora of unique articulations. It would not be a first pick at all for something with heavy dynamics because of its softer nature, neither for very clinical or busy pieces for a similar reason. It is not very exposed. Cinematic Studio String, Berlin Strings, and others all excel on the same level but for different reasons.

  3460. musictheory 2019-01-20 09:18:37 hi_me_here
    They absolutely do, not for every little complicated intricate articulation, or in particular for lead solo parts, but if you know what you're doing and just want some string backing to pad out harmonies, you can make them sound completely indistinguishable from the real thing. Remember all of these string samples are working off of real recordings in the first place, it's when you use them sloppily or try to manipulate them to do things they're not fit to be used for that they'll sound fake. A real concert string player producing strings using a sample library would have no problem fooling anyone. It's when they're used by people (who are trying to sound real) but don't know how they should actually sound when it sounds fake.

  3461. musictheory 2019-01-20 09:19:19 Thevisi0nary
    I have a whole lot to say on that topic but that would make this a long post lol. I think its personally bad business practice to not allow refunds and have no demo of your product. Thankfully, there are some companies that give you options to demo things in some capacity, one being EW composer cloud and Best service. Here's the best service link that shows you what you can demo first before purchase. https://www.bestservice.com/try-sound.html If OP does not have experience with many sample libraries, I think EW composer cloud is 100% the route to take. It's a non commitment subscription that comes with a ton of quality sample libraries that many professional composers use. There is also enough content in it to become acclimated with several different types of libraries. Both Hollywood strings and the Symphonic series have quality string samples but are very different, and you have access to both of these without committing to a $1000 purchase. This is a song someone on youtube made with EW Symphonic orchestra, and it's a 10+ year old library. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9rCLOirucI

  3462. musictheory 2019-01-20 18:32:44 Sinetren
    I have to finish a 30 min. cantata for choir and orchestra and a 50 min. string quartet, both to be performed in April. This is the kind of stuff that make us write music every day!

  3463. musictheory 2019-01-21 03:50:57 sfz-sfffz
    It's good that you see the note and just play it. You don't want your brain to go "that is a C, C is 3rd fret on the A string, I will fret there." That being said, you also want to be able to play that C in every single position depending on where your hand is on the fretboard. If you're noodling up around the 12th fret you want your brain to send you to the 8th fret on the E string, or 13th on the B if you have an extended range guitar.

  3464. musictheory 2019-01-21 04:27:05 65TwinReverbRI
    Yeah, this is a good thing! At some point though, you should just challenge yourself to do one without the other. For example, just grab a piece of music and read aloud the note names. You can also think of where they are on the guitar, and even say "D, 4th string open" and things like that, but don't actually play it on guitar for this exercise so it's not just muscle memory. Likewise, play something on guitar - maybe from tabs - and just name the notes "2nd string 3rd fret, that's a B" - you can even do this without the guitar too. Also, what's going to happen is - as you may have already discovered, you can play D as the 4th string open, and D as the 2nd string 3rd fret, but they're different D notes - different octaves, right? So you need to make sure you're being specific. Furthermore, the D on the 4th string open can also be played on the 5th string 5th fret. So you need to start learning your notes in higher positions soon as well - when you do this it's going to undo a lot of reliance on any muscle memory - which can be rebuilt (and a good thing) in higher positions as well!!! So yeah, do what you're doing, then work on those other things I mentioned - extracting one aspect from the other, and once you get good at all that, start working up the neck. Great that you're learning to read! Keep it up!!!

  3465. musictheory 2019-01-21 11:57:09 wheresthecorn
    One of my comp professors (a percussionist) told a story about how during his undergrad, one of his own comp profs talked about how string players prefer sharps over flats. So my prof literally started to rewrite his music using sharps instead of flats, even doing things like spelling a Gm chord as G--A#--D. He admits that it wasn't his proudest moment.

  3466. musictheory 2019-01-21 12:06:14 65TwinReverbRI
    Based on my experience here and on r/Composer, as well as other forums over the years, and my own experiences as a composition student and with other students: 1. Do not put an "Opus" number on your composition. Opus numbers are assigned by the publisher, not the composer. 2. Your first composition should not be for Orchestra, nor should it be a String Quartet, Sonata, or Symphony (or Opera! or Concerto, etc.). 3. Your 2nd through 20th compositions should probably not be for those groups or forms either... 4. Do not give your composition subtitles like "Moonlight" or "Pathetique" or things like that (not necessarily ones already in use). Those too were given by Publishers or just the general public. Haydn didn't call it the Sunrise Quartet or 5ths Quartet - those names were added by people later just using a common name to refer to the piece. 5. You are not the only one who wants to be a Game/Film composer. Everyone does. And people are doing it for free. If you want to be successful in that industry, you have to know your craft and be at the top of your game. Sitting around making cliches of Game of Thrones music is not going to make you a film composer. 6. Do not try to compose anything without learning to play an instrument (slight exceptions are possible). Do not try to compose a Brass Quintet without every having studied brass quintets. I see so many scores with Viola in the wrong clef. I also see people leave off Viola in a string orchestra (a "symphony" they've written...) and it's clear they did so because they don't know how to read Alto clef. 7. Do not try to write for Orchestra until you can write competently for smaller forces. 8. "Synthetic Orchestra" is not the same thing as real people. If you want to write for synthetic orchestra fine, but if you don't give wind players any place to breath, they're probably note going to want to play your piece. 9. You should know how to read music, play an instrument (or many) well, and have listened to and studied a great deal of music. 10. You should learn how to use a notation program like Sibelius, Finale, or MuseScore. 11. You should learn how to use a DAW to make MIDI Mockups or even finished products. 12. It's not 1750 or 1800 anymore. Don't compose like Bach, Mozart or Beethoven, even if you're able (and most aren't able). Unless you really want to. But learn that music has advanced since that time, and modern compositions are very different now. If you want to be "current", you need to learn what current is. You may not like it and want to go back, and that's fine, or you can write "Modern Film Score Music" which consists of easily repeatable cliches and tropes (which is why so many people do that - because it takes less effort on your part - and of course, there are exceptions to this too). 13. Even 12 tone music is passe now. Don't think because you've never encountered, and may in studies, that's it's "cutting edge". It, like everything, is a tool you can use to achieve a particular sonic result. Learn what the technique produces, and use it when you need it. 14. Learn "real" stuff. There are too many people out there who downloaded MuseScore and are calling themselves "composers" who don't know the first thing about music, or don't understand what it involves. They are not being "artistic" either by doing "anti-music" art either. It's like me saying I want to be an engineer and buying a slide rule and posting some simple math equations that are wrong online. It's fine to learn - you gotta start somewhere. 15. With that in mind, the greatest composers all had teachers. Now why don't you have one? What makes you think you can become a composer when people with the talent and skill level of a Mozart still had a teacher...are you better than Mozart? It's just ridiculous to not study music, and composition in order to become a composer. If you truly can't afford one, or none are nearby, then at least self-study MUSIC, not read books. 16. With that in mind, you can't really learn how to compose from a book. 17. You don't need to study Fux and counterpoint. Instead, you need to listen to, learn to play, analyze, tear apart, and try to recreate real music by real composers (even if from the 1800s I guess...). 18. Likewise, you don't need to learn Theory. Theory will not teach you how to compose. The music of others will teach you how to compose. While Mozart did actually study Fux, he used it more as a supplement (and even correct it to "modernize" it for his time). Instead, he played and studied the music of the great contrapuntalists. Sure, you do need to know your music fundamentals, and basic chord construction and so on, but reading through Kostka/Payne (or anyone's favorite) is not going to teach you how to make music without a "reference point" of actual real music by actual real composers. 19. Don't get frustrated if your first, or second, or 20th piece is not a masterpiece. In fact, you'd do well to get yourself out of the "I need to write a masterpiece" mindset. That's a false notion from the whole over-romanticized characters of Beethoven and the like. Mozart's first 34 or so Symphonies are really pretty lame. Bach's works were written as a job - he actually re-used a lot of material to meet deadlines. For every great piece, each composer probably wrote 20 -200 bad pieces. Some composers are essentially "one hit wonders"! Even with someone as great as Beethoven, most people do not know but a single movement from a couple of his Piano Sonatas, and it's doubtful they could sing you the tune from anything but Ode to Joy in the 9th. Fur Elise, Moonlight Sonata, First Movement Symphony 5, and last movement Symphony 9 are probably all the lay public really know from Beethoven. Don't expect that anyone is going to know who you are - especially if you're writing old style music competing against the likes of him. Don't set yourself up against those kinds of standards. 20. IOW, write because you find pleasure in it. Try to improve if that makes it more enjoyable for you. But don't expect any kind of "success" other than personal success. If you want to get "in" to the industry or world of professional music, then study hard and go to an exceptional music school/conservatory and use the connections to get into the industry. Or, become a lawyer and make lots of money and buy your way in. Or become famous in some other field - actors always seem to be able to release an album. Suddenly some rapper that will be going to prison next year will be performing with an orchestra this year...so there are ways in, but they involve other things that you may not have access to. There's a nice round 20. I'm sure I could come up with more ;-)

  3467. musictheory 2019-01-21 15:31:32 rkarl7777
    Some of my favorites are... 1) Thinking a standard String Quartet has a double bass in it 2) Thinking a saxophone is a brass instrument 3) Writing chromatic glissandi for the harp

  3468. musictheory 2019-01-21 17:52:46 Yeargdribble
    >For theory, he's saying that learning an instrument will subconsciously teach more important theory than simply learning it out of a book. HOWEVER learning out of a book isn't a bad thing, as long as you are complimenting the learning with actual practice - writing/playing an instrument. Oh certainly. For one, it didn't even really occur to me that people are trying to be "composers" without an actual instrument. I mean, how to do make any sort of real time conceptualization of any theory concept without that? Hell, I'd say if you only play a monophonic instrument you can't completely wrap your head around certain theory concepts well. The difference piano made for me in *how* I had to simultaneously think of harmonic concepts is something I can't overstate. But yeah, learning the basics of an instrument before writing for it is so useful. You don't have to get good, but you will have an immensely different appreciation for many aspects that you'd otherwise overlook. Oh, brass players can't just sit on high notes for 30 measures in a row because that's hard. Oh, I probably shouldn't have my clarinet player trying to tremolo across the break. These double stops are borderline impossible for string players. I'd say at the *very* least get to know musicians who play those instrument *well* and constantly bounce musical ideas off of them because you'll learn so much more from what they say is realistic than what you can learn from an orchestration book. >And everyday there are kids on this forum posting about some random theory approach they've read about from the 20th century or even better - 16th century! Curiosity is important for learning but understand these are all just different approaches to music. None of them are instantly better than any else. Learning atonal music or twelve-tone serialism, or even Fux counterpoint doesn't make you better if it can't inform your general compositions. Same with learning a single style - who cares if you can write a really awesome Dubstep/Trap/Future Bass drop if it becomes obsolete the moment the next style rolls in and replaces it? Epic film music if the next wave of hollywood is tense dramas? There seems to be the hunt for some uniqueness and younger musicians seem to think they have discovered some amazing new thing, particularly if it's outside the mainstream. Young musicians really seem to have this wine-snob complex where they like the feeling of superiority that comes from learning and appreciating something very niche. It gets /r/iamverysmart so fast. Some people really do seem to think they've discovered some genius idea that nobody in the history of western civilization has stumbled upon. You especially see this with people trying to completely re-imagine music notation or find some workaround to having to learn it. >Nothing wrong with self-learning, the internet is an incredible resource for learning today. But an instructor can give you direct feedback in a way that some random on the net can't. You know the qualifications and experience that back up a real instructor's advice/feedback. Yeah, you can really waste an enormous amount of time trying to find a resource that solves your specific problem and waste months or years mis-conceptualizing something without realizing it when a simple question to a person who actually knows what they are talking about could've saved you all that grief. But even beyond that, I think the most valuable part of instructors is they are answer questions that students don't even realize they should be asking. >I don't want to sound like a dick, but if Reverb's post offended you, ask yourself why it did. There is some fantastic advice in his post, and I have seen many comments from him with great insight. If you are knee-jerking in response to "don't write 'Opus' in the title because that's a misinterpretation of tradition" then your skin might be too thin for the harsh world of music criticism! Yeah, the amount of failure and outright embarrassment you'll have to face on the road to any sort of success can be rough and if you're uncomfortable being called out anonymously and indirectly on reddit, you might need to re-evaluate.

  3469. musictheory 2019-01-22 01:32:52 65TwinReverbRI
    OK, from a "modern" perspective, the Greeks used Tetrachords, which was a 4 stringed instrument tuned in various ways - the Diatonic, Chromatic, and Enharmonic Genera (plural of Genus, for "type"). Those roughly equate to us modern types as: D-E-F#-G D-E-F-G D-Eb-F-G what we might see as the start of the Lydian, Dorian, and Phrygian modes. What they did is combine tetrachords to form a set of notes that spanned an octave. They could be conjunct or disjunct, meaning they either shared the last and first note of the two tetrachords, or there was a step between then. These produced a number of varying results but the Greeks ultimately realized these could be listed in a string of notes with various octaves producing various modes. They gave this entire string of notes a name that we call the Greater Perfect System and the notes formed the "Gamut" - which is the range from the lowest note they used to the highest. We still use this word in modern times to refer to "the complete range of something" in everything - probably except music! They named the modes after places/regions/tribes, etc. so we get Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, Locrian, and Ionian (notice those names are used in architecture to - Doric columns, Ionic columns). ________ Fast forward to the Middle Ages People were using some modes, which may be descended from Greek and other near East traditions, but some scholars came along and named them. They used the Greek names but totally screwed up which name went with which set of notes (or maybe they didn't care, or had other intents). However, what they did is adapt the system to the way they actually conceptualized music, which was, rather than 7 modes, they had 4 Authentic Modes and 4 Plagal Modes, what we now call the "8 Ecclesiastical Modes". Same names as the Greek system, but really, not very much to do with it otherwise (the Greeks even calculated scales from the highest note down unlike we do, so that may have been part of the reason for the name confusion). ______ Fast forward to the mid 1500s. Glareanus notices there a *musical practice* going on - a new conceptualization of how music is written. He notices that there are two "new" modes being used, or that the older 8 modes are constantly being changed to produce two new modes. Since all are in practice though, he borrows the Greek names in keeping with tradition, and calls the new ones Ionian and Aeolian, which also come in (as was the practice of the day) two versions, Authentic and Plagal. This adds 4 modes to the existing 8, or a total of 12, which is why you're seeing that number. ______ Fast forward not very long and these two "new" modes sort of become the only modes. Music starts being conceptualized in a new way, and rather than 8 or 12 modes, there are only 2 - Major and Minor. Gone are Authentic and Plagal concepts, and gone is a lot of modal thinking. ______ Fast forward to about the mid 1800s, and people get tired of the 2 "mode" system of major and minor and seek to introduce new scalar resources. Some of these are from other cultures, some of them are completely new inventions, and some are "re-discoveries" of the modes. So we start to see "The 7 Modern Modes" come to the fore, which is still pretty much what we have today. Again though, the way music using these modes is written is conceptually different. It's a *different musical practice* once again. it's kind of like, what real R&B is, what R&B in the 90s was, and what R&B refers to now! IOW, really, all the music of the Middle Ages, the music of Ancient Greece, and modern music share in terms of modes are the names of the modes! They're not really "used" in the same way. _____ But, why wouldn't you want to understand "modern modes" and how they're used. I don't know that anything can be gained by going back to ancient Greece or the Middle Ages uses - certainly there are probably ideas you could take from them, but most people don't even know how to use Modern Modes, so maybe it's worth starting there.

  3470. musictheory 2019-01-22 02:09:05 jenslarsenjazz
    Quite a long video today. What do you think about the format? ## Content: [0:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=0s) Intro [0:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=25s) What I am cover with Triad Pairs and the Minor Blues Solo [0:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=44s) The Minor Blues Solo [1:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=91s) A Longer Video with more details and exercises. [1:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=117s) Triad Pairs – a basic overview [2:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=143s) Diatonic Triads of C melodic minor [3:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=183s) The first triad pair: Eb augmented, F [4:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=274s) C7alt: E augmented, Gb [6:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=366s) E augmented Gb Exercise [6:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=376s) F Dorian Triad Pair and exercise [7:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=436s) Fm, Gm Exercise [7:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=441s) How The Line is constructed [7:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=473s) Cm: Cm Dm [8:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=509s) The Triad Pair Hack [8:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=525s) Two-string sets for triad pairs [9:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=552s) Cm Dm – Two String exercise [10:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=610s) Ab7 triad pair – [11:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=674s) 7-note groupings [11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=702s) G7alt Triad Pair [11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=702s) Dorian Triad pair on Cm13 [12:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=747s) B augmented, Db Exercise [12:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=752s) Cm Dorian Triad Pair [13:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=806s) 2nd Chorus: Using a String set and inversion across several chords [14:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=842s) The 3 Triad Pairs and exercises [14:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=893s) Fm triad pair: Fm, Gm [15:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=939s) Great CmMaj(13) triad pair [16:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=978s) How Augmented Triads are practical [17:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=1024s) Exercises and moving across the neck [17:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=1075s) Diminished Triad in Triad Pairs: Ab7 [18:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=1114s) A Lydian b7 Triad Pair [19:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=1148s) Minor Triad pair for G7alt [19:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=1178s) Lydian Dominant Exercise [20:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSYWASkaGs&t=1202s) Like The Video? Check out my Patreon Page

  3471. musictheory 2019-01-22 02:13:30 markjohnstonmusic
    There's two problems there, though. The first is that there are limits to recording string instruments such that even a professional CD of a violinist doesn't sound like live. There's inevitably something missing. The second is that there's so much nuance and variation in the way a string player plays that every note is a little bit different, and the space between each pair of notes is different. And I'm not aware of samples that can account for that.

  3472. musictheory 2019-01-22 03:23:14 bluebirdmg
    I’m sure it does! At least...I hope so too haha No to mention a solid midi mock-up mix can hide some of the inconsistencies/negatives of some sound libraries so it makes it even a little more believable because maybe you don’t hear the string section swell for every note 😂 makes all the difference! Cheers

  3473. musictheory 2019-01-22 03:41:08 65TwinReverbRI
    Chords come from the Key. They're made up of notes from the Key. In C, the C chord would be C-E-G, the D chord would be D-F-A, the E chord would be E-G-B and so on. The chords in C Major therefore are: C - Dm - Em - F - G - A - B^o D major is not in the key of C, nor is E Major. If you play those chords, you could: 1. Be in some other key. 2. Be moving towards some other key. 3. Temporarily be in some other key. 4. Be using chords from another key for "sonic value". 5. Be using chords from another key to "intensify" one of the chords in the key. 6. Pointing to a different mode, or "borrowing" the chords (usually temporarily) from some other key. _____ There's a "flaw" in the whole "What Key is this progression in" question. Firstly, not all music is in a single key. So the assumption that it is is flawed and thus the question can't be answered as is. What key is it in? Answer: no key. Many keys. One key here, another key there. That is typically not what the person is wanting as an answer. They want cut and dry "A Major" or whatever. Secondly, most modern music doesn't use keys in the purely traditional sense and there is in fact a lot of exceptions and caveats to be discussed which again, usually the person isn't really interested in or doesn't have enough background to really understand yet, etc. Thirdly, chord progressions in isolation aren't always great at indicating a key if there is one. C - F - Am could be C, or F, or Am. You need more information. Call it "circumstantial evidence" and what you want - or what the person asking the question generally wants is a "smoking gun". That can make the answer seem like a cop out, but sorry, it's just not as cut and dry as people want it to be. The best answer for "what key is this in" is "the chord that sounds like "home" " - which of course can have it's own interpretations. C - C - G7 - C is going to make the C sound like "home". First because we're so conditioned to hear it that way (but people without a lot of listening and playing experience may not yet be equipped to do this, which is part of the issue). That there are 3 Cs and only one G7 kind of point to C being the home chord. That we traditionally don't have 7th chords be the "home" chord kind of rules that out. But when it's: C - Am - F - G - well, more to choose from there. It's still C, and the reasons are (at least circumstantially) that it begins on C, will loop around such that the G resolves to C each time, and the chords themselves are all native to C (or Am). Now, that doesn't mean it IS C, but, because of the way we have written music for so long and how we've perceived it for so long, most people are going to perceive the C chord as the "home" chord. - Not necessarily because it's the first chord, but because it's the first chord AND there are other factors. Generally speaking, in Classical music, the final chord will be the home chord - the Tonic. In popular music, it could be the ending chord, but it's also likely to be the beginning chord, especially in looped progressions that are so common. If it ends on C, it might be C. If it begins on C, it might be C. If it both begins and ends on C, it's probably C. If there are more C chords than any other chord, it's probably C. If all of the other chords are native to the key of C, it's probably C. If C aurally sounds like the "home" chord, it's probably C. If the melody is also using notes native to C, and either beginning and/or ending its phrases on the C note, or a note of the C chord, then it's probably C. If any combination of these factors are present, then it's most likely C, and if all of them are present, it's a pretty darn good bet it's C. In classical music, we will also have "patterns" that tell us which key it is - for example, cadences that are known patterns that pretty strongly indicate the key ("confirm the key" is what we say). _____ If you learn the order of diatonic chords in a key: I - ii - iii - IV - V - vi - vii^o You'll see that there are only 2 major chords in a row a whole step apart. Thus, C to D could be IV and V in G, and D to E could be IV to V in A, but not all three of them come from the same key. However, if you had a progression like: G - C - D - E - E - E - E - like "Hey Ya" - what key is it? Well, it looks like G at first - but then it's got that E. And it's a long E. (of course, the question also becomes, what does it help knowing what key this piece is in if it may not even be in any traditional key...). So even if the chords appear to be "mostly native" to one Key, it could be overridden by some other factor - metric placement, duration, emphasis, etc. So looking for the Key with just the numbers is not going to really help you, except in simple instances where it's pretty clear (like common progressions like I - vi- ii - V etc.). No one is really trying to evade the question - it's that the answer is totally dependent on context and can't be answered all the time with just a string of 4 letters. _____ Modern music is compounded by "key" being treated as this "complex" that contains not only the diatonic chords of the key, but all the borrowed chords too, which are commonly intermixed, and the modal chords as well. This means a progression like E - G - A - C is still seen as "in E" though it's a mixture of E Major and E Minor. But it's "in E" because there's an emphasis on it by starting on that chord (and usually solos will be "in E" too) and we're used to that kind of pattern as being understood as "in E". A great one is "Hey Joe" which goes C - G - D - A - E. Well, what key is it? It's E. Everything culminates on that E. the solo is in E. The E chord is 4x as long as the other chords. The intro is in E. During the chromatic riff, the chords all have the chromatic riff sound "moving forward" and the movement stops on the E chord - "at rest" - "home". But see, here it's the final chord. Is it E Major or E Minor? C, G, and D all come from Em, and A comes from E. Or is it shifting keys? So "key" is about determining the "center" today. And then the music may be in a major or minor key - and the minor key can have the traditional adjustments, or it could be in a mode, or "key complex". Some are easier to figure than others. And usually the, "what key is it in" question is answered with "so I can write a solo". Well, if it's in the true Key of E, then you solo will also be in the key of E. But for each chord it uses outside of the key, you will have to make adjustments, So knowing the key then is less important - you may have to know what key the other chord comes from, or you may just need to step out of the key for 1 chord here and there. And how you step out might not be another key specifically, just a single changed note (ultimately it would make some scale, but the name is not really that important). HTH

  3474. musictheory 2019-01-22 03:55:45 FwLineberry
    The simplified answer is: If you play something based around a major chord, you're in a major key. If you play something based around a minor chord, you're in a minor key. "Based around" doesn't mean the chord you started with or the chord you ended with. It means the chord that sounds like home. If you play a string of chords and none of the chords sound like home, then you're not in a key. All of your chords fitting a scale does not mean you're in a key. To be in a key you have to have a home chord. That is the very definition of what is called "tonality". All the notes gravitate to a central "home" pitch. The chords/scales used to support the home pitch would be called "modality".

  3475. musictheory 2019-01-22 04:35:42 65TwinReverbRI
    > EDIT: Also FAK U u/65TwinReverbRI my first string quartet is a masterpiece and thus deserves its branding of The Final Pathetique, op.69 Haha. Love it. But shouldn't you include a 420 in there somewhere so as to appeal to the online community?

  3476. musictheory 2019-01-22 07:54:54 Jongtr
    I think of it as simply a minor key song. "Modal interchange" arguably covers it, but only if you can describe any minor key song that way. ;-) The intro (at least) is a standard minor key line cliche (from My Funny Valentine and similar tunes). I.e., there is a "harmonic minor" G♯ there, along with the other usual variable 6th and 7th degrees. There is arguably a folk/Celtic influence, from the similarly fey and episodic compositions of the Incredible String Band - a definite (if minor) influence on Plant and Page.

  3477. musictheory 2019-01-22 09:03:12 IWantStudentLoans
    I think it would still work. It might be cool to keep the Db on the lowest string if you can mangle your hands in a way to make it work. I'm not super good at guitar myself but I think it should be cool. So the Bbdim should have a Db on the bottom and then if you can find the rest of the notes going up the strings without carpal tunnel kicking in that could work pretty well.

  3478. musictheory 2019-01-22 09:13:09 IWantStudentLoans
    And if you have no problem doubling the third of the diminished chord I believe on the B string if you resolve the Eb down to the Db that would sound right.

  3479. musictheory 2019-01-22 20:13:33 Jongtr
    > Minor is sad . Major is happy, and how certain chords give off a eerie dark vibe This is true, but only in comparison with other chords, and if all else is equal. In practice, other factors have much bigger effects on the emotional "meaning" of music, although still not very precise ones. E.g., tempo (fast - slow) and dynamics (loud - soft) have very direct and obvious effects, as do timbre (harsh - smooth), orchestration (choice of instruments), and various studio effects - especially reverb. Likewise pitch registers have an effect (generally high or generally low). After all that, *then* things like keys, modes, chord types may have additional (subtle) effects. A major key song can sound "sad" if you play it slow and soft, while a minor key one can sound "happy" if you play it fast. That's just the most obvious denial of the "happy-sad" dichotomy. A "happy" song can sound "angry" if you play it loud. An angry song might sound sweet if you played it softly. A particular chord type will sound one way if played smoothly by a string section, quite another way if strummed on banjo! A "dark and eerie" effect could come from low pitches, slow tempo, and probably plenty of reverb. Dissonance in the chords might help, as might a "dark" mode like phrygian, but they're less essential. Probably some kind of chromatic movement in melody lines (especially in the bass) is more effective than staying with any specific mode.

  3480. musictheory 2019-01-22 20:13:42 SquidKnight75
    This depends heavily on the setting. Many symphonic wind bands may prefer the 5/4 3/4 alternation simply for feel and phrase separation. String orchestras may tend to prefer the 4/4 or 8/4 with accent markings to simplify measures and bow articulations. Disclaimer: that could have been major bull so really it doesn't actually matter

  3481. musictheory 2019-01-22 20:38:00 UnmixedGametes
    Yep: sheet music was designed for monotonal vocalists then upgraded for pianists and organists. It is passably useful for brass and woodwind. It is arguably not very helpful for bowed violin. Tab + Notation is the upgrade needed for string chordal instruments. God alone knows what works for harpists...

  3482. musictheory 2019-01-22 22:16:09 Atheia
    This isn't really accurate at all. Bach was not the earliest composer, nor did he write any "rules." He was, however, composing during an era where the conventions dictated by modal composition were being phased out (think one less flat in the key signature, Renaissance-type cadences, etc.) in favor of tonality. Bach was not even the most innovative of composers - by the time of his death, music had already gone the Classical way. What he was, was the master of harmony, development, and counterpoint, and thus all the great composers studied from him. Mozart did not follow the rules to the nth degree. There are countless examples where just his sonatas broke the rules of what is normally taught in class. Even his "Easy Sonata" does just that - a recapitulation that begins in the subdominant. His Alla Turca is hardly a Rondo in any traditional sense. Beethoven was indeed Early Romantic. But by his time, composers were *definitely* breaking all sorts of rules. The most blatant violation seems to be that of form, as exemplified in his late string quartets, where he makes use of cyclic form, and quite earnestly abandons the traditional four movements.

  3483. musictheory 2019-01-22 23:25:21 DRL47
    Major bull! Wind bands and string orchestras read and expect exactly the same music. Phrase marks may vary, but time signatures wouldn't.

  3484. musictheory 2019-01-22 23:56:33 SquidKnight75
    They really don't, the styles and eras that are common in both are vastly different. How many string orchestras focus on music from the 20th century? How many bands play baroque?

  3485. musictheory 2019-01-23 01:05:10 Evan7979
    I'm not sure of your question but orchestration is mainly about timbre, balance and, texture and playability in my mind. Timbre is the colour of sound you want and how you technically achieve it with the instrument doublings and couplings you mentioned. Timbres help seperate or gel melodies, countermelodies, harmonies etc. Balance is all about dynamic control throughout the piece. It's no good having beautiful timbres and colours in the flutes if you can't hear them over the trumpets for example. Texture is all about the combination of instruments to create larger ideas than they could do themselves. There are standard orchestral textures and some niche, innovative ones. Playability is the thing you mentioned you ignore with ranges and the player's abilities. This is often part experience and part memorisation. The best orchestrators know practical things like not just the range, but actual playability. So for example, playing a C#1 on double bass rapidly alternating with F1 without a 5 string is pretty much impossible, as an extension means your thumb gets in the way etc. A balance of experience, creativity and technique is needed to be well rounded.

  3486. musictheory 2019-01-23 09:20:04 65TwinReverbRI
    You don't happen to know guitar do you? Reason I ask is there's a good parallel in the Capo. When we play guitar, guitarists learn a lot of chords by "shape" and songs by chords - so naturally if the song is G - C - D - G we learn those shapes and learn the order of the shapes. But, along comes a singer and says "it's too low for me, can we raise it up? So what we can do is put a capo on the guitar at any fret, but still play the exact same shapes! This means in our mind we can be thinking "G - C - D - G" again, but it actually comes out sounding like maybe Bb - Eb- F - Bb. So maybe it's kind of lazy, but it keeps us from having to re-learn the shapes and the sequence of shapes for the song - which is especially good if you need to do it just once for a particular singer or something. The best example for winds is the Saxophone family. Similar kind of of idea - when Adolphe Sax (that's his real name!) invented the Saxaphone family of instruments, he wanted instrument you could always play the exact same fingerings on, but just larger and smaller versions to cover different ranges. This way, someone who learns Alto Sax can pick up a Tenor Sax and play it without having to relearn a bunch of fingerings. Soprano Sax and Bari Sax are also the same fingering. And they all read the same staff and have the same range. So it makes it super easy for a Sax player to switch instruments. ________ The historical reason is much deeper and is best exemplified by the Horn (French Horn). A long time ago, Horns, like Bugles, didn't have Valves. So if you happen to be familiar with guitar, it's like having a 1 string guitar without ability to press down on the frets. The only notes you can make are the Fundamental and other Overtones. The pitch of a Horn is based on its length, so if the piece was in C, you picked a horn that had roughly 16 feet of tubing, and you could play the notes (C) C - G - C - E - G - Bb - C - D - E - F# - G - A - B - C on it (you could use your lips to get some other notes)> This is why Bugles, which also have no Valves, played a lot of things that were just G-C-E-G or similar - "Taps" and "Reveille" are both just those notes (or other notes close in the overtones). That was great if a composer wrote a piece in the key of C. But if they wrote in a key like G, then those instruments couldn't play as many notes. One solution was just to pick up a longer or shorter Horn so you could play the overtones in G. But one solution they eventually came on was to put a break in the tube, and then make it so you could attach "crooks", which were lengths of extra tubing to make different fundamentals. But, because these players were used to using partials of the overtone series to find their notes, they were very used to hearing the relationship that way and used to the pressure needed to get a particular partial. By just "making the tube longer" they could play exactly as they always had, but the music needed to be written "in C" because they were so used to seeing the E as the 4th partial or whatever. So they see E, but the length of tubing they put in will determine what it sounds like to the rest of the world. It's similar to the Capo in that way - I see "G" on a chord chart, I play a G chord shape, but if the capo is on the 3rd fret it's going to come out sounding like Bb. I should add at this point that a guitar with a capo on it has a rather distinct sound so playing with the capo on and playing standard "open" chord shapes sounds a lot different than fingering those chord shapes just up the neck. Same is true for a lot of other instruments. Back to the Horn - eventually, they basically soldered the extra tubing on, and added valves in a manner that let them get all the notes. Same thing happened for Trumpet (which was also valveless at first). So before, we had "horn in C" with a C crook, "horn in G" with a G crook and so on. If the piece was in D Major, the horn player just put the D crook in and played the music which was written in C (again, as they were used to those partials). Once they added valves, it just became a matter of tradition. _____ Trumpets, and Clarinets had similar evolutionary paths. The Clarinet basically comes from the concept of the Recorder in a way. And Recorders work just like the Saxophone family - you use the same fingering, read the same music, but you just pick up a bigger Recorder to make the sounding pitches higher or lower. Again, this was because people might want to get together to play but you wouldn't necessarily know who had which ranges, so you brought as many as you good and decided on when you got there who would play which part based on which ranges you had available, but you didn't have to "re-learn" your instrument on the spot (or even transpose!) and you could just read the music that was already written "transposed" for you. (side note, some players of Horn, Trumpet, etc. actually get very good at transposing by sight because sometimes they have to as the score might not be transposed, or they're reading a part for A Trumpet but playing Bb, etc.) Clarinets used to come in a lot of Keys - Bb, A, G, C, and D and Eb (last one called Sopranino now). When Mozart wrote a Clarinet Concerto that was in the key of A, then the instrument of choice would be an A Clarinet - because the music was just written "in C" for the Clarinet part. Again - remember initially wind parts in Symphonies were pretty simple and they learned more by "scale degree" or "Tonic, Dominant" etc. rather than actual note name. Horn players today will still be "Tonic, Dominant" if they talk about older Symphonies because it helps them think about the partials in relation to the Key. And kind of like Guitar, each Clarinet - A, G, Bb - while they had a different range, they also had different tones too. Now, why we settled on Bb? Probably because it worked with the other instruments in the ensemble better. Or, it covered a range in way the had more crossover range with the Bassoon and Oboe or something. Actually, today, I'm surprised there isn't a trend in making instruments shorter/smaller because less wood/metal = more profit margin for manufacturers! But really, at this point, it's simply just tradition. But if you want something that maybe makes a nice parallel: Violin's lowest note is G. Viola (which is "Alto") is C. So they're a 5th apart. It's helpful to have "crossover" in instrument ranges so that they can play in unison if necessary, but they can also play further apart if desired. The Clarinet in C may not have filled that role as well as one in Bb. And when you look at families of instruments, their ranges are kind of similar to this 4ths/5ths difference. The Saxes are all Bb or Eb. Flute is C, but Alto Flute is G. Trumpet is Bb or C, horn is F. So in essence, a lot of these instruments were kept, and transposing versions were kept, because they "covered more ground". But also, at this point, there are so many Bb Clarinets made, owned, and played, and so many pieces of music written for them, that anyone who wanted to try to push a "Clarinet in C" and non-transposing Clarinet would just be forcing players to learn to transpose themselves. And what really happened is, we've put the ones on the Composer or Arranger to do the transpositions once, and then any player who plays that piece from then on won't have to transpose. If if you write music, troubling your performers too much gets in their craw! So really there's no good reason now other than tradition and "there's so much out there". But it's kind of like Clefs - we don't use as many Clefs as we used to, but we need to keep Alto for the poor Violists - tradition, and lots of music out there in that clef. But just like we don't use near as many transpositions as we used to, we've settled on mostly a couple clefs with a few extras here and there. Same with keys - we really could probably just write all music in C Major and A Minor (or C Minor!). But you know, Guitarists aren't crazy about that - we like Em :-). But again, we kind of like that variety - one movement in C, the next one in F - a little contrast - and by having different instruments with different ranges, it provides "better coverage" for various keys - even though they can play chromatically, they still have upper and lower practical limits - which you can think of like a singer singing at the top of their range all night - wears them out and gets kind of tiresome on the listener if they're screaming all night. So a Bb Clarinet maybe just sits in a better place for the music they're usually called on to play than an A or C Clarinet. Seems kind of a small difference but talk to any rock band vocalists who have bands that tune to Eb and they'll tell you that makes a huge difference for them over the course of the night - when they tune to E they wear out much quicker. HTH

  3487. musictheory 2019-01-23 09:47:03 65TwinReverbRI
    > Do you not think it is possible to learn metal through fingerpicking? Should I definitely look into ways to fingerpick? > > Well to answer that question you would look at a bunch of metal players and see if they use a pick or not. The answer is, yes, they use a pick. Almost always. And for some things, it's absolutely necessary. It's possible to learn the fretting hand stuff while fingerpicking, but at some point you're going to want to learn to pick - and one issue is, if you spend a lot of time fingerpicking and get used to that, you may always fall back on it when trying to learn with a pick. There are certainly passages that are fingerpicked in metal music, and there are things that even use nylon string guitars for effect. But far and away, the "main" part of playing metal is an electric guitar through an overdriven/distorted amp using a pick. There are also different ways to fingerpick (and pick for that matter) and you probably want to learn them all to be a well-rounded player. Something like this could be fingerpicked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahLhsGx3GMY Here's a different kind of fingerpicking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRnTDJXiAwc Here's Classical Guitar - not exactly a "metal" band but often lumped in with them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF4aPcQxREY The intro to that song is "Broon's Bane" and is a solo Classical Guitar piece by a "rock" band. Rik Emmet of the band Triumph did a lot of Classical Guitar work on their albums (again, more just a "heavy rock" band) and there are things like "Dee" by Randy Rhoads on Ozzy Osborne's "Blizzard of Oz" album. "Dust in the Wind" by Kansas is fingerpicked on steel string acoustic and there's a LOT of that in rock music in general. But very often it's the lighter, textural, even "folk" stuff that's fingerpicked, while the heavy, fast, aggressive stuff is all done with a pick. Maybe you could work on more of the fingerpicked stuff until you can get an Electric Guitar and use a pick on it. I too wouldn't use a pick on the nylon string guitar - it'll eat through the wound strings pretty quickly. And don't put strings for an Electric or Steel-String Acoustic on that guitar - it'll be too much tension for it and may break the bridge, top, or neck. HTH

  3488. musictheory 2019-01-23 13:26:00 GooniestMundo
    B-Gm7-Abm7- Fm7b13-Ebm7 There are 2 parts played on his six string bass with envelope filter. The regular bass and then arpeggios and chords.

  3489. musictheory 2019-01-23 13:27:30 GooniestMundo
    B-Gm7-Abm7- Fm7b13-Ebm7 There are 2 parts played on his six string bass with envelope filter. The regular bass and then arpeggios and chords.

  3490. musictheory 2019-01-23 13:46:57 GooniestMundo
    Its not microtonal, Thundercat play a regular scale six string bass

  3491. musictheory 2019-01-23 14:00:52 TEDtalksshit
    I’ve seen thundercat play that song several times live. He plays a regular six string bass with a digitech whammy pedal using the detune setting.

  3492. musictheory 2019-01-23 16:14:07 RadioUnfriendly
    I don't think those two chords should even be together. That first chord took dropping the top string on my guitar to D, and I made two different versions. Tried two different A2 chords too.

  3493. musictheory 2019-01-23 22:57:06 Joachim_B_Olsen
    No probs, the two main components of the maintenance are cottoning the strings and applying rosin to the wheel. Secondary but equally important is adjusting the string pressure against the wheel. These three parameters have to be in balance with each other in order for the instrument to sound rich and most importantly in tune. As you can’t adjust the pressure as easily as for example with a violin bow, and as the slightest difference makes an impact on the sound, the instrument is very sensitive to humidity and temperature.

  3494. musictheory 2019-01-24 08:47:47 xunkuang
    1st string open, 2nd string open, 3rd string open, 4th string second fret, 5th string second fret, 6th string open. And then 1st string open, second string open, 3rd string second fret, 4th string second fret, fifth string open. I don’t play the sixth string.

  3495. musictheory 2019-01-24 12:44:14 whirl_and_twist
    man that 7th string djent jam was fucking TIGHT 0mG. i have become your new groupie

  3496. musictheory 2019-01-24 16:17:20 RadioUnfriendly
    That's just an E minor to an A2. That chord you mentioned had me doing 1st string open, 2nd string 3, 3rd string 1, 4th string 2, 5th string 3, and top string open but tuned down to D. Right now I'm interested in E minor to A2 to C major 7 to a B7

  3497. musictheory 2019-01-24 21:39:19 ilikemyteasweet
    And string players can count in the context of a large ensemble.

  3498. musictheory 2019-01-24 23:39:05 musicelitist
    Are you already acquainted with four part harmony and common practice? Being able to write in that style will make writing in other styles easier. A good thing to start out is by comparing string quartets playing string quartets to sax quartets playing string quartets.

  3499. musictheory 2019-01-25 03:51:00 musicelitist
    What about three? double string unison sounds like a cat dying as well, but if three are in unison, then it sounds just fine.

  3500. musictheory 2019-01-25 05:17:25 PM-ME-VIOLIN-HENTAI
    It looks like the note heads are not filled in, rather than white lines. This is not normal and it may signify other problems with the arrangement. Usually, open note heads mean harmonics (at least for string instruments). I’ve never seen it used for piano music though. Very strange.

  3501. musictheory 2019-01-25 06:16:20 65TwinReverbRI
    Listen to this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acK0KH2uJGc There is one chord, a G chord, that is repeated 4 times, then there is a D chord, 4x, then Em, 4x, then C7 4x It does this twice then it does it again with just the Bass player playing the single notes G, D, E, C. While the Bass is not really "chords", it's implying the chords since these are the first ones we hear - and I mention it because by itself, it's pretty easy to hear the bass changing notes. So the chords change at the same rate the first two times - the Bass plays the same thing along with the Guitar, and the Guitar is playing chords - G - D - Em - C7 in succession. So a chord progression is just a succession of chords. One chord after another. We don't really call the G G G G 4 strums as a "progression" because it's just the same chord repeated - it could be held with only one strum as a long note for the same amount of time - so we don't really consider "reiterations" within the same measure to be a "chord progression". IOW, if someone were to write out the chord progression for this song they'd write: G - D - Em - C7 and say "just play (strum) each 4 times". However, if you get the same chord after a new measure, we will often say that is a chord progression. For example, the verses to Margaritaville go: D - D - D - D - D - D - A7 - A7 A7 - A7 - A7 - A7 - D - D(7) So even though there's only 2 chords, we don't just put D -A7 -D because we also usually want to tell the person not only what they change from, but WHEN they change as well. But sometimes people will just write them as a string of letters: C - G - Em - F - and it may be that the G and Em are half as long as the C and F and they don't necessarily put that. Just depends on what they're trying to show.

  3502. musictheory 2019-01-25 06:35:26 no_string_bets
    > I see your and I raise you a **no string bets, please!** --- _^(I'm a pointless bot. "I see your X and raise you Y" is a) ^[string](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/string_bet) ^[bet,](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/string_bet) ^(and is not allowed at most serious poker games.)_

  3503. musictheory 2019-01-25 06:39:44 65TwinReverbRI
    I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you'd have a Triplet of 3 16ths (semiquavers) where the first of the group of 3 was note, while the 2nd two things of the triplets were rests? If so, I would generally use all 16ths (semiquavers) as the triplet bar looks more "centered" above the group of 3. In fact, since there's a beam, I'd use a set of 3 beamed notes with stemlets going down to 16th rests. However, this is an incredibly fussy notation unless you're writing extremely exacting/demanding music for some reason - and if so, that kind of "obvious" beaming would be appreciated by the performer. Combining the 2 semiquaver rests is possible, but the bracket should still be centered above the group, and then you run into issues with it lining up with other parts and so on, so I'd most likely err on the side of making it as obvious as possible - using the individual rests. I agree with Xeno with regard to the context - it's a string of 16 triplets and you've got one that ends a phrase, and the next phrase starts clearly with a group of 3, then the quaver rest would be fine. If it's in the middle of the phrase it could be OK as long as the surrounding groups are clear. If your surrounding groups were "note-rest-note" and "note-note-rest" or "rest-note-note" or even "rest-note-rest" for each group of 3, I'd definitely put "note-rest-rest" or if the pattern were reversed, "rest-rest-note" all in semiquavers - again with beams and stemlets just so every group of 3 is darn clear. Side note - if it's a "double triplet" or sextuplet, you have to be even more careful about combining rests within the group of 6. But if it was just one event in isolation, again unless you're writing extremely exacting music, I wouldn't use the triplet at all - it's just a note on the beat (or half beat, etc.) just put a note of short duration in - 16th plus 16th rest is not really that much different than 16th rest rest as a triplet - a staccato might be all that's needed. _____ If you by chance mean a 16th note triplet, it won't cover "one beat" unless the meter is 4/16 or something. There are definitely traditional engraving and publication standards that you should adhere to unless you have a really good reason not to because players are so used to reading music that way and poor notation usually equates to poor execution of your music! It's better to do everything in your power to help them! Without seeing an example of exactly what you're doing, it's hard to say whether there's a "better" way to do it or not.

  3504. musictheory 2019-01-25 08:14:20 65TwinReverbRI
    Yeah, very close. It sounds like he's playing parallel 6ths, so the shape of the final chord in the phrase is like an open E chord, with 2 on the A string and 1 on the 3rd string - and yes, skipping the 4th string. He does keep playing the low E open as well as the high E sometimes (maybe even the B, but that may be accidental sometimes). He varies the shape so that sometimes it's like as if you were playing the 2nd fret on the G string and the 4th fret on the B string (to make an A chord). He's also sort of doing it randomly in regards to a scale so it's going in and out of E Major - it adds in the 7th sometimes, the b5 and b3 sometimes, and so on. I think if you take the shape I just gave you and concentrate on figuring out what the higher note is (definitely hits fret 1, 5 and 12 at points) then you can determine which shape he's using in those positions (I didn't listen enough to see if he does it exactly the same each time) - wherever your 3rd string note is, the 5th string note is gonna be either 1 or 2 frets above it. You can see his hand change the shape in the video too so that might help you figure out when he's changing shape as well. Have fun.

  3505. musictheory 2019-01-25 23:52:49 itskylemeyer
    I totally get it. I’m primarily a guitar player, but I also dabble in electronic music. Trying to create a string or horn section digitally is simple, but it always sounds artificial. If I could play a ton of instruments, everything would be so much easier.

  3506. musictheory 2019-01-26 00:44:35 hadmatteratwork
    Another note about piano: I feel like playing piano improves your ears more than most instruments, because they remain in tune for the most part. A lot of string musicians get used to things being slightly out of tune and not really noticing it. After I started playing piano a lot more, I started noticing when my guitar was slightly out of tune more often. Piano is also fantastic for learning theory because it's such a clear visual representation.

  3507. musictheory 2019-01-26 01:06:04 telperiontree
    I know someone who can play - as in gets paid to perform - every single instrument that's not a string instrument. Join a musical theatre people are crazy. Crazy awesome. But yeah, just do it. Pick up another instrument, get a lesson or two, and you'll eventually get there.

  3508. musictheory 2019-01-26 03:32:40 TaigaBridge
    The right list of songs depends a lot on what kind of music you like to listen to. If you are more classically minded, a few obvious candidates for descending intervals, all from Beethoven: minor 2nd - 1st bar of *Für Elise* major and minor 3rd: opening of 5th symphony (G-Eb first time, then F-D second time) fourth: opening of 1st string quartet (F-doodle-doodle-C) octaves: scherzo of 9th symphony, strings and timpani.

  3509. musictheory 2019-01-26 04:27:49 StratAddiction
    Yep. I just went with it. Started out playing accordion at 3 years old, played 'til I was 11, got into school band playing baritone and tuba, did that for 8 years, but along the way got into guitars, got fanatical about it (and pretty good), then a bass, then drums, then a piano, then inherited my dad's wind instruments (trombone, clarinet, trumpet, alto sax) and string instruments (violin, balalaika, mandolin). I love them all. Am I good at them all? no - but good enough that most of the people I know think I'm sort of musical genius (which is funny, because I most certainly am not). Lately I've been spending a lot more time on piano and singing. Music is the most wonderful gift, and an amazing hobby - it really never gets old and there's always something more to learn or to aspire toward. If you have the time and the means, enjoy...you only live once!

  3510. musictheory 2019-01-26 04:34:57 RadioUnfriendly
    I have ideas for making guitar programming (whether you start from scratch or are adjusting a MIDI input) a lot better. I'm not sure if this has been done somewhere before. You should be able to choose which strings the notes are on or if they are open strings. On a 24 fret guitar the bottom string E can be played on all 6 strings, but it sounds a lot different in it's tone when comparing the open string, the 2nd and 3rd strings and the rest. On the top string it clearly has that short, thick-string tonality to it. If you want string squeak noises (I consider it a flaw that should be avoided while playing), you can add that automatically. It should have a strum effect, and you could also increase/decrease the speed of the strum and the direction of the strum. Perhaps, there could be an improvement on the hammer on and pull effects. Finally, there should be a two-factor, non-linear bend option associated with a command to move from A-B at the same rate. This would also be an excellent feature on keyboards to make the pitch-bend wheel sound different. If you analyze guitar string bends, you have two factors at work, and they are actually working in opposite directions. The length of the string is increasing when you bend it, and you are pulling the string tighter. Increasing string length lowers the pitch, while the increase in tightness increases the pitch (obviously the dominant factor since bends increase pitch). The result is the unique string bend sound that sounds a lot better than a keyboard's pitch bend wheel being moved at an equal rate. I have heard someone control the pitch bend wheel carefully to emulate a real string bend, but that takes a lot of skill and would be a nightmare to program. I would also provide unnatural, dual-factor bends just for fun and creative options. I would also provide users the option to make custom pitch bend effects.

  3511. musictheory 2019-01-26 05:03:29 stievstigma
    Well it makes no sense because of the Pythagorean Theorem. Shortening the length of string/pipe/whatever raises the pitch.

  3512. musictheory 2019-01-26 06:22:34 TaigaBridge
    Picking your favorite counterpoint text and doing the exercises in the book is one possibility. Setting yourself a little test project is another. I wrote a string of violin duets, canons at each interval, just to see if I could. (Some intervals are easier than others, that's for sure.) The big value of the counterpoint exercises, I think, is that it gets the voice-leading internalized enough that when you do a "real" composition, you have energy to think about the big picture and what you're trying to say, and not needing to use up brainpower trying to avoid ugly harmony.

  3513. musictheory 2019-01-26 10:04:49 maestrophil
    It can be done. One needs to own all of the instruments. This means mostly student models of orchestral instruments . One has to focus on not buying multiples, meaning one electric 6 string, one 12" one bass, then a fret less but still buying a flute, clarinet, trumpet, sax, bone, boards and Midi gear and that drum set (which constantly expands) If one truly plans to play everything, forget about having and caring for children because the e goes buying a sitar or a set of vibes. One learns to repair and maintain these instruments on their own as well. Pro shops will drain you on repairs. There is time in ones life to learn and be proficient, my advice is learn cello before violin to save you much time. When it comes to electronics iPad is your friend, software is so cheap and keyboard controllers all seem to work on it. Do not neglect the wonders of Ableton Live on desktop. Steep learning curve but well worth it. I've dedicated 40 years to wanting to play every instrument, I'm still progressing. That Harpejji is looking real nice about now. Gotta get another Chapman stick soon. Sorry Bassoon but $6000 will get me a whole lot of other instrument Milage. But yeah, it can be done !

  3514. musictheory 2019-01-26 10:34:48 studyingthescore
    Kinda? I just wanna play one of every instrument family, if that makes sense. One string instrument (Violin + viola), one brass (French Horn), one woodwind (Oboe or English Horn or Alto Sax?), one keyboard (harp tbh) and voice.

  3515. musictheory 2019-01-26 11:46:04 Originalitie
    i mean, it makes sense, i just suck ass at playing chords on string instruments, i have a hard time not touching the strings where i shouldn’t be. That’s why I want a bass guitar, it’s closer to what I’m used to, AND chords aren’t (really) a big problem, and it seems like they’d be easier.

  3516. musictheory 2019-01-26 12:56:59 tommyspianocorner
    I haven't checked all 217 comments, but have you thought about something like Garritan Personal Orchestra? Comes with a plug in (Aria Player) that enables you to get pretty solid results for a very reasonable budget. If you've looked for sample libraries, you'll have noticed things like Vienna Strings which cost thousands. I noticed a significant issue with using the Garageband samples for orchestral instruments as the sampler doesn't capture midi data in an effective way. The main problem is Garageband uses 'velocity' for volume which works for a piano but is not right for a violin. Garritan uses 'modulation' for string volume which gives much better control. I recorded a version of Ave Maria using the standard Garageband Strings which gives a reasonable enough result for a but of fun play-along but it a long way from the nuances as you describe in your original post. I'm going to re-record this using Garritan so that I'll have a 'before and after'. You can see how I approached the original recording in [this video](https://youtu.be/5nU4VGXBEbw).

  3517. musictheory 2019-01-27 04:17:25 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, to keep it simple, let's take a 6 string guitar in standard tuning. If you were to play a G Major Scale, starting on the 3rd fret of the E string, one form you could play that in is to go 3-5 on string 6, then 2-3-5 on string 5, then 2-4-5 on 4, then 2-4-5 on 4, then 3-5 on 2 and 2-3 on 1. If you tune the guitar down to Eb by lowering each string a half step, to play something that SOUNDED THE SAME as the G scale you just played in standard tuning, you'd need to move up 1 fret to compensate for the fact the guitar is now tuned down a half step (1 fret = 1 half step). If you tuned it down to D (all strings a whole step down) then to play a scale that SOUNDS like G Major you'd have to now start 2 frets higher on the 5th fret. ______ So yes, to play a "G Major scale" on a standard tuned guitar, no matter if the guitar itself has been tuned up or down, you're going to play the same "shape" but simply in a different position (starting on a different fret). It's only when you go out of standard tuning (such as "Drop D" which is ONLY the low string moved from E to D) that the shape will change. With the addition of the 7th string, the shape is different than it is on a 6 string guitar but the shape you use for a Major Scale (or whatever scale) is going to be the same form no matter if the guitar is has the lowest note as B, Bb, A, etc. But if the D scale starts on fret 3 of the lowest string in standard tuning (for example) then if you tune the guitar down, for each half step you tune it down you'll have to "compensate" by starting the same scale shape up an equal number of frets. Tuned down 3 half steps, play up 3 frets. _____ Now, one disclaimer here: That is to keep the sound the same to the outside world. We as guitarists sometimes (a lot of times actually) still refer to the shape as what we call it in standard tuning. For example, if you learn a song with the chords G, Em, C, D for example and play those shapes on a standard tuned guitar, then you move to a guitar that's tuned down to C, most guitarists will still think "this is a G shape, an Em shape, a C shape and a D shape" but the sound that comes out will be Eb - Cm - Ab - Bb for example. We do the same with Capos - if we put a capo on the 3rd fret, then any G shape we play will now be a Bb chord to the rest of the world but we're still thinking "this is a G chord shape". This most common with open position chords and scales, but some people will still relate chord forms and scale forms up the neck this way as well. So just be aware that if you were playing a standard E5 type power chord on a 6 string that was tuned down to C, if you're thinking like a guitarist and a keyboard player asks you what chord you're playing, you might say "well, it's an E shape, but I'm tuned to C, so it sounds like a C". But sometimes, people don't know their chords and tunings as well so they might be playing Bm on something that's tuned down to C and they're like, "umm, I'm playing Bm". That doesn't help the keyboard player unless they know how far tuned down you are! But that is the beauty about guitar - once you learn one shape for the Major scale (or whatever scale) you can move it up and down the neck to make different Major scales (C Major, D Major, E Major, etc.) and when you change your tuning, you can play in the same place on the neck you did and still get a Major scale of a different letter (G Major becomes Eb Major) or you can "compensate" and move it up to get the right sounding note again (G) without changing the shape!

  3518. musictheory 2019-01-27 04:31:51 Betoo4
    Nah, it’s not a dumb question. Even the greatest were beginners at some point. The answer is no the scale position is not the same. When you Drop a tuning the lowest string goes down a whole-step (e.g. Drop D makes the low E string go down into D) so the scale would become slightly different, but you’re adding an extra string in a drop tuning so it’ll also change the position. This is just an Am scale d#-11-13-14 A#-11-13-14 F#-10-11-13 C#-10-11-13 g#-11-13 D#-11-13-14 G#-13-15-16

  3519. musictheory 2019-01-27 07:08:37 myeyesflewopen
    That makes a lot of sense - I think I thought as opposed to it being a culmination of things, there just had to be some magical bit of theory I didn’t understand, or was missing, that would unlock it all for me, and it seem like other people normally point to modes, which is what made me question if that was the magical factor haha. I’m thinking the main things in my mind, are probably the fact that the timbre of Grace’s voice is pretty folky; the step-wise melody; the key signature and rhythm (I hadn’t even thought of these as being a factor until you pointed it out); and also the fact that Jorma is indeed playing a 12 string guitar, and the fact he’s playing a fingerstyle part on it - I’m probably making an association with ‘Scarborough Fair’. Plus, I think I sort of think of the 60s - particularly the Woodstock scene - as having this inherent Renaissance feel anyway (some of the fashion; the fact that it seems like quite a lot of the folk artists of the time cited traditional English music as an influence; and the fact that some of the artists I’m into were lyrically drawing on things that I’ve probably come to associate with that feeling - Paganism, witchcraft type stuff, etc.), which probably only goes to reinforce any of the features you mentioned. I’d definitely recommend checking out some of their other stuff btw - ‘In Time’ and ‘Wooden Ships’ are probably my favourites.

  3520. musictheory 2019-01-27 08:26:17 Rogryg
    As has been mentioned, it is mathematically impossible in a 12-tone system to avoid having a tritone in any scale with more than 6 notes. In the case of 7-note scales, if you build the scale with only major and minor 2nds, you have to use 2 minor and 5 major seconds. Try as you might, there is no way to place the minor seconds such that there is not a string of three consecutive major seconds (which equals a tritone) and a sequence of four notes containing two major and two minor seconds in any order(which is also a tritone) - though if you're creative, you *can* arrange them in such as way as to produce even more tritones (C D E F# G# A# B for example contains only one fifth that *isn't* diminished!). So let's look at using 3 minor 2nds, 3 major 2nds, and 1 augmented 2nd (the interval set used in harmonic minor). Once again, you cannot avoid having three consecutive major seconds without creating another tritone elsewhere, because not only is a sequence of two major and two minor 2nds also tritone, so is a sequence of one major, one minor and one augmented second (again, in any order). How about 4 minor 2nds, 1 major 2nd, and 2 augmented 2nds? Well you can't have the two augmented 2nds next to each other, because that makes a tritone (as does 4 minor and 1 major 2nd all together). But you can't split them up without sandwiching at least one of them between a minor second on one side and a major second or two minor seconds on the other, and both of those are tritones too. As it turns out, there is no way you can divide the twelve semitones in an octave into seven parts (or more) without introducing at least one tritone - in fact, the BEST you can hope for in terms of having good 4ths/5ths is the six perfect 4ths/5ths and single tritone of the major scale. Now, the whole-tone scale is also tritone-rich, but there are plenty of other hexatonic scales that aren't (C D E F G A, which has been mentioned elsewhere, is a good example). In fact it generally takes a bit of work to put a tritone into a non-whole-tone hexatonic scale, and the same is true for pentatonic, tetratonic, and tritonic scales.

  3521. musictheory 2019-01-27 08:34:46 65TwinReverbRI
    > I’m thinking the main associations for me, are probably the fact that the timbre of Grace’s voice is pretty folky; the step-wise melody; the time signature and rhythm (I hadn’t even thought of these as being a factor until you pointed it out); Jorma playing a 12 string guitar, and the fact that it happens to be a fingerstyle part he’s playing, which I think I probably tend to associate with ‘Scarborough Fair’ (which obviously is an old English song). Also, maybe the fact that in some of their other songs, Grace plays the recorder, which seems like the go-to instrument for that sound? Yeah - almost a perfect storm of elements! I was going to mention - yes, the "time" was also associated with a lot of interest in Druidism and all those other things - we even kind of started calling people like Dylan and Donovan "troubadours" even though their music didn't necessarily sound particularly ancient (though in some cases it could).

  3522. musictheory 2019-01-27 12:01:41 Max_Demian
    If you're super serious or a pro musician, one exercise is carry around two dice (a D6 for the string, and a D12 for the fret), for a few weeks. Roll them, figure out the note as fast as possible. Also play slow and say notes as you go.

  3523. musictheory 2019-01-27 13:43:43 testspecimen85
    You would just move the chords down two whole steps from where you play them, though you might run out of fretboard depending on where the chords are originally played. That might be why the answers are so confusing. It would be easiest to just tune every string down 2 whole steps so you have “C F Bb Eb G C” instead of “E A D G B E”. Then you can just play the song where it normally is and it will be transposed 2 whole steps down. In my experience a really heavy gauge string will play better in this tuning than a lighter gauge. Also, you may have to set up your guitar differently to get proper intonation.

  3524. musictheory 2019-01-27 18:57:15 RidleyConfirmed
    Your sample reminds me of the [battle music from Final Fantasy VII.](https://youtu.be/qlH15l0m7eI) Ignoring the melody, listen to what the percussion is doing. The rhythm syncopates for the first 3 beats and ends with 2 strong 8th notes on the 4th. |! . . ! |. . ! . |. ! . . |! . ! . | That's the rhythm of the song. It's repeatable and consistent. What keeps it from being boring is the melody that complements it. Listen to the string section and notice how it follows the rhythm but dances around the accents to make the song interesting. In your sample, take away the 4th snare from both measures (the one lined up with the notes marked #3) and I bet it will sound much better.

  3525. musictheory 2019-01-27 20:11:00 Jongtr
    So you've decided (for whatever reasons) you want to play in C F Bb Eb G C. You can still use your familiar EADGBE chord *shapes*, but they will produce different chord *sounds*. To expand on FwLineberry's list: E shape = C A shape = F G shape = Eb C chape = Ab D shape = Bb Em shape = Cm Am shape = Fm Dm shape = Bbm B7 shape = G7 Ideally, of course, you'd learn the new chord sounds you're getting and forget the old shape names. You certainly need to do that if playing with other musicians, including guitarists and bassists in standard tuning. Obviously that tuning makes the keys that were easy in EADGBE harder, while other keys become easier. (Assuming you use open strings a lot) The key of Eb major (C minor) will now be your easiest key - so you share that with alto and baritone sax players. Obviously you can still use a capo, if you want open string chords in other keys.

  3526. musictheory 2019-01-28 15:20:19 mladjiraf
    You can reduce any n-note scale to a deformation of a n-note temperament. People in Western culture are obsessed over 7 note scales. Of course, different deformations will have different sound when you rotate the starting note. Lists like the one by Forte will give you more than enough reduced collections to explore in 12 edo. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_pitch-class\_sets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pitch-class_sets) Another technique: construct scales on your own by combining tetrachords and pentachords. The tetrachords in 12 Edo are 221,212,122,311,131,113. Add 2 (major whole tone) as linking intervals and place another tetrachord on top of it. This is the way Greeks constructed scales (they were dividing string lenghts, but the results and the technique is basically the same). You can construct scales by dividing two tritones or by using a pentachord spanning perfect fifth and one spanning perfect fourth.( I quite like "gypsy" scales with a tritone and minor third.) There are other divisions of tetrachords in bigger or unequal systems . You will also find other linear temperaments (scales created by repeating a single interval) and their opposite versions, created by deformation of the second (quasi-equal scales - see the one in 22 edo is quite musical), third (neutral/arabic scales - see 17 or 24 edo) or fourth (diatonic/anti-diatonic) step of the equal heptatonic (7edo) . (The opposite of diatonic can be found in 16 edo - major chord becomes minor, minor -major, diminished - augmented. Someone posted a short footage of a harp tuned in this tuning on the microtonal facebook group - it sounded very "African").

  3527. musictheory 2019-01-28 23:24:53 Xenoceratops
    Generally, the pitches you choose in the construction of the row depends on what sort of properties you want to exploit. For instance, Schoenberg, Webern, and Babbitt (in his earlier period) were very fond of [hexachordal combinatoriality](http://www.ramseycastaneda.com/music-theory/all-combinatorial-hexachords.html) as a harmonic determinant: the first six notes of the row would be the same set-class as the last six notes, and could be paired together with derivations of that row that allow you to play with both rows at the same time without replicating any pitch-classes. Schoenberg was attracted to this method because it allowed him to ensure atonality when he wrote. Webern and Babbitt use it to create highly symmetrical structures in their compositions. Other composers, like Stravinsky, Ruth Crawford, and Schoenberg, once again, used rotation of the row in generate formal and harmonic structures. A lot of the early twelve-tone composers didn't use a matrix, because they didn't have that tool at the time (Milton Babbitt more or less invented it in the 50s). However, [Ursula Mamlok](https://www.academia.edu/7146539/Exploring_New_Paths_through_the_Matrix_in_Ursula_Mamloks_Five_Intermezzi_for_Guitar_Solo) bases her compositions off of the matrix in a way that references the row but kind of does away with it as a musical element by instead charting a path through the matrix that results from the row. I recommend picking up a copy of Joseph Straus' [Twelve-Tone Music in America](https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/music/twentieth-century-and-contemporary-music/twelve-tone-music-america?format=PB) because he talks about twelve-tone music as a historical practice (and backs it up with lots of analyses) rather than as an open set of compositional possibilities. Moreover, the way composers used (and continue to use) twelve-tone techniques can hardly be pigeon-holed, and you get the sense from reading this book that "strict" twelve-tone technique does not really exist. Indeed, some of its biggest exponents do very little with matrices or even rows (at least on the surface level). Here's an somewhat lengthy explanatory bit I pulled out from Straus, including quotes from the composers mentioned: >In still other cases, the series operates at a distance from the musical surface, and the degree of explicitness becomes a compositional resource and a source of expressive impact and musical meaning. In much of [Milton] Babbitt's music, for example, the twelve-­tone series has either receded far into the background or vanished altogether: >>[There was] a notion which had been prevalent in the thirties that you write out the twelve notes as a kind of theme and then you do funny things to them ... That's not the way I conceive of a set ... What I'm interested in is the effect it might have, the way it might assert itself not necessarily explicitly... It's continuously, thoroughly, and utterly influential, but in constantly different ways and in constantly different degrees of explicitness and acting at various distances from the surface of the piece. (Babbitt 1987, 26­27) >Babbitt's music is generally not based on a single row and its transfor­mations (transpositions, inversions, retrogrades, retrograde­-inversions), but rather on slowly mutating arrays. The aggregate is a constant presence, but its smaller constituent collections are constantly changing. >Similarly, [Charles] Wuorinen points out the impossibility in most of his music of identifying specific series forms ­ the series is not normally an explicit, thematic element of the musical surface: >>I've never accepted the word "serial" because, for me, it s like the word "atonal," which should be only used historically to describe a certain repertoire: the pre­-twelve-­tone chromatic music of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern, and maybe Schreker or somebody else, but that's it. It's used, again, as a pejorative adjective. "Serial" likewise, to me, means the sort of automatic program music written by Europeans, mostly in the '50s and a little bit into the '60s ­ stuff which, if you take one look at how they put it together, couldn't possibly survive. It was completely arbitrary, and they had basically no control over the outcome — that too was made into a special, new kind of virtue! "You don't know what's going to come out, isn't that marvelous?" I don't think it's marvelous. The phrase "twelve­-tone," on the other hand, is accurate in the sense that it assumes the use of the total chromatic (maybe segregated into collections of less every once in a while), and it is based on ordered sets (usually involving all of the twelve elements, sometimes more, and sometimes less). Whatever nasty connotations it has had slathered onto it by mean-­spirited critics and insecure composers, that is a designation I'm happy to accept. Although, as I said for many years, if you went hunting in any of my works for the last, at least quarter century, looking for the row, you're going to have a very hard time. ([Wuorinen 2007](https://nmbx.newmusicusa.org/charles-wuorinen-art-and-entertainment/)) >Like Babbitt and Wuorinen, Martino is a twelve­tone composer in whose music one rarely finds explicit statements of a twelve­tone series: >>I hold a broad view of the twelve­-tone system which permits me to use the set or sets I have formulated as a source from which to draw a network of deductions. I tend to see the set as a premise that leads me in certain directions. You may not even be able to find it after a while, but the fact that I've formulated it, that it's back there somewhere, guiding my actions, means that it is still operative in the profoundest sense. If that's what serialism is, then I suppose I am a serial composer. But in general, I seldom propose an ordering and rigorously follow it and only it throughout a piece. And I seldom use a single set type with all its transformations throughout a work ... I'm more likely to employ three or more basic sets, derived either by combination, or, for example, as in the String Quartet, by rotation ... Creating musically appropriate set transformation and transposition patterns is much more important to me than maintaining internal set order numbers. I like to think that I can be very strict with the set at one point in a piece, very free with it at another, and in this way produce different kinds of music, give different impressions. (Martino quoted in Boros 1991, 250­51)

  3528. musictheory 2019-01-30 02:45:43 musicelitist
    This is very, very, very important for woodwinds. This range difference would be somewhat acceptable with a brass instrument and acceptable with a string instrument, but not woodwinds.

  3529. musictheory 2019-01-30 06:59:00 Cato__Maior
    The chord progressions that suit the audience’s taste and sound good to the ears of pretty much every one who is enculturated to western society are functional progressions, so instead of having a string of chords that you don’t understand, can’t transpose and can’t really work with without totally changing, they are organized into categories that state what they do. The progression A#m-D#7-G# isn’t pleasant for some inexplicable and ephemeral reason, it is pleasant because it ramps up and resolves tension by moving from subdominant to dominant to tonic, if you don’t understand that relationship or why it works and I tell you that I need you to transcribe the song from to Bb because the highest note that I can sing is middle C or to E so the bassist can use his lowest note you’re not going to be able to do that because you won’t be able to replicate those relationships.

  3530. musictheory 2019-01-30 07:48:32 65TwinReverbRI
    > I’m assuming you mean the ratio of the amplitude of the overtones to the fundamental, correct? Yes, you could say it that way. You're correct that in an "ideal" model, an overtone at 2x the frequency of the fundamental will be 1/2 the amplitude of the fundamental. One at 3x is 1/3, one at 4x is 1/4 and so on. When these integer ratios are present (whole numbers) we have a "harmonic" series of overtones. Inharmonicity is when the overtones are not whole number ratios, like 2.17X and 3.465X etc. This can be caused by things like imperfections in a string, or the physical space a node takes up and so on. In reality, a perfectly harmonic wave only exists in mathematical models (or synths) - most instruments usually have some degree of inharmonicity - but it's not so much it makes us hear it as "out of tune". But for example, Violin strings are more harmonic when bowed than when plucked. Back to the waves though - that ideal of 2(f) and 1/2(f) produces a Sawtooth waveform. It has "all" harmonics at these ratios. A Sine wave by comparison has NO overtones, only the fundamental (so a simple wave versus a complex/compound wave). Triangle and Square waves have only the ODD partials (and Triangle falls off at the same rate as a Sawtooth, but Square waves fall off at the inverse square - 1/X^2 (f)'s amplitude). These again are "mathematically describable" wave shapes in easy terms but most instruments are not perfect Saws or Squares (as playing with a synthesizer will tell you) and in real instruments the wave shape even changes over time and over the range of the instrument (and with how loud you play, your embouchure, etc!). But we often describe instruments as being closer to one or another - but what that tells you is they're all going to have different overtone structure. Aperiodicity means the wave doesn't cycle in a regularly repeating pattern which as far as we're usually concerned generally results in noise or other "indeterminate pitch" - notes we can't tell what note they are (a high degree of inharmonicity can cause this too). When a violinist plays, there is going to be noise introduced by the bow hair. For brass, there's breath noise, resonance of the bell, and even unemptied spit valves (!) that contribute to the "noise" factor of the overall sound. HTH

  3531. musictheory 2019-01-30 08:02:10 65TwinReverbRI
    u/ULTRA_Pizza12 - some people have mentioned "combination tones" and that could be the case as well. Usually this refers to Sum and Difference tones. If you have two fundamentals of 110 Hz and 220 Hz, you get a Sum tone of 330 (110+220) Hz and a difference tone of 110 Hz (220-110) 110 is an A. So is 220. But 330 is an E. And of course the other 110 is an A. So these all line up with the harmonic series on A. So not only do we have the overtones themselves lining up and constructively interfering, but we could have combination tones as well. Now, again, Brass have fairly prominent overtones so it's likely that's what's happening is really a combination of factors. Someone mentions tuning. Well, this often happens on Flutes (because they're closer to just a sine wave) But if two people are both trying to tune to A=440, but one is at 441, the difference tone is 1 hz - that's 1 pulse per second - that's so slow we don't hear it as a note, but a "pulsing" because again, constructive interference makes the waves increase in volume as their waves come into sync, but cut in volume (but the original note's volumes are still present) when they go out of sync. This pulsing is usually called "Beating" and that's what you use to tune instruments like this. As the person playing 441 gradually moves lower, the beating gets slower, because the difference between the tones gets lower. When you can get them to stop beating (as much as is practically possible) then they're as in tune as they're going to get. These are sometimes called "undertones" and by string players, "Tartini Tones" after the person who first described them on that instrument (or most famously did so). In reality, difference tones are more obvious because sum tones tend to merge with harmonics already present. And as you get into higher frequencies, them being off - say, 881 for the example I just did - doesn't cause as big a problem with any 880 overtones - once they get up into the 1,000s they could just fall on some other overtone in the series of one of the sounds. But still, if conditions are right (someone mentions the room, and that's true as well because soundwaves are also length-based, meaning that constructive interference can also happen with an instrument is playing X frequency at a specific multiple of the wavelength's distance to the wall and back and rooms also have resonant frequencies based on shape and size) a combination tone on the high end could "pop out" as well.

  3532. musictheory 2019-01-30 09:01:21 Eats_Ass
    As a guitar player myself, I have found that the piano/keyboard layout is amazing in helping you understand the basics a lot easier. It's because it's pretty straight forward. It makes understanding keys, how to make chords, etc, in a very straight forward way. And as a bonus, you won't get confused by the notes- there's only 1 of each! You know how on your bass, E2 is either your 12th fret E string, 7th fret A string or 2nd fret D string? Yeah, on one E2 on piano :)

  3533. musictheory 2019-01-30 18:33:13 Jongtr
    Not quite. "Dyad" is a theoretical entity, a 2-note chord (or "interval" as some of us prefer to call it ;-)). "Double stop" is a technique on a string instrument for plain two notes at the same time. So a double stop could be one way of playing a dyad. I.e., all double stops would be dyads of some kind. But not all dyads are double stops. ;-)

  3534. musictheory 2019-01-31 01:46:28 65TwinReverbRI
    "stops" is more commonly a term used by String players and many of them may have never heard anything for a two note combination other than Double Stop (and they have triple stops and quadruple stops as well). Some guitarists use the same term And some people who've studied, and know the term from strings, will sometimes use it to refer to them in other instruments too (which is sometimes met with confusion by the player!). A lot of people actually don't know what to call just 2 notes (so some do just go with double stop as that's all they may have heard). "interval" is the common one, but "dyad" is the same kind of term like "triad" - 2 note chord (combination) versus 3 note chord. I think a lot of people aren't sure how to spell dyad too, so they may just avoid it because of that - though I see "diad" a lot. But it is in fact "dyad". So, yes, double stops are dyads (and produce a single interval). But, saying dyad to a string player may confuse them, and saying double stop to other players may confuse them, but so too might dyad!

  3535. musictheory 2019-01-31 05:26:40 Chielen
    Hey Koen, this is an excellent question. I've been wondering about it myself. As has been said, I think the answer lies in the resonating of different frequencies, if they are a plural of the ground frequency, their sound quality will be similar as those plurals already resonate in the 'base tone'. How's the string quartet coming along?

  3536. musictheory 2019-01-31 08:07:22 tpttpttpt
    I always use the string analogy, which uses ratios without actually saying the word ratio. If you have a string and play it, you'll get the fundamental pitch. When you divide the string in half, you get the same note up an octave. I'll usually open the piano in my classroom and show them the strings so they can visualize it. That usually gets them to wrap their head around it. I teach a lot of beginners.

  3537. musictheory 2019-01-31 10:08:48 BillGrahamMusic
    You’d be super behind. Here are some basics you’ll need to get up to speed on: Knowing the names of the notes on every string at every fret. Being able to read notes on the staff. Knowing all of your major, minor, diminished and augmented triads (knowing the names of the notes in the chords, as well as being able to play them,) in all inversions on all string sets. (Once you have that together, start working on Major7, Dominant7, Minor7, Half-Diminished, and Diminished7 as well.) Knowing all of your major and minor scales (knowing the names of the notes in the scales as well as being able to play them.) Knowing the diatonic triads and 7th chords in every key.

  3538. musictheory 2019-01-31 11:36:41 fookquan
    A basic physics lecture about waves on a string will cover that doubling the frequency will halve the wavelength. You will end up with a node right in the middle of the previous wavelength.

  3539. musictheory 2019-01-31 19:48:11 DJSexualChocolate
    Same pitch at twice the frequency. It's an interval though basically, that's why. On paper for a piece it tells you exactly what to do and where, because it's technically a different note. Same pitch or tone, but twice the frequency, on a different key, string, position, etc.. We never say an 1/8th, lololol, we tend to stop at a 7th and skip to 9th if you're talking chord extensions, but you do say octave if you're speaking about chord structure as well, as an interval.

  3540. musictheory 2019-01-31 23:55:59 Yesten
    Descending or ascending makes a difference to the movement. Trying different voicings and positions for the chords to keep the voice leadings smooth can make a huge difference. Changing whether you play the root note on the 5th or 6th string on a guitar (or inversions) can make all the difference.

  3541. musictheory 2019-02-01 05:58:10 almoraima
    I think that’s a bit overkill with all the chords in all inversions on all string sets... I certainly don’t know this and I’m in a music program. Certainly if asked a particular one you should be able to figure it out relatively quickly.

  3542. musictheory 2019-02-01 07:02:02 UncertaintyLich
    Study form and analyze string quartets you like and skip the counterpoint. It can be useful to learn traditional counterpoint at some point, but it’s not necessary to write good music and you should just get into composing as soon as you can to get some practice in.

  3543. musictheory 2019-02-01 07:26:15 ILoveKombucha
    A midi keyboard can be had for 100 USD (something like the Nektar GX49; a perfectly reasonable keyboard). You hook it up to your computer via USB, and it can control software synths and other software instruments. You need a computer with USB and reasonable specs (nothing too high-end... but not horrible, either). There is a great free synth called Helm, and it can be used as a stand alone program with a midi keyboard. If you have used music stores, you can often find midi controllers like the above for a lot less. A bigger question is... do you want to learn KEYBOARD, or PIANO? Keyboard includes piano, but also synthesizers, organ, electric pianos, and other stuff too. Piano is of course... piano. Pianos are often associated with fancier features, like weighted keys and so on. If you don't HAVE to play piano... there is nothing wrong with more generic keyboard instruments. Something like my MX61 (also comes in a cheaper 49 key version called MX49) can do very nice acoustic piano sounds, but the keybed is unweighted, and is thus cheaper and simpler than a weighted piano action. I like it just fine! (I also play acoustic piano, but I don't mind synth actions). So make sure you are clear on your goals. If you don't need a piano (digital or acoustic) you can either get something cheaper, or get other nicer features for the same price. Just as an example, I have the Yamaha P-95 (sort of an older version of the P115), and I have the MX61. The Yamaha P-95 has weighted keys like a piano, and the full 88 key range. The Yamaha Mx61 has only 61 keys, unweighted (synth action). The Yamaha P-95 has like 10 different sounds (2 pianos, 2 electric pianos, an organ, a choir, a harpsichord...etc). THe Yamaha MX61 has like 20+ pianos, 60+ electro-acoustic pianos and other electric keyboards, 60+ guitar sounds, 60+ bass sounds, brass sounds, string sounds (aka violins, cellos, etc) synthesizer sounds, ethnic instruments, drums, etc. 1000+ sounds all in all... and mostly very high quality... just the pianos alone sound better than the P-95. Price tag? MX61 = 700 USD. P-95 was 500. You can get the MX49 for 500 also, and it has exactly the same features as the 61 key version, just minus one octave of keys. The point being... really think about what features you want/need. And again... nothing wrong with getting a 100 dollar midi keyboard and playing instruments via your computer! At 1/6th the cost, roughly, you could conceivably have your instrument in a couple months instead of a year.

  3544. musictheory 2019-02-01 07:36:14 ILoveKombucha
    Uh oh, you are going to "trigger" u/65TwinReverbRI with your interest in string quartets, LOL! For counterpoint, I highly recommend the book "Counterpoint in Composition" by Salzer and Schacter. It contains species style counterpoint exercises, but compared to a lot of classic texts, it goes further by relating the species exercises to a bunch of actual music spanning hundreds of years in a wide variety of styles. It also is the only book on counterpoint that I've seen that explicitly focuses on "combined species," where exercises include, for example, combining a 2nd species and 3rd species part against a cantus firmus. Super helpful! Other than that, an 18th century text might be great (something like Kennan's "Counterpoint" or Gauldin's "18th Century Counterpoint." And a good 16th century text for greater historical overview and a sense of evolution of music - something like Jeppeson's "Counterpoint," which I believe may be public domain now, and thus available for free online. Beyond that, you'd want to study string quartets by a bunch of composers. And since you are interested in counterpoint, I'd also recommend studying Purcell's viol fantasias, which are just amazing pieces. (They aren't string quartets, but most of them are written for 4 viols, which are not part of the violin family, but are bowed and do sound very similar to violin family instruments.) (A great recording of the fantasias is the one by Sit Fast... can't recommend it enough). But look out, I'm sure Twin REverb is going to encourage you not to start out on string quartets, but rather music for just one or two instruments, especially keyboard. (And I happen to agree with his advice).

  3545. musictheory 2019-02-01 07:57:54 Xenoceratops
    >Any “methods” out there? For structure and roles of each instruments? I wouldn't worry too much about instrumentation and orchestration until you get your composition legs. Of course, learn that you shouldn't write fast moving lines in the bottom octave of the trombone, but put a bit more focus on compositional technique, i.e. notes, rhythms, phrase structure, etc.. >My goal is to compose some simple string quartets! Use this as a title for a set of variations for percussion ensemble. Complete with punctuation. But, seriously, this is a bit of a naïve comment. It's fine because we all go through that phase, and you should absolutely hone your string quartet writing, but know that the string quartet repertoire is highly developed and is frequently more complicated to write and play than orchestral rep. Why? Because the players have the space to do really intricate stuff that has to be executed with a high level of musicianship (you can't hide behind 16 other violins), the writing has to be about equally complex for each instrument (chords + melody, while OK for quartets written in the 1760s, sounds bare and amateurish today), and chamber music was, traditionally, the stuff composers wrote for themselves to play with their friends, so it can be demanding according to the skill levels of the players. There may be simple string quartet repertoire from the twentieth century to the present day (alongside ungodly difficult writing), but even from the outset, string quartets were written to show off the players' skills (if only the first violin, in early rep). Due to industrialization, cosmopolitans have largely lost the social relationship of participatory music-making, and our highly-specialized work and education environment puts up all sorts of barriers to retrieving such a thing. The question is whether the string quartet—or any "classical" genre for that matter—is relevant to modern composers. Or, rather, how can a modern composer contribute meaningfully to the massive body of diverse string quartets? Personally, I don't have much problem with continuing such traditions, provided the composer is aware of history and can use music to make a social contribution. To the detractors of "old" styles and ensembles, I'll point out that the training and tradition of such ensembles is highly attuned. You won't make money writing for string quartet, but perhaps money should not have a place in the cultural evaluation of music. If you play quartets with your friends, there's nothing better than composing something for you to play by yourselves and potentially for an audience. It's also fine to write for an ensemble just in order to study. Gotta start somehow. Anyway, I link some things you might find useful in these threads: https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/ajaa27/can_someone_please_suggest_me_a_book_that/ https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/afxw0e/chord_progression_questions_january_14_2019/eec57e9/?context=1 I would encourage you to listen to some well-written quartets as well. [Smetana - Quartet 1, "From My Life"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWW0dXCpTuA) [Bartók - Quartet 4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_XNfKk-Qbs) [Beethoven - Quartet 14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym31mIwFfxE) [Kodály - Quartets 1 & 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym31mIwFfxE) [Schoenberg - Quartet 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym31mIwFfxE) [Shostakovich - Quartet 8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0nKJoZY64A) [Haydn - Emperor Quartet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoWdtGUe5fc)

  3546. musictheory 2019-02-01 09:06:05 65TwinReverbRI
    No. They might all play "tutti" which means "all" - which means everyone plays either in unison or in octaves (octaves is more likely because of the ranges of the instruments). But the Violins typically play something different from the Violas, which is different from the Celli, etc. IOW, all playing in unison (or octaves) is actually rarer and reserved for special effects/textures The exceptions are that prior to the 1800s, the Double Basses just read the same music as the Cellos, so they basically played in octaves with them most of the time. Also, it's not uncommon for the first and second violins to play in unison or octaves - in the case of unisons basically just being like the two sections are just 1 with twice as many violinists. But most of the time they're playing harmony, and different rhythms, different parts, and so on. _____ The sections can play "Divisi" which means half (or some other division) the first violins are playing something different from the other half of the first violins. So really, it's possible for the 5 string sections (Vn1, Vn2, Va, Vc, and CB) to each play divisi and play a total of 10 different notes (or simultaneous melodies, or whatever). They could even divide up into 3 parts and play as many as 15, but that's comparatively rare.

  3547. musictheory 2019-02-01 09:10:11 Larson_McMurphy
    I think there is a middle ground here about rhythmic strictness. Different players may interpret melodies a little differently. But there is still a structure behind whatever liberties they take. Even you don't use super specific rhythmic values for notes, a sequence of vaguely defined long and short notes still has rhythm to it. My point is that if you divorce the rhythmic aspect from a melody, what you are left with is a permutation of notes. If you played that permutation as a string of quarter notes with no variation in volume or articulation, it probably wouldn't sound very melodic. It may even be unrecognizable. I just tried singing Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer in such a fashion, and I found it difficult, un-melodic, and lacking any shred of musicality. So I stand by my view that a proper definition of melody entails more than just a sequence of notes, at the very least rhythmic values, and possibly more.

  3548. musictheory 2019-02-01 10:46:18 ArtAndTheResistance
    Try arranging various Bach Fugues (I’m particularly drawn towards the Well Tempered Clavier)for string quartet. Just a heads up, some of those fugues are 5 voices so you’ll either have to disregard those or do some creative arranging. Best of luck!

  3549. musictheory 2019-02-01 13:39:51 theamazingjopo
    It'll give you a little more range, but beyond that, I can't see why one would use it. The main reason we use drop tunings is because it makes perfect 5ths appear on the same fret on the 5th string, making it easy to fret power chords. A power chord in this tuning would be way harder to play than in standard, though.

  3550. musictheory 2019-02-01 13:44:46 LukeSniper
    That's an odd tuning... It's standard, but with the bottom string tuned down a major 3rd. I've never encountered it, but some quick googling tells me Bob Dylan used it a bit in the mid-60's, and John Mayer used it for his song "Neon". Dylan does a lot of stuff in the key of C, so I imagine he developed the tuning so that he could get a big, full C major chord using all 6 strings. This tuning would also let him hit the open 6th string with an F chord. I'd say that's the most immediate benefit to the tuning: a low C bass note to fatten up a basic song in C major.

  3551. musictheory 2019-02-02 02:45:11 65TwinReverbRI
    Let me see if I can help you. Forget you ever heard the word polyphonic. In the broadest sense, it just means "More than one note" (or voice, or part, etc.). Pretty much ALL music is polyphonic! We do usually reserve the term for specific types of polyphonic composition, and for certain time periods where this kind of composition was the primary style. And that is usually associated with Counterpoint. What I think you're really looking for is "Contrapuntal Polyphony" or just plain Contrapuntal textures. Is a Fugue polpyphonic? Sure. But sort of more important is that it's a Contrapuntal texture. Canons - well a 2 part canon, ok, it's polyphonic, and it's contrapuntal, but we rarely bring up the fact that it's polyphonic. It's kind of not really important (except when we are using it in the context of "polyphonic counterpoint"). If you want to hear "Polyphonic" music, I'd point you to the vocal music of the Renaissance. That's where we use that term a lot more and even say "polyphonic vocal music/texture" a lot of times. It is contrapuntal too. But from the Baroque period on, "polyphony" is almost used as a synonym to "contrapuntal". Fugues are polyphonic, and we might use that word just in a very generic sense to indicate that it's "polyphonic counterpoint" where in something like a Chorale, which is still "polyphonic" in the broadest sense and even "contrapuntal" in conception, the more important aspect about it is that is is homorhythmic and homophonic. So within polyphonic textures, we tend to only use the word polyphonic to those that also have an obvious contrapuntal texture as well - like a Fugue. ____ You can find polyphonic passages in all kinds of music. In Renaissance Polyphony (which is a way it's often heard) you'll find it in mostly everything. In the Baroque period, you'll hear it in primarily contrapuntal forms, mainly Fugues, and those similar types of pieces like Masses or other works that descend from the earlier forms. But, during the baroque period, there's a lot more Homophony coming in - which is "melody with accompaniment" - Homophony means the texture is "melody dominated" - a single melody is most important. So a great deal of music does that too. It's still Polyphonic in the broadest sense, but it's a different Texture and compositional approach than Counterpoint. Once we get into the Classical era, Homophony becomes the dominant form. However, counterpoint is still found in many places and there can be passages of fugal-like writing (and full blown fugues). So we tend to reserve "polyphony" for those passages that are more specifically contrapuntal rather than melody+accompaniment. And it's really a continuum. String quartets are full of all kinds of various textures - from polyphonic counterpoint on one end of the spectrum to melody with accompaniment on the other end, and there are even passages of Monophony as well. So saying "string quartets are examples of polyphonic music" is only as true as so are Piano Sonatas, Symphonies, etc. - again, pretty much everything. >Secondly How to listen to polyphonic music? You just listen to it. Look, no offense, but you're putting the cart before the horse. Stop worrying about the stupid terms. You've created a problem for yourself that no one on the planet has. People just listen to the music. Then later they might become interested in it, and read about it, and encounter a term, and then start to understand something else about the music. Just listen to the music and enjoy it, without "trying to hear something" that may or may not exist because you don't really understand some word that actually turns out to be unimportant.

  3552. musictheory 2019-02-02 05:20:15 DRL47
    A fellow I play with has been using a capo on the second fret on the five treble strings. He ends up with a "dropped D" shape, but it is actually dropped E. Playing out of a D position, you get an E chord. The beauty is that the IV chord (A) looks just like a regular G position. You don't have to adjust the fretted notes of the sixth string, like you would in dropped D.

  3553. musictheory 2019-02-02 11:36:33 LukeSniper
    Rick Toone makes a couple guitars that sorta work in a similar way. The lower strings have an extra couple frets *behind* the nut. There's a lever that pulls the strings down against those extra frets, but if you let it up you get a whole step lower on open string, but you don't have to alter any of your shapes.

  3554. musictheory 2019-02-02 12:08:55 FwLineberry
    It would help to give some context or at least tell the world what song it's from. There's only so much you can tell by looking at a string of chord symbols. The G through D looks like standard G major key chord movement. The C# is standing in for a diminished chord used as a chromatic step to the D. Eb Ab Db Gb is a standard cycle of 4ths progression used in practically every jazz song ever written. The only unusual thing to the eye is the slipping into and out of the cycle progression via half step movement. You don't see that every day.

  3555. musictheory 2019-02-02 23:06:06 WanderingWithGods
    All of the theory in the world isn’t going to help you write if you don’t have a song in your heart. Try humming and then matching the notes that you hum on the guitar. It’s a trick I learned from watching Guthrie Govan and George Benson. It’s a slow learning process but once you develop the auditory capacity to hear notes and know where they are on the neck you won’t even need an instrument to write. Start by trying to hum the notes as you ascend chromatically up and down each string. Then move on to intervals. If you’re interested I’d be happy to show you some YouTube videos that help with those concepts.

  3556. musictheory 2019-02-03 01:27:23 dexterjettser
    Last semester I had a similar assignment and ended up going with une barque sur l’ocean by ravel. Of course that was only for string quartet

  3557. musictheory 2019-02-03 01:29:40 DRL47
    Kenny Gradney, the bass player for Little Feat, uses a bass with that same type of system on the low string. Full size orchestral string basses often use an extension like that.

  3558. musictheory 2019-02-03 12:52:30 CinoSRelliK
    Most of my own music is tongue in cheek like that, honestly. Hell, I just finished a string quartet based around cycles of extended techniques and expansion and contraction of rhythms using the numbers [17, 19, 15, 14] and [5, 6, 4, 3]. If you look at it at its base value, it's a highly experimental work using tone rows for chromatic saturation, but if you zoom out the piece is literally a giant dominant-tonic because I use D and F# as my main pitches, then Bb and G. You don't really hear it, but it's so fun to pay homage to our roots,

  3559. musictheory 2019-02-03 19:39:15 Jongtr
    > Ok, I know counterpoints, cadences, consonance, sentences, periods... What now? How do I make a song? You have way too much knowledge. You think the Beatles knew any of that stuff? Or Bob Dylan? > Make a bass line and then mathematically make everything work above it? "Mathematically"? What does that mean? > And also what are chord progressions and what do you use them for? For making songs. ;-) > You pick random chords that sound good in a 1-7 progression, "I-7 progression"? I think you may be confusing "progression" with a harmonised scale. E.g., C Dm Em F G Am Bdim, from the C major scale. That's not "progression" (although if it ended up on C again it could be, I guess). > and then you use only those chords (either normal or inverted), in your song? Yes. That's one method. Not "random", though. You use you ear to judge which order sounds like you want it to sound. All kinds of orders could work. There are "common practices", which will sound familiar, such as roots moving in 5ths down or 4ths up. E.g., taking those C major key chords, you could string all 7 together lik this: C - F - Bdim - Em -Am - Dm- G - C. Add 7ths (from the same scale) and it would probably make more aural sense (sound even more familiar): Cmaj7 - Fmaj7 - Bm7b5 - Em7 - Am7 - Dm7 - G7 - C. But that's jazz! In rock, triads the other way are probably more common: F-C-G. Essentially, any chord can go to almost any other chord - there is no need to stay with one key scale - so what you really need to tie it all together is a *melody*: a vocal line, ideally with some words of course. Remember a "song" is something you "sing". What are you going to sing? You can't sing chords - not unless you get a couple of friends to join you, and that still wouldn't really be a "song", it would just be a chord sequence.

  3560. musictheory 2019-02-04 00:27:38 mikewillettmusic
    The 2 you circled means to play that note on the second (B) string, and the 1/2 II means to Barre half of the strings on the second fret.

  3561. musictheory 2019-02-04 00:53:15 65TwinReverbRI
    Yeah, the 1 in the box may refer to a footnote or something. It's not a string number, fret number or finger number. 2 in the circle is 2nd string. 1/2 II is a "half barre" meaning your first finger covers the top 3 strings at the fret indicated - though really it's a "2/3" Barre because you're covering the top FOUR strings.

  3562. musictheory 2019-02-04 01:23:30 TomSerb
    The "1" in the box is a *rehearsal mark*. Copyists often place them in music to aid a conductor during rehearsals when the measures aren't numbered - then the conductor can say "let's take it from three measures before A" (rehearsal marks use letters more frequently than numbers, but I've seen both). Almost all rehearsal marks are in squares to prevent confusion with other markings. The "1/2 II" means a partial barre. It does NOT mean you're barring half the strings - it means you aren't barring all of them. In this case you'll be barring four, because that's the only way you're going to be able to hold the E note on beat one; it has to be held through the entire measure, so when you reach the 'and' of two your barre will fret both that E and the first string F#. You'll sometimes see it written as "1/2 CII" - "C" is for *capotasto* (Italian for "fret"). The position is almost always given in Roman numerals - I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen an Arabic number for a fretboard position. Any numbers contained in circles are string numbers. The circle is used to avoid confusion with finger numbers, as the placement is often similar. &#x200B;

  3563. musictheory 2019-02-04 02:57:05 Jongtr
    The dash means that note is played with the same finger (same string) as the previous note. In this case, finger 2 moves up the string from F# to G. (Normally the line is an oblique line joining both "2"s.)

  3564. musictheory 2019-02-04 22:09:16 agromono
    Yep, this is very common in string parts too.

  3565. musictheory 2019-02-05 01:03:49 TomSerb
    I'm assuming music to be using the standard for modern performance. You're right about a cappella groups, and it will also be true of brass or string quartets, but your other examples are a mix at best - brass and winds are tied to the overtone series, strings adjust to it... and then there's the piano, harp, celesta, and keyboard percussion which use 12TET at A440 or A442. For folk music it depends on the instrumentation. Fretted instruments are also 12TET unless played with a slide, so anything that has guitar, banjo, mandolin, dulcimer, etc. won't conform to acoustic overtones (save when they're all playing in unison or octaves). The same is true of a wide range of folk instruments, from autoharps to harmonicas to hurdy-gurdys. Unless an instrument is capable of playing in free intonation, it's dependent on its tuning, and folk music in general does not tune to the Pythagorean series. Once you add a couple of fixed intonation instrument to the mix your chords are no longer going to be pure - you WILL have destructive interference.

  3566. musictheory 2019-02-05 05:06:36 vornska
    Some people & textbooks explain this very poorly. It's understandable that you might be confused. The short answer is that it's more complicated than just the letters like ABA. ABA really truly could be ternary or rounded binary. The difference lies in other features. One important feature is tonality. In ternary form, the A section is usually tonally complete. It starts in one key and ends with a PAC in that same key. The B section often (but not always) starts immediately in a different key (like IV, or the parallel minor) and ends with a cadence in that key. Then the last A jumps back to the original key. But, typically, each of the 3 sections is complete in its own key. In rounded binary form, that's not what I expect to happen. The A section of a rounded binary *might* start and end in the same key, but it doesn't have to. More commonly, it'll start in one key and end with a PAC in a new key (like V or III). The B section (in rounded binary) picks up in the key that A ended in. The B section then doesn't really have a key of its own, but wanders through a bunch of keys. Then, finally, the B section ends with a big I: HC that prepares the return of the original key. Do you see how it's not just about ABA? Letters like that are as simplified as you can make it. Usually they're an *oversimplification* for exactly this reason: they reduce out all the detail that actually makes forms different. (As another example of my last point, you can have a ternary form that's made up of smaller rounded binaries. This is really common in minuet-trio movements. You have Minuet-Trio-Minuet as a large ternary. And then the minuet and trio are, on their own, rounded binaries. That gives you an overall letter string of ABACDCABA. A dumb way of doing theory is to say "X=CDC, so we have ABAXABA. It's a seven-part rondo!" That's not at all what's going on there, but it's what you get if you put too much emphasis on the letters.)

  3567. musictheory 2019-02-05 05:37:16 TomSerb
    "un-tempering"? You can change a guitar's tuning, but all you are doing is altering the relationships between strings. The frets are still positioned in 12TET, so for any individual string you haven't "de-tempered"... you have transposed. And as soon as you play strings fretted in different positions, you will STILL get destructive interference. You can't tune your way out of it, because the fret positions are fixed. I'm aware that brass, woodwinds, and strings adjust. You must have missed the part where I said piano, harp, celesta, and keyboard percussion use 12TET. Put any one of those instruments in the orchestra (which is common enough) and THAT is what the other instruments are adjusting to.

  3568. musictheory 2019-02-05 07:26:22 TomSerb
    When you change the tuning of a guitar string you're transposing all of the available notes on that string. While you might consider the relationship between open strings or the strings of a specific chord a "temperament", fretting any other notes on those strings will give you a completely different result. For example, if you de-tune the second and fifth strings to get a purer third in an open G chord, you're also making the open D chord unplayable - because now the second string D in that chord will not be an octave above the open fourth string. And the third in an open C chord becomes even more sharp than in 12TET, because you've changed the relationships between the fifth and fourth strings. FWIW, I've been a professional guitarist for 43 years - it's my full-time job. I understand the instrument and the tuning capabilities pretty well. It's simply not possible to change the temperament through tuning unless you limit yourself to a single fingering moved up and down the fretboard. There are certainly many folk musicians over the past 100 years who have slightly altered their tunings. But they didn't do it to change temperament - they just liked that particular sound, out-of-tune as it is on some chords.

  3569. musictheory 2019-02-05 10:24:07 jazzadellic
    Use your ears. If you have listened to good music, (and bad) then you know what it should sound like. Use that "knowledge" to guide you. It's really that simple. Music theory is just some nerds describing what a composer (with good ears) did. It can be helpful as it can show you more options you wouldn't have thought of otherwise. It can help you to organize your raw ideas into something that has form and structure, which is useful for music composition. And it can help you to mimic the style of a particular composer or genre of music. I would suggest you use a composition you really like as a template / model to try and write something similar. Ask yourself what is it about your favorite compositions that make them sound good to you? What types of harmony are being used, and how is the harmony realized? Chords strummed on a guitar sound very different than a string quartet, or a piano. Examine the melody for ideas as to what makes a good melody. Examine enough of them and you won't have much problem making a good solid melody.

  3570. musictheory 2019-02-05 11:00:14 TomSerb
    Any note can be played on every guitar string. If you de-tune the 2nd string, you've lowered that B. The B on the fourth fret of the third string, the 9th fret of the fourth string, etc. have not changed. Because all notes on the second string are now different, the 2nd string C is no longer the same as the 3rd string 5th fret C or the 4th string 10th fret C. Having some instances of notes in tune, and other instances of those SAME notes out of tune is not a temperament.

  3571. musictheory 2019-02-05 11:15:37 DRL47
    But that's not the way the folk guitarists that we are talking about play. They don't play the same notes in different places. They are playing a specific chord that they have changed the tuning for. You, yourself said that they change the tuning of a certain string(s). That gives them a chord or two that sound "better" and some that sound worse. That is NOT 12TET any more. If it is not 12TET, then the temperament has changed.

  3572. musictheory 2019-02-05 22:47:42 Jongtr
    Best online resource is https://www.musictheory.net/lessons, but it's not guitar-friendly. But provided you know the notes on your guitar (some of them at least...), you should be OK. It has sounds where necessary, which is important (theory is pointless unless you know what it all sounds like). Two main things to remember are: (1) you only need the treble clef for guitar; (2) guitar notation is transposed by an octave. So when you hear the G the site plays you (2nd line) - "concert G" - that will sound like your 3rd fret on 1st string. But if it was written for guitar you'd play that note as the open 3rd string. (If guitar music was not transposed in this way, either we'd need to read double-stave like piano, or most of the notes would be off the bottom of the stave. Or we'd need to read some crazy clef like alto or tenor... ;-))

  3573. musictheory 2019-02-06 03:05:30 SocialMethUserOnly
    Thanks again for this recommendation. I was familiar with the circle of fifths a couple of years ago, but kind of lost memory of it when I put music on halt. I knew how to find the notes in a major and minor key, but I’d have to count them out in my head. Like for major F F H F F F H. I’ll definitely continue to check out more of his videos. Something I mentioned earlier in my initial post was that I’d like to be able to memorize the guitar fretboard. Not sure if the guitar is your instrument if expertise, but would you happen to know a video that helps with that? It’d really come in handy with writing solos rather than trapping my self in Pentatonic/Diatonic boxes? I know the 6th string perfectly, which of course means I know the 1st, and I’m pretty familiar with the 5th as well.

  3574. musictheory 2019-02-06 09:31:51 RichardPascoe
    Learning the unison equivalents for the open strings comes in handy. So for example the unisons for the open high E string are to be found on the 5th fret B string, 9th fret G string and the 14th fret D string. Most guitarists will know the first unison for the open B string - that is on the 4th fret of the G string but what is the fret number for the unison on the D string? I don't know if that helps. Learning the notes on each string doesn't really break down unisons and octaves. Finding the unisons for the open strings is a good start to unlocking the fretboard.

  3575. musictheory 2019-02-06 14:02:29 andyimagrs2
    The keyboard will really help with this... The guitar is a little peculiar, what the best way to start is just playing on one string. And play scales and modes down that one string. Don't worry about chords for now, you can get those on the keyboard. You want to know just enough theory not to worry about it and to just create....Don't get locked in the idea that things have to pass the theory test the sound good. You can play in three keys at the same time if it sounds good it sounds good.... There may not even be a theoretical way to describe it.

  3576. musictheory 2019-02-06 17:27:42 newnewaccountV2dot2
    You do realise that we're talking about the same note right? If you play c on a guitar (8th fret e string) and go up a semitone that c# (9th fret e string). If you play d on a guitar (10th fret e string) and go down a semitone you get db (9th fret e string). There's no difference between them despite what you say in your comment, if you flat d or sharp c you still get the same note. They're both 9th fret e string, they're both a major third above A. The diminished note in the key of A is eb, not db. If you're going to start throwing around advanced terms you should develop an understanding of the theory first.

  3577. musictheory 2019-02-06 18:43:52 Jongtr
    Search me. :-) A whole culture of downtuning in metal, I guess - with drop tunings giving power chords on the bottom 3 strings. For some reason, it never occurs to these guitarists that if they want to go that low maybe they should get a baritone (or 7-string) and forget the standard 6-string.... ;-)

  3578. musictheory 2019-02-06 19:37:30 sfz-sfffz
    Nah, if you only use the first 4 frets on that down-tuned string intonation issues won't be a thing. Also there's not much definition in that CHUG-A-CHUG anyway.

  3579. musictheory 2019-02-06 20:33:28 Jongtr
    > if you only use the first 4 frets on that down-tuned string intonation issues won't be a thing Well it depends on string gauge. If you raise the gauge as you tune down so the tension remains similar - and your guitar is properly set-up - I agree there should be no problem. But maybe those are two big "if"s... ;-)

  3580. musictheory 2019-02-06 21:17:09 CrownStarr
    Look, there’s an element of truth in what you’re saying but your perspective here is quite limited and you’re not really in a position to scold others for not having an “understanding of the theory”. This may not be relevant to you or the music you play, but for musicians who can make micro pitch adjustments on the fly (like singers or string players for example), a C# and a Db might be slightly different pitches depending on the context. It has to do with the fact that our equal temperament system (where every half step is the same “distance” in terms of frequency) doesn’t perfectly represent the intervals that we think of as consonant. And in terms of naming intervals, calling A - Db a diminished fourth is correct. The number part comes from the letters, so A to D is always some kind of fourth because A B C D is four steps. And with the perfect intervals (fourths and fifths), making them smaller makes them diminished and making them bigger makes them augmented. So likewise A to E# is an augmented fifth, not a minor sixth.

  3581. musictheory 2019-02-07 00:26:05 SocialMethUserOnly
    I think it helps some and I get what you’re saying. I know then the first unison for the open G string is the 5th fret on the D string. I know have the first unisons for the string above it for tuning purposes, but I’ll learn the other ones which appears to be just adding the prior ones. Thanks for that.

  3582. musictheory 2019-02-08 10:47:10 65TwinReverbRI
    If you haven't worked on this already, one thing you should do is practice just saying your "every other letter" groups for 3 and 4 note chords: A-C-E - B-D-F - C-E-G - D-F-A and so on. A-C-E-G - B-D-F-A - etc. Also" A-C-E-C-E-G-E-G-B-G-B-D-B-D-F-D-F-A-F-A-C A-C-E-G-B-D-F-A-C-E-G-B-D-F.... You can do these anywhere anytime - on your lunch break, commute, while on a walk, sitting around watching paint dry or whatever. Then you can get down just the "plain letter versions" Am - Bo - C - Dm - Em - F - G Am7 - Bm7b5 - Cmaj7 - Dm7 - Em7 - Fmaj7 - G7 Which you may know already but still worth thinking of as a "point of departure". Now the next thing is a shortcut and based on the principle that if you do something to all the notes, it doesn't change anything. So: C#-E#-G# - well that's exactly the same a C, but all the notes are moved up a half step - since they're ALL moved, that means it's still the same type of chord, just on a different root. - C# major. Ab-Cb-Eb-Gb - that's Abm7 Once you understand this principle, you can apply it to chords with mixed accidentals. Db-F-Ab is just D-F#-A all lowered one note. Since you can easily see on guitar you're just moving back one fret this makes a connection. Not sure how strong you are with playing Triad forms, but you should learn, for example, the 3 basic shapes on the top 3 strings for the 3 inversions of a Major chord. x x x 2 3 2 - D Major right? But the lowest note is an A so it's 2nd inversion. Next form of that is: x x x 7 7 5 - root position. x x x 11 10 10 - 1st inversion So you take these forms and start spelling them out as you use them. One of the things I did was to pick a song where I could just play upbeat hits like in a reggae song and a 3 chord song like D, G, A, and then play the forms throughout the song in various inversions - I would force myself to use only one form for all of them (making me really think about the positions) and then trying to play one of each form in the same general position (making me think more about the inversions). After A while, you'll start realizing which note is on the 1st string, so you can place, say B on the 7th fret in a G chord. So then you start noticing you're noticing which note on which string is which chord member, and thus which voicing inversion the chord is in (for some chord forms I tend to place the lowest note for inversion, others I'll place by the root or 3rd or 5th of the chord no matter which string it's on). Do this with minor chord forms and diminished and augmented if you want. Then do it on strings 2-3-4, 3-4-5, and 4-5-6. Then if you want you can do open position versions too. Since you were talking about, for example, Em being the upper notes of a Cmaj7 chord, you can place an Em quickly on x x x 9 8 7 and now it's in root position and thus the 3rd, 5th and 7th (of Cmaj7) in a close voicing. This also keys in nicely to the exercises above where you're stacking every other letter - E-G-B - and of course as part of C-E-G-B Then move on to 7th chord versions like in Drop 2 voicing - knowing which chord members are where in the shape - again I tend to place them by inversion, as well as which note is the lowest and which note is the highest. But for example: x x 2 3 1 3 I know is C7 and the E is on the D string (easy spot on that one) so it's in first inversion. It really helps to know where your notes are on the fingerboard too of course. _______ Don't forget that Pianists often take this approach of "upper notes in the Rh, bass in the LH" so they're sort of hardwired for playing a close position triad of 3-5-7 in the RH with the LH bass of the root (assuming they're just laying out chords this way of course). Many even "see" the RH as playing a "C chord" over an A bass - so they're kind of even conceptualizing it as C/A or Em/C for Am7 and CMaj7. So we can kind of do the same thing by playing say, an open A string, and then versions of the 3 note C chords over it - or wherever you can reach that bass note. But we're not as flexible as pianists because of the positions we have to move to may mean getting to a nice bass note is trickier sometimes. Still it's kind of a good way to think about it because let's say for Am7 you play this: x 0 5 5 5 x Well, you see that as a "C/A" and if you get a chart that has Am7, and you have a bass player covering the A note, then you can comp just the "C" part of the chord without having to think so much about A-C-E-G. Also, if you get Abm7, you just back up your G-C-E triad here one fret! _____ Of course I would encourage you to also just keep practicing spelling chords, and playing and naming the chord and the notes and the chord members they are (3rd, 7th, etc.). Do this diatonically in keys like Em - F#o - G - Am etc. But also just spell "all minors" like C-Eb-G, C#-E-G#, D-F-A, Eb-Gb-Bb, E-G-B, F-Ab-C etc. (note the "one up" and "one down" connections between Cm and C#m and Em and Ebm!) Don't forget to do the other ones like Dbm, D#m, etc. It's even kind of helpful to do "impossible" chords - D# Major for example - D#-Fx-A# - I mean it's possible, but it's really uncommon - but practicing spelling then and understanding the concept of how interval distances stay the same when all notes are moved the same amount in the same direction can really help you make connections in a meaningful way, which actually applies to just basic intervals as well. That's when someone will go, Db to Cb, crap what's that and you'll spout off oh that's a m7. See why? I hope that's helpful to you and not below where you already are but I feel like it's good info for a lot of people so I wanted to put it all here.

  3583. musictheory 2019-02-08 11:37:52 65TwinReverbRI
    Intervals. Big topic! 4 primary ways to learn them. 1. memorize them all. The best way! 2. Short of that, memorize the ones from a Major Key (and minor) and know how to calculate the rest. 3. Memorize the "plain letter" ones, and calculate the rest. 4. Count semitones - bad method IMHO - error prone. So #2: In a Major scale: 2, 3, 6, 7 are all Major. 4, 5 are perfect. If you'd like, in minor, 3, 6, 7 are minor (2 does NOT change). So you want to know what Eb to Gb is. Eb Major is Eb F G Ab Bb C D (Eb) so since a Major Scale has a M3, which would be Eb to G, and this is not, we have to see how it's been altered. Eb-G is M3. Gb is one semitone lower than G, meaning it's one semitone closer to Eb, meaning the interval is one smaller, and one smaller than a MAJOR 3rd is a MINOR 3rd. So Eb to Gb is a minor 3rd. ____ If you know the minor keys have a m3, and Eb to G is in Eb Major, then Eb to Gb would be in Eb Minor so you'd get the answer. ______ Now #3 above - M2 - all 2nds except B-C and E-F, which are m2. 3rds - most are minor - D-F, E-G, A-C, B-D. The rest are Major C-E, F-A, G-B (which are part of I-IV-V in C Major so easy to remember). 4ths - all perfect except F-B which is +4. You can learn 5ths, 6ths, and 7ths too, but they're just inversions of the others. So we want Eb to Gb? E-G is plain letter version - that's a m3 from what I just said above. Since BOTH have been lowered 1 semitone, it's still a m3. Done. _______ These two methods, once you learn them, really help you because you can use your most common notes - the plain letter ones, and you should be learning your keys anyway, so the 2nd method reinforces that. ________ Extended chords.... In Jazz, you're more likely to get an alternate bass note making the chord inverted. We too, as guitarists, are often less likely to play a root position version of an extended chord because the bass is taking the root sometimes (or is assumed to do so). Also, because it's impractical for us to play every-other-letter stacks, if we play a 9th chord, we'd probably play F#-C-E rather than D-F#-C-E-A (or we might play C-E-A even!) But as a general rule, most of the common voicings we use put 9ths, 11ths, and 13ths higher in the chord voicing. Likewise, we're only going to put a 9th in the bass if we're playing by ourselves and see a chord like C7/D or C9/D (same thing). Usually these happen when the bas is moving up or down the scale and the upper notes staying the same. I would say while it's ultimately going to make you a better player to learn all your notes and chords everywhere and anywhere, you should also concentrate on common chord voicing for guitar. Knowing your stuff inside out and backwards is going to allow you to come up with more creative voicings, but while you're learning them it's great to do "shell voicings with alterations" that are based on bigger chord forms until make a connect. So the D9 example - you're using a D7 voicing like so: x 5 4 5 3 x The "shell" part of that with the root is: x 5 4 5 x x - that's D, F#, C. The F#-C is the tritone and the most important part of that chord (the root we can assume might be played bu someone else). We could leave the root off, and play this: x x 4 5 3 x And that puts the root on top. But, if we want the 9th - then that note is closer to the 9th. x x 4 5 5 x F#-C-E - so that's all you need for a D9 sound. And yes, we wouldn't want to keep the low D (even if the bass was an octave down) and make that the E typically. We're not going to generally play a D9 like so: x x 2 x 1 2 Same notes, but sounds a little too C(add#11)/D (assuming bass D) or something like that. I mean, it could work in certain contexts, but it's not our "go to", only what the other things above can teach you. And this shell voicing I'm talking about is really part of this D9 form: x 5 4 5 5 5 (which in turn is x 5 4 5 3 5 which we can't reach with one hand!). So if you know that the 9th is on string 2, and the 5th is on string 1, you can get to all the b9, 9 #9, and b5, 5, and #5 alterations quickly. 11 is within reach, as is 13 (assuming you're not playing the low D again). So learning to spot the Tritone in a 7th chord, then where the 9, 11, and 13 in relation to it is very helpful. Likewise, the m7 and the maj7 notes are one fret away from the tritone's notes as well. So the 3rd and the 7th of the chord are your "anchor", and then the root, 5th, 9th, 11th, and 13th (as well as 2, 4, and 6) are all right nearby. And we're not going to play a G13 like G-B-D-F-A-C-E - not only can we not reach it but we don't have enough strings on a 6 string! So for a G13, we want the shell voicing starting with the 3rd and 7th, say: x x 3 4 x x and then just find the 13. x x 3 4 5 x. Ta da. You want to add the root up top, fine: x x 3 4 5 3 or the 9th x x 3 4 5 5 You can even reach the low root there: 3 x 3 4 5 x in a "skipped string" voicing (which is also very common for us). But you may want to just visualize the G as the root in that position to help you place the chord, but not actually play it if someone else might take it. HTH

  3584. musictheory 2019-02-08 22:40:27 Xenoceratops
    >I'm struggling to figure out what it is that makes this movement known as being influenced by Jewish folk music. Is it? I'm not a Shostakovich scholar, but it doesn't really "sound Jewish" to me. It does sound like a ton of other 20th century classical music though. All this is more of a musicological claim than a theoretical one, at any rate. >After a lot of googling I've come across "the Dorian mode with with augmented forth" is this accurate? Sounds octatonic to me at the beginning (C D♭ E♭ E F# G A B♭). Dorian would have D♮. Of course, the material consists of more than that, and there are modulations and diatonic and chromatic materials. throughout as well. Also, does anyone know why [the same theme](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVgfVyZoc6I&t=49s) appears in [the eighth string quartet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0nKJoZY64A&t=6m35s)?

  3585. musictheory 2019-02-09 03:29:22 pegawho
    uh, i think its just less things to look at lol. a guitar is 5 pianos, one on each line. a beginner has to count from the neck on up, for every string. thats a lot of counting lol

  3586. musictheory 2019-02-09 03:43:52 tchaffee
    That's piano thinking. First of all, that are only 12 notes to string and then it repeats. It doesn't even cover two octaves. So six very very short pianos if you insist. A guitar can only play six notes at one time. A piano can play ten, with one person. More than one person can be added. Far more complex if you look at it that way.

  3587. musictheory 2019-02-09 04:53:22 65TwinReverbRI
    Square (and Triangle) have odd numbered partials. >But where’s the line between our perception of timbre and harmony? This is a fascinating question and not one I personally know about many, if any, studies in (I smell a Thesis!). One difficulty in testing this is that if we add partials one at a time, we still can hear them add in. So if you test playing the same sound and just increasing the amplitude of 1 partial - you're kind of asking at what threshold will it become audible as its own note rather than a component of timbre. Can't answer that. It may vary person to person, and it may vary with the overall volume as well. I think there are tons of variables that would affect this so it's hard to get any concrete results. Still it would be a fascinating study. With metal, things like Tuning forks have to be designed to specific shapes and densities and all that to ring true (of course, that's true for blocks of wood and other things as well). Something like tubes - like they make wind chimes out of - can be tuned pretty easily as they already produce a strong fundamental (and that may be a result of the way the tube is made in the first place). But I'm thinking of something more like a length of rebar, or a wrench - they tend to be all over the place - but people have used stuff like Brake Drums to emulate an Anvil in orchestra/band for years now - but they still produce more of this non-descript "ting" than a specific note - more of an "effect" than playing a scale or something - which we need something more like vibraphone tone bars for - which are more specifically constructed to ring pure. If you're interested in Synthesis, look into FM Synthesis, because it does in fact tend to do "metallic" sounds more well (Vibes, Haprsichord like string instruments, etc.) whereas additive (and subtractive) synthesis tend to produce those waveforms like in the video better. But that might help you get a handle on the way the different synthesis techniques emulate what happens in the real world.

  3588. musictheory 2019-02-09 06:22:34 Rinehart128
    I agree—I was thinking you’d keep the partials constant and just vary the amplitude and keep the relationship of the amplitudes the same until they cap off at the same amplitude of the fundamental. But idk this isn’t super well thought out—just something I was considering while trying to sleep! I’d *love* to do some kind of study on this—I’m just not sure how I’d go about it. I’m entirely self taught (outside of singing high school choir) and am not in school or anything like that. But I’d want it to have the rigor of a “proper” study—any advice for a nonacademic doing academics? I don’t really know anything about synthesis but I’m very interested. Seems kind of daunting. But I’d love to get into it as a means of understanding real world acoustics. In fact, I vaguely remember seeing some production tutorial where you had parameters that controlled type of sounding material (string, glass, metal), type of resonant body, etc. I think that kind of thing is really cool. All in due time, I reckon

  3589. musictheory 2019-02-10 08:40:02 mavaction
    The last topic you get to is a current "pop" issue in math right now. "super permutations". The basic issue ... say you want to permute 6 items. There are 720 rearrangements of 6 unique items. (You get that from simple factorial...6 choices for first element.... 5 choices left for second element....6*5*4*3*2*1= 720. ) If you strung them all into one big sequence...you would need to make a string 4320 elements long. But if you did it simply in order.... 123456 then 123465 etc... When you stick those together you get 123456123465 you see you have actually already counted a bunch of other individual permutations... like... 234561 345612 etc... With just twelve elements you have 8 of the permutations already displayed in it. The math problem framed the opposite direction of yours. What's the smallest string that will have all the permutations within it? The big long string with all the permutations in it is called the **superpermutation**. We know the upper bound... for n permute n it has to be smaller than n*n!=(n+1)!. The lower bound is what we are looking for. It has some viral interest because an anonymous person on an anime 4chan board put forth a proof that lowered the lower limit. That result got published. But I'm not aware if the minimal length superpermutations have NO repetition on substrings the length of n. Like even the minimal superpermutations we have... might still repeat some permutations....just less than other...not sure. But I think that affects your problem to make sure you have not repeated a 4 note sequence in your giant chords. This math youtuber Matt Parker has been keeping people informed. Here he is keeping us up to date on the problem...and recently...like this week some one made even more progress. [Superpermutations: the maths problem solved by 4chan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZzIvl1tbPo)

  3590. musictheory 2019-02-10 11:49:03 elyisgreat
    Regarding the mathematical problem you brought up at [15:20](https://youtu.be/sJjoihmVys0?t=920). Because the difference between any two adjacent terms in S is always 3 or 4, it is more useful to think of such a sequence as a single starting point followed by the sequence 1 shorter of the differences. This way, every such sequence S (and hence every such sequence L) can be uniquely mapped to a binary string and a starting point, where 0 in the string tells us to add 3, and 1 in the string tells us to add 4. Example: (0,3,7,T) -> (0,"010") (1,4,8,0,3,6,T,2,5,8,E) -> (0,"0110011000") Consider the conditions required in order to have consecutive repetition in L: if (a₀,...,aₖ₋₁) is a subsequence of L, then it consecutively repeats when (a₀,...,aₖ₋₁) = (aₖ,...,a₂ₖ₋₁) in L. In particular, this means that the binary digit for aᵢ must be the same as for aₖ₊ᵢ for 0<i<k. (We don't care about the binary digit for a₀; it may not even have one). And the binary digit for aₖ must be such that it causes a₀ = aₖ. With that, we can say that L contains a consecutive repetition if and only if: * the binary string of L consists of XdX, where X is a binary string and d is a binary digit * if you add 3 to each digit in X, the sum of the digits in X, plus (d+3), is a multiple of 12. (This ensures that a₀ = aₖ). Therefore, a binary string with no instances of XdX anywhere always makes a valid infinite chord sequence with no consecutive repetition. So if an infinite such binary string exists, or if it is possible to make such a binary string of arbitrary size, then the length of chord sequences with no consecutive repetition must be unbounded. Obviously, if X has length zero, then every nonempty binary string has XdX somewhere, trivially. But d represents either adding 3 or 4, so it isn't a multiple of 12. This essentially means that all valid chord sequences have no repeating sequences of length 1, which is pretty obvious. As it turns out, with X restricted to have length at least 1, there are no binary strings with length >= 7 with no instances of XdX anywhere. But again, XdX where X has length 1 shouldn't matter, as if X has length 1 then it either means add 3 or add 4, and so does d, so it will never be a multiple of 12. Thus, it suffices to look for binary strings with no instances of length XdX anywhere, with X restricted to have length at least 2. (Of course this is not necessary; there are valid chord sequences that have binary strings that contain XdX with the length of X >= 2, but considering those cases makes the problem much harder.) I wrote a [quick python program](https://pastebin.com/raw/63UKS8b8) to generate and test for such strings. Unfortuantely, the recursion limits mean that it's quite difficult to generate and test large strings, though I suspect that there's no upper bound on the length of binary strings with no instances of length XdX anywhere, with X restricted to have length at least 2.

  3591. musictheory 2019-02-11 02:24:37 SolidSizzle
    I remember learning the song on guitar and being assured by my teacher that we were learning the exact voicings that Prince uses. It was an unusual voicing for guitar, but is an add9 chord, not a Sus2. There's always the chance that my teacher was wrong, but having listened it it and played it fairly often, I think the add9 voicing is correct, so functions and resolves perfectly well (not that a Sus2 sounds bad either in my humble opinion). The 'tab' for the chord on guitar is: 1 1 3 0 1 X The 'X' is the muted 6th string. A very unusual shape for guitar but sounds great!

  3592. musictheory 2019-02-11 15:54:54 smk4813
    The more notes you add to a chord, the more open & ambiguous its becomes. D F A 99 times out of a 100. Folks are going to regard that harmony as a Dm chord. But with extensions,.... D F A C G this Dm11 chord may not be as easy to discern. After all it carries an F major triad and almost an Am7 chord inside itself. It's not a dark and final sounding as a straight Dm chord. It's dark but not bitter. Its sad but there's hope coming. There's also the voicings to consider. With a six string open voicing for Emaj7 on guitar (0 2 2 4 4 4), the D# is sandwiched against the other chord tones, i feel, because many of the chord tones have redundancies. Two E's, two B's and one G#. It's very lush and rich sounding, but its thickness certainly hide the maj7th a bit. Now compare that to a 4 string closed voicing (x x 14 13 12 11). It's bittersweet as well, but its more straight and to the point. A smaller voicing can certainly be more clear sounding. So extensions, and certainly *all* chord voicings, play a major part in shaping the emotional contour of a piece of music.

  3593. musictheory 2019-02-12 05:37:16 elyisgreat
    Thank you so much for this! It was a bit hard to follow, but it seems like you were using a combination of recursion and backtracking to generate your pattern, which is very similar to what my program is doing, albeit a bit more rigourously. Btw, using an [iterative version of my program](https://pastebin.com/raw/F93t9ZWU) I was able to find a chord with 65536 voices, beating your chord of 41761. [Here it is](https://pastebin.com/raw/j3jGgTMj) in binary string notation where 0 is a minor 3rd and 1 is a major third. (Also for future reference, my name is pronounced as in eli 😊)

  3594. musictheory 2019-02-12 06:26:43 PenguinsRAwesome
    With the problem you’re having, I would suggest adding more background figures. Add passing tones and runs for the instruments. I assume you have a melody and chords going behind it in whole notes. So the way I’d fix that is I’d arpeggiate the chords, or move chord tones between instruments. So for example. Let’s suppose I have a melody on Clarinet, and I have originally have a C chord in a string section behind it. I’d have the basses play the C, and the cellos playing an E, the violas are going to do a CDEFGFED sixteenth note pattern, and then have the violins harmonize the melody to fit in the chord. So let’s say the melody goes EFGAEDC on eight notes until the C which is a quarter. I’ll probably have violin 1 doing CDEFCAG directly below the melody and Violin 2 doing GABCGFE This is very simple, but it’s something you can do to add more interest to your writing. There are a whole bunch of tips and tricks like these, and I don’t have enough time to list them all, but you can definitely find them somewhere.

  3595. musictheory 2019-02-13 01:29:39 Keng_Mital
    Ideally, Classical Guitar and Craviola on the melody, Steel String on harmony, cello for color, and bass guitar and drum kit for rhythmic background.

  3596. musictheory 2019-02-13 05:08:17 FwLineberry
    Need more details. Just listing a string of notes rarely results in an accurate answer to these types of questions. What's the rhythm? What sounds like home? What else is involved? Chords?

  3597. musictheory 2019-02-13 06:16:45 NoodleNonger
    Huh, so I literally had an orchestration lecture today where we looked at this haha. It's supposed to come off as a blur. It's playing the same harmonies as the string parts, but whereas the string parts can play those busy arpeggiated figures and make it sound fairly seamless, it'd sound quite busy in the woodwinds, so instead you have this, which gets the same harmony across but with an articulation that's much more in keeping with the aesthetic of the section.

  3598. musictheory 2019-02-13 10:25:24 Xenoceratops
    If I were you, I would worry more about the composition and less about the relationship to atoms. Augusta Reed Thomas has a couple of pieces that are kinda sorta based on physical objects and processes, but she (wisely) treats these things metaphorically. For instance, [Helix Spirals](http://www.augustareadthomas.com/composition/helixspirals.html) is kinda sorta about the semiconservative model of DNA replication. Here's her description of the second movement: >In semiconservative replication, when the double stranded DNA helix is replicated each of the two new double-stranded DNA helices consists of one strand from the original helix and one newly synthesized strand. In this movement, the quartet "draws a picture" of DNA semi-conservative replication. Much of this movement is, by necessity, focused on pairs of instruments but the intricate contrapuntal lines are always enhanced with fleeting, supportive, plucked and bowed materials played by the other two musicians. >The movement starts with violin 1 playing "DNA STRAND A." Forty-five seconds later, the cello takes over playing "DNA STRAND B." [From here to the end of the movement, before every next helix episode, a gentle moment of calm serves as an aural guidepost so that the audience can clearly follow the form.] >After a quiet note in the viola, Violin 2 reiterates "DNA STRAND A" while at the same time the viola restates "DNA STRAND B" such that the whole DNA helix has been revealed. >After another quiet note in the viola, the cello plays the "leading DNA STRAND A" (which was previously played by Violin I) and the Violin 2 plays a new "COMPLIMENTARY LAGGING DNA STRAND." >Next, the Violin I plays the "DNA STRAND B" (which was previously played by the cello and the viola plays a new "COMPLIMENTARY LAGGING DNA STRAND." >By this point in the composition, we have arrived at two double helixes. >After a long quiet note played by the whole quartet, we enter the final episode in which Violin I and Viola link up to play "DNA STRAND A" while Violin 2 and Cello team up to play "DNA STRAND B." In this final episode, we still have the original two DNA strands but they are amplified harmonically and emotionally by nature of the fact that all four musicians are playing. Yeah, okay, there's two-voice counterpoint, multiplied by 2 because it's a string quartet and you need two complete strands, but stuff like the pizzicato accompaniment is purely aesthetic. The material itself has no relation to DNA/RNA sequences, and neither does the two-part counterpoint. I mean, if that were the case, then [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzU7xQmmXGE), [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ1s67H_gtA), and [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0KWdnGgqxc) would also be about DNA replication and Okazaki fragments or whatever. Another of her pieces, [qì](http://www.augustareadthomas.com/composition/qi.html), is a percussion quartet about, well... >qì is the circulating vital life energy that in Chinese philosophy is thought to be inherent in all things. >In traditional Chinese culture, qì or ch'i or ki in Korean culture and ki in Japanese culture is an active principle forming part of any living thing. qì literally translates as "breath", "air", and figuratively as "material energy", "life force", or "energy flow". >Concepts similar to qì can be found in many cultures: prana in Hinduism (and elsewhere in Indian culture), chi in the Igbo religion, pneuma in ancient Greece, mana in Hawaiian culture, lüng in Tibetan Buddhism, manitou in the culture of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, ruah in Jewish culture, and vital energy in Western philosophy. And this is from another program note: >With four percussionists sharing two marimbas between them, Qì has Thomas in fun-and-games mode full-on as the music tears off at dizzying speed without pause through the work's five densely packed minutes. Thomas's underlying image here is the notion of four interlocking gears, the players having to mesh and dovetail with the absolute precision of well-oiled gears and cogs whirring away in a fine Swiss watch. The 4-way dialogue is as rapid-fire as it is incessant, and in due course one just knows that one of Thomas' favourite “stinger” endings is supposed to loom over the horizon. But when it comes, it blindsides the listener with the precision of a perfectly timed punchline! So basically every percussion quartet piece ever. Don't get me wrong, I'm cool with programmatic motivations in music, but I'm not sure I understand Taoism or DNA replication any better after listening to these pieces. In fact, I would venture to guess that you could swap the descriptions of these two works and it would still make just as much sense. Another one. I recently found out that the title of Claude Vivier's [Zipangu](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJOtLs9DXh8) is the name Marco Polo gave to Japan. I'm glad I found out after the fact, because I might have had a hard time hearing past that when I listened the first time. I don't get Japan or Marco Polo or 13th century cartography from this piece; it sounds like a solid post-spectralist work, but that's about it for me. My point here is that maybe the structure of the piece should reflect the programmatic inspiration a bit, but don't feel any need to build valence shells out of wiggly air.

  3599. musictheory 2019-02-13 21:19:43 renurak
    Shosty aka Godfather of heavy/death/industrial metal, is your man for bass drop- String quartet no. 7 mov 3- [https://youtu.be/XF\_1ydIA1z4?t=500](https://youtu.be/XF_1ydIA1z4?t=500) String quartet no 8 mov2- [https://youtu.be/PjvTTfbpWjY?t=43](https://youtu.be/PjvTTfbpWjY?t=43) String quartet no 11 mov 3- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSGKbIPNN7A&t=296s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSGKbIPNN7A&t=296s) ( can easily give jumpscare) String quartet 12 mov 2- [https://youtu.be/rSGKbIPNN7A?t=1746](https://youtu.be/rSGKbIPNN7A?t=1746) String quartet 15 mov 6: my favorite quartet. Not a typical 'bass drop', but a scream of anguish- [https://youtu.be/r5x8\_yd-8vM?t=1869](https://youtu.be/r5x8_yd-8vM?t=1869) Symphony no 10 mov 2- [https://youtu.be/po5vTycfZTk?t=98](https://youtu.be/po5vTycfZTk?t=98) Symphony no 11 mov 2- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9lo9ZDYuDU&t=2153s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9lo9ZDYuDU&t=2153s) Symphony no 11 mov 4- [https://youtu.be/g9lo9ZDYuDU?t=3939](https://youtu.be/g9lo9ZDYuDU?t=3939) &#x200B; That's all I can remember folks! &#x200B;

  3600. musictheory 2019-02-14 01:59:38 shiendamunthe
    Whoa, I probably need to read all of these many times to understand it lmao. >For any one section of a song, that's a whole lot of chords! I have been working on this for 5 months. This, first, was my trial on trying to play all notes on thick strings start from D, C#, C down all the way to low D and then cycling. That's why sometimes I cheated my way by doing fast succesion of the same chord. (It is still impossible for me, but I managed to play from E to A but get dragged back to D finally lmao) >I might suggest adding one or two notes to the chords here and there. Add a G to chord 3, to make C#m7b5, ii chord of B minor. The rule was, they must contain a maximum 4 notes because I got 4 fingers and a thumb for supporting other fingers. But I will try to figure out a way to play all of your suggestions because G can be played without using finger >A verse progression? All I might suggest is to work in A minor, to make a mood contrast with the chorus I know A minor, but I prefer A E G C on this song because it sounds like a peaceful afternoon, cloudy sky in lonely beach than A minor which sounds like sad afternoon barren desert and windy dust. I have just tested that but it sounds weird because I ended my chorus in Amaj7 and A E G C#, so I can't start the verse with A on the thick string. But when I play Bm7 (is this right?), I can go to E13 (CMIIW) then to Amaj7 and closing the loop at F#7#5 and a fast F# E A C#. But then I stuck to get back to chorus because I can't drag these chords to start Dmaj7. Can I have more suggestion, sir? And where can I upload a sound file to reddit? I can't find the uploading option for sound file lmao. Thank you sir

  3601. musictheory 2019-02-14 04:48:00 rTheBeardedGuitarist
    Hey, if you mean how I fingered it on guitar I'm using the 2nd finger on the G# (4th fret low E string), then 3rd finger on the 4th fret G string and mini-bar with the first finger across the D, G, B strings 3rd fret. B dim7 going to C would be exactly the same - it's the upper part of a G7b9. However this would sound more "jazzy" because of tension (b9) on the dominant chord - usually the 9th is major on the dominant chord resolving on the I major. Hope this makes sense.

  3602. musictheory 2019-02-14 13:27:26 WeDaBestMusicWhooo
    Oops, sorry somehow I ended up over in theory. Meant to post in guitar. Also, by arpeggio picking I mean when picking an arpeggio so that, say yr beginning on the sixth string, the next note is on 5th, next on fourth etc, you play all notes in a single (usually down) stroke until you reach a point where a second note appears on the same string at which point you alternate the pick.

  3603. musictheory 2019-02-14 14:08:02 all-thethings
    >The paper shows an example on page 22 that demonstrates an inverse of what you have suggested. An F# is played as a Gb, which is a lower pitch, despite the written note having a sharp - which you suggest would lead them to play the pitch higher. Ok, if the person is thinking of an interval differently than it's written, that's not really supporting the argument. It's like untrained musicians writing Ebm Bbm C# B and playing it like i v bVII bVI. I can partially see where you're going with your reasoning - the study does focus a bit more on enharmonic notes depending on context - but I don't quite follow how the reasoning leads to accidentals not influencing the performer. Notes are tuned relative to some other pitch (in string orchestral settings, A4, whatever frequency), and based on that, play songs in tune with the other instruments. My own mental picture of F# in F# minor, like in George Winston's "Tamarack Pines", is noticeably higher than my mental picture of Gb in Gb major, like in Simple Plan's "Untitled" (regardless of their actual tuning details). Enharmonically equivalent as the tonics are, the tendencies of these notes on non-fixed instruments can vary *regardless of tendency tones*.

  3604. musictheory 2019-02-14 21:01:48 Jongtr
    > I have been working on this for 5 months Wow! That's a long time.... > The rule was, they must contain a maximum 4 notes That's fine - a good rule to stick to. C#m7b5 can be played as x-4-5-4-5-x. Bdim7 can be played various ways: x-2-3-1-3-x, x-5-6-4-5-x, etc. > I know A minor, but I prefer A E G C on this song because it sounds like a peaceful afternoon, cloudy sky in lonely beach than A minor which sounds like sad afternoon barren desert and windy dust. If you say so. A-E-G-C is Am7, just adding a 7th to Am. Makes it more *interesting*, but of course how you interpret that is up to you. > I have just tested that but it sounds weird because I ended my chorus in Amaj7 and A E G C#, so I can't start the verse with A on the thick string. Again, that's a personal, subjective thing (personally I'd say it sounded good). But it's quite right that you should decide by ear, and not by any kind of theoretical "rule". (BTW, your last chord was A E G# C#. A E G C# would be A7. ;-)) > But when I play Bm7 (is this right?), I can go to E13 then to Amaj7 and closing the loop at F#7#5 and a fast F# E A C#. But then I stuck to get back to chorus because I can't drag these chords to start Dmaj7. Can I have more suggestion, sir? No need to call me sir. :-) I'd say stopping at Amaj7 "closes the loop", in that it's a resolution to the tonic (key chord). F#7#5 would naturally lead back to Bm7, so it would make a loop in that sense. To get back to Dmaj7, you could go there straight from Amaj7. Or you could use A7 (A E G C#), as a conventional lead in to Dmaj7. C#dim7 would also do it (your chord 10, 1 fret higher or 2 frets lower). > are there any music works that has accomplished my quest to play all notes in one single music? Yes. Lots. It's not difficult.

  3605. musictheory 2019-02-14 21:28:32 Jongtr
    Well, your guitar is still badly out of tune. It should be possible to tune even a cheap guitar better than that (I can tell the strings are rather old although that shouldn't make a difference). The bass notes are flat, especially on the 6th string, which is nearer Eb than E. I'm surprised, with such a good ear for chord progression, you can't tell (or it doesn't bother you) that the tuning is so bad. Your sequence now goes on beyond the original last chord to: A7 - Bm7 - E7#5 - Amaj7 - F#7#5 - F#m7 - Bm7 - E7#5 - Amaj7 - A7. Personally I think your sequence works OK (or would if it was in tune!), but TheAllRightGatsby's suggestions are good - *if you like them*. That is, I agree the sequence could benefit from being thinned out a little, but to decide that myself I'd want to get a melody and develop a stronger sense of which chords were the most important ones. This is not a "song" - because there is nothing (at least on this evidence) that anyone could "sing. A chord sequence - however fancy - is not a song; it's just a potential foundation for one. And without a melody to restrain it, a chord sequence can easily get overblown, bloated.

  3606. musictheory 2019-02-14 23:16:44 shiendamunthe
    This will be embarassing because I'm not a singer. I just love writing poems and decided to bring one of them to music just for me. Here is the link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oBwUFSHAGOt1ZWZFUL68YCG8ozl8SYUF/view?usp=drivesdk Yeah you right, the strings are cheap and old and some of them are not one set and I bought them all for 1 dollar. The tuning is right (E A D G B E) but when I put my fingers, they goes out of tune (Especially the 6th string). The closer my fingers get to the hole, the more out of tune the notes (I kinda used to that because I always play with these kind of strings for a year) And there is also great distance between the strings and the guitar, so sometimes if I don't push my fingers hard the notes will sound like a trumpet and thump-thump (dead). With that being said, I'm sorry for the bad quality of the recording.

  3607. musictheory 2019-02-15 01:45:38 Cello789
    Presumably, the nut is bone and the frets are steel, but it will ring out the same. When you capo a guitar you basically move the nut (and shorten the scale). The scale difference gives different overtone distribution, so a Fender with PAF pickups still sounds different than a Gibson (I don’t care what people say about “tonewood” in electric guitars, but let’s go with a Gibson 335 vs Fender Starcaster, both semi hollow with humbuckers, but different scale length). They could sound slightly different, but in a mix, I doubt anyone could reliably guess which it was. Side by side, maybe, but in the context of a song, no. Also, while not “distorted” the way we think in modern guitar tones, the Oasis guitars were not DI funk/disco clean. They had some crunch and fx. I don’t think the timbre change would be a factor in deciding to capo. That said, in general, it makes a big difference if you capo on 3 or play full barred chords on the 3rd fret. Strings stop ringing when you change chords if you don’t capo. But I wouldn’t tune up 3 semitones to keep the scale length and avoid capo... I guess you could tune down to D standard and put a capo on 2 (so you’re back to E, but with a shorter scale) to compare, but that has to do with string tension in addition to scale at that point. Hard to say, maybe a more wizardly engineer/luthier/physicist could have a real answer?

  3608. musictheory 2019-02-15 01:53:49 reckless150681
    Short answer is no. Each instrument isn't just playing a single frequency, they're playing an infinite number of frequencies. This is due to a phenomenon called standing waves. Basically, depending on the instrument, you will simultaneously hear 440 Hz (for example), and an infinite number of integer multiples of 440 (so 440x1, 440x2, 440x3, 440x4, etc. There are some instruments where it's every *other* integer multiples, so 440x1, 440x3, 440x5, etc.). Each of these integer multiples is called a harmonic, and together they form the harmonic series. You play bass, right? You can hear this effect. Play a "harmonic" (Google "guitar harmonic" if you need to) on the 12th fret. Then the 7th. Then the 5th. Then the 3rd. These notes form the harmonic series. If you play an open string, you are simultaneously hearing all of these notes at once. The reason that we don't "hear" them is because our brains are really good at figuring out what the lowest frequency is (called the fundamental frequency). So even if we hear 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 Hz altogether, our brains will be like "Oh! That's a harmonic series! It's actually just 100 Hz). This is why if two instruments play the same exact note you can tell the difference - two different instruments' harmonic series will be different. So what happens if a cello plays 100 Hz and a violin plays 300Hz? The cello generates energy at 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000 etc. The violin generates energy at 300, 600, 900, 1200, 1500, etc. Do you see where they overlap? This is why software can't really determine what instrument is playing: if we have a perfect recording, we have no idea if it's just a really weird cello playing **or** a cello and violin playing at the same time. This becomes more complicated when we talk about real instruments. A lot of instruments together will generate energy at a frequency *band*, especially when you start using four-voice chords or more complex colors. So eventually, when you perform a frequency analysis, instead of pulling out a nice spike at 440 Hz you might pull out a band from 400 to 500 Hz. This data is not very useful - it's basically *impossible* to determine what's playing. Furthermore, perfectly pulling out a single frequency relies on being able to perform a perfect recording, but that never happens. The way we pull out frequencies is via a mathematical formula called the Fourier Transform. This Transform is sensitive to where you start your recording in time, and if your recording isn't perfect you won't even get a perfect spike at a single frequency. Anyway that's a really long-winded way to say "no". Let me know if there's any clarification needed, or if you have further questions. Just to give you my credentials, I'm a mechanical engineer with a specialty in acoustics, and I deal with these sorts of problems in audio engineering fairly frequently.

  3609. musictheory 2019-02-15 02:10:10 Cello789
    Haha I was the one who suggested it could be an alternate tuning instead of capo haha The tension would be too high on the strings, but let’s say you set a guitar up with appropriate strings and truss tension etc so that it could tune to F or F# open. Yes, it would sound a bit different, in the same way that a Viola playing C4 sounds different than a violin playing C4. Or to make it less subtle, a cello playing Middle C on the G string compared to the D string. The only difference is the tension of each string and the length (as stopped by the left hand) on each string. They sound very different in timbre. But that’s a perfect 5th from string to string. How different does a D at 10th fret low E string on electric guitar thru an amp sound compared to the same note at 5th fret on the A string? That’s still 5 frets away, so how about only 1 fret difference with a capo on 1? Will it be different? Certainly. Could anyone ever notice? Unlikely. The bigger the differences will be more noticeable, but think of this - when luthiers design/build acoustic instruments, they take into account the scale length and the tension expected, right? It’s why a concert guitar sounds different from a dreadnought. Or why a Stradivarius cello sounds different from a Montagnana cello where the lower bouts are wider and it has more rich bass sounds. Or why a 7/8 cello could sound a bit different from a 4/4 cello. The bodies aren’t exactly scaled down, they have to take into account the acoustic properties of the wood at different tension, because tuning to A440 on a smaller scale at the same break angle over the bridge would put more pressure on a smaller instrument, so its either greater pressure, different angle, or some other way to compensate for that difference (7/8 cellos are not student models, they’re mostly amateur and semi-pro, custom made more modern instruments) Basic answer, yes, it would change the sound, but so little that a producer probably wouldn’t care and even the mixing engineer might not notice.

  3610. musictheory 2019-02-15 03:51:51 TrickDunn
    You seem more right. When horn players or fretless string players are playing Giant Steps, or anything else, they avoid equal temperament as often as they can. String players know what to do to their F#'s and F's when playing in D. Horn players know what to do to their D's and Db's when playing in Bb. They bend their major 3rds down, and minor 3rds up-- as much as their skill and talent permits. It is a barrier for equal temperament instruments in my opinion. A tempered major triad never sounds right to me.

  3611. musictheory 2019-02-15 03:56:28 mladjiraf
    Pythagorean is closer to 12 ET in sound than to just intonation (which sounds better than both of them). You can modulate in pythagorean and use modal mixture. I don't really know what your comment about the core of Western harmony and pythagorean tuning should have mean, because it's clearly disinformation. Anyway, “How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony” is probably about meantone, not about pythagorean. Meantone is the base of Western harmony and all the common practice progressions and was abandoned when mass production of pianos made meantone not optimal for commercial products. Plus you have to stick to classical progressions in it, no modulation in remote keys (unless you have more than 12 keys per octave) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meantone\_temperament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meantone_temperament) (There are 4 major and 3 minor triads - and obviously - their inversions plus all the fifths - in 12 notes pythagorean that are better than anything in meantone or 12 equal, but that's not enough to make it good for more complex harmony) &#x200B; Coltrane doesn't play in 12 tempered which is possible and perfectly *realizable* with electronic devices like synthesizers, but every good brass, wind, string player or vocalist adjusts his intonation all the time, so it's more complex than sticking to a certain system.

  3612. musictheory 2019-02-15 19:21:20 M3talguitari5t
    I play guitar, so I usually like to grab inversions off the fourth string or third string. Maybe i root position, then probably like VI add 9, III first inversion, then like ii second inversion, then V first inversion.

  3613. musictheory 2019-02-15 20:34:20 Jongtr
    > when I put my fingers, they goes out of tune (Especially the 6th string). The closer my fingers get to the hole, the more out of tune the notes OK, that does seem like a *really* cheap guitar in that case: the bridge is in the wrong place, and the action (height of strings above frets) is probably too much. The latter can usually be fixed, but the former - assuming it's a fixed bridge - is expensive and maybe more than the guitar is worth. I have seen the occasional guitar like that (in a student's hands), but most of the cheapest guitars you can buy (I mean really cheap) are better than that.

  3614. musictheory 2019-02-16 00:41:36 winterryeband
    For me, thinking of a note as raised is easier than lowering it, especially on the guitar, where you can raise a note either by moving up or simply bending the string. I do see the practicality of sometimes using flats if it's easier, especially with a band, but for me, it almost never helps more than sharps.

  3615. musictheory 2019-02-16 08:09:24 guitar-ch
    I know, but on the guitar there is a lot of string skipping and position shifting involved, that makes them hard to play.

  3616. musictheory 2019-02-16 08:13:31 guitar-ch
    Off course, this applies to major arpeggios as well. As soon there are only 3 notes involved, you have to do a lot of string skipping and position shifting, that makes them hard to play.

  3617. musictheory 2019-02-16 11:19:05 jtizzle12
    Multiple ways of doing this. The most common way is implying meters in the space of another meter. For example, in 4/4, instrument A can play a repeating pattern of three quarter notes and a quarter rest. This is a strong defining 4/4 rhythm. Over this, instrument B can perform a repeating pattern of 2 8th notes and one 8th rest. This is a strong 3/8 rhythm. If you play these two at the same time, instrument A is technically playing in 4, and instrument B is technically playing in 3. You usually wouldn't define it this way, but that is essentially what is happening. Post-20th century, you have two new ways of approaching this. Method 1 sounds the same as the one above, but you actually write the meters down. In a score, this would really mess up the alignment of the parts. Using the above example, you would actually write down instrument A in 4/4 and instrument B in 3/8. Not keep both in 4/4. You can check a good example of this out in Elliott Carter's 3rd string quartet measures 26-28. The other method is through polyrhythm. Basically, two parts are going to be playing at different rates & subdivisions of a larger space. For example, if you want a part to play in 7 and a part in 4 but in the same time of the 4, the part in 7 would sound a bit "slower", but the downbeats would always coincide. For this, you can check out something like Ferneyhough's Bone Alphabet, where there's two voices. In measure 1 which is in 4/8, the top voice is playing in the basic subdivisions, but the bottom voice is in 10:12 (in the course of 12 notes of the 4/8, the bottom part will play 10 notes, making it sound "slower", the downbeats will meet every 12 notes in the top and 10 notes in the bottom). Now, I'm not familiar with traditional marching music in polymeter or that uses polyrhythm, so your director may mean that the piece you're working on employs the first method up top that I mentioned.

  3618. musictheory 2019-02-16 21:39:44 jazzadelic
    Db ionian or lydian because Db (on the A-string) is particularly rich with overtones on my upright.

  3619. musictheory 2019-02-17 00:32:24 cheap_glitch
    It would look the same but the staves would have six lines instead of five (one for each guitar string). You can easily find notebooks or scratchpads with blank tabs, but I've never seen one with writing lines + tabs combo (I'm no notebook expert though, so maybe this already exists).

  3620. musictheory 2019-02-17 06:02:32 GoldmanT
    Power chords are a big feature - with the distorted guitar sound you can barely get away with playing a major chord, let alone an extended/altered chord, so root-fifth chords keep it smooth sounding, rather than the horrible 'beating' sound you might get by adding in other notes. Lots of b2, b3, b5, b6 and b7 intervals from the root note, and a lot of pedal tone riffs, i.e. bashing away on the open E string while slotting in other intervals to build up a riff. Lots of repetition - the Paranoid riff (not the intro) is mainly the same note over and over again, and then the riff is played over and over again. In fact 'riffs' is probably one of the main factors in heavy metal, and if you get a riff that isn't very bluesy (i.e. not like AC/DC or Aerosmith) and play it over and over again then it's probably going to be heavy. Heavy metal doesn't 'strum', that's rock. Sometimes it can sound very square and ungroovy, e.g. the Iron Man riff is very square sounding. But then the Paranoid riff does groove, and the Iron Man riff doesn't have much repetition, so there are no strict rules. A lot of these things, plus its oft simplicity, are why metal songs don't always sound great with other instrumentation - it can be too simple to do justice to e.g. a string quartet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XZDoHxN434 The original of this is as metal as the south-west of the periodic table. What I have gathered from early literature is that the key thing is to have some metal up your ass.

  3621. musictheory 2019-02-17 08:02:58 jimjambanx
    Okay first of all you're going to have to be more specific, what kind of metal are we talking about, and what exactly do you mean by heavy? Because for example I think Meshuggah, Sleep and Metallica are very heavy bands, but for completely different reasons, and all 3 have different kinds of "heaviness" so to speak. Meshuggah is heavy because of their use of 8 string guitars, polymetric riffs and chromatic lines, sleep is heavy because of their hypnotic drones and deep, fuzzy guitar tones, and Metallica is heavy because of their fast, electric riffs and frantic vocals. Metal is simply too diverse a genre to make any blanket claims about it.

  3622. musictheory 2019-02-18 01:48:16 robotir
    Guitar tab is definitely the largest market for string instruments. Depending on quantity/costs you could also do Ukulele, bass, and mandolin tab (4 lines vs 6 for guitar). On those, you could maybe add a row at the top for chord boxes, but that's mostly for beginners. Not sure how banjo players do it. I'd love it if my students had a notebook for tab, instead of loose papers, which end up getting lost/destroyed.

  3623. musictheory 2019-02-18 02:18:53 65TwinReverbRI
    1. Learn to play instrument. 2. Learn to play music on that instrument. 3. Tear apart the pieces you play, figuring out what they commonly do or don't do. 4. Try your hand at writing your own pieces using the ones you play as a model. 5. Arranging is a bit different. Arranging usually means taking a piece for one instrument or ensemble and changing it for another - taking a song for voice and piano and making it for Big Band, or taking a String Quartet and arranging it for Saxophone Quartet, etc. This involves knowledge of instrumental ranges and techniques. It also can involve some compositional skill because not all pieces will translate exactly to another ensemble, and sometimes people create intros, transitions, and things like that. Thus while you could theoretically arrange without knowing how to compose, composing is the more typical earlier step. Learn to play, learn to compose, learn to arrange/orchestrate. Those are the steps.

  3624. musictheory 2019-02-18 04:49:11 AIDTG
    Ah okay! I have garage band that's about it. I guess I could use one of the string sounds on loop. Ideal situation would be to click a button have a chord continuously drone.

  3625. musictheory 2019-02-18 15:10:19 jazzadellic
    What you really want is to have each of the 5 patterns memorized, which means you will have the entire fretboard covered. You don't want to be figuring anything out when improvising. There are 4 ways you learn scales: visual, kinesthetic, aural & mental. Use all 4 to help you memorize each pattern. The visual side is just knowing what each pattern looks like visually. Test this by drawing the patterns from memory on blank guitar neck diagrams. The mental aspect is remember the patterns with some type of logic, for example the fingering. So for me, C major scale in the 1st position is fingered on each string as follows: 0-1-3, 0-2-3, 0-2-3, 0-2, 0-1-3, 0-1-3, those being left hand finger numbers (and by coincidence also the fret numbers). This is an example of the mental side of memorizing a scale. The mental side could also include things like remembering things like what string to shift positions on or any other oddities about a particular pattern. The kinesthetic (or what we sometimes call "muscle memory") comes naturally from playing a scale **perfectly** thousands of times. This is why it's so important to play **slowly** without mistakes, rather than fast with mistakes. Practicing scales fast with mistakes mean you will train mistakes into your muscle memory. The aural aspect of learning scales is a bit less easy to explain, but it is basically hearing the scale so many times that your ear "knows" what the next note is going to sound like, or what the note will sound like if you skip up to another note. This also can come purely through practice, rather than trained consciously, but can also be trained using ear training techniques. So you know you have a good aural understanding of a scale when you can hear something and play it back, sometimes even on the first try. Memorizing scales is **not** a hard thing, it merely takes dedication and focused daily practice. Knowing about the 4 methods of learning helps though (visual, aural, mental & kinesthetic).

  3626. musictheory 2019-02-18 17:25:45 Xenoceratops
    Gotcha. Anyway, one important lesson I learned from Yngwie Malmsteen is that you really don't need much pressure to fret a note. Fretting a bar chord like that may seem like it needs a lot of strength, and to an extent it does, but it's more about coordination. For example, in the chord [x-3-5-5-5-3], you really only need to successfully bar the 3rd fret on the A and high E string. If you're putting a ton of pressure on the index finger bar on the third fret over the D, G, and B strings, it's wasted effort: they're already being fretted higher up by your ring finger bar. If this is your problem, turning your index bar into a bridge rather than a huge monolith might help you.

  3627. musictheory 2019-02-18 17:26:23 Jongtr
    Any way you can get those 3 strings down on those frets is OK. There is no one correct way, and all of them are "ideal" in certain situations. Here's a few (fingers in order from strings 4 to 2): 2-3-4: my own preferred method. I like having the index available behind for changing quickly to an E chord. 1-2-3: the most common way beginners attempt the chord, which is OK if you have skinny enough fingers (few men do). 2-1-3: a method I only discovered a few years ago (having played guitar for nearly 50 years by then). Great for men (or anyone!) with fat fingers, and handy for changing to either an E or D chord (index slides back, or stays where it is). I still don't use this myself, because I'm so used my two favourite methods. 1-1-1: My second favourite, which involves either muting the 1st string by bending the finger up a little, or using pinky on the high A on 5th fret. This is a good one for adding other notes with the spare fingers, e.g. to make a D/A chord as x-0-4-2-3-(2). There are probably other ways too, but that's plenty.

  3628. musictheory 2019-02-18 17:35:12 Jongtr
    > you really only need to successfully bar the 3rd fret on the A and high E string. True. In fact you don't need to fret the E cleanly either. If the index only manages to mute that string (or you mute it some other way), it's still a good shape on the middle 4, right?

  3629. musictheory 2019-02-18 23:45:58 zstars
    If you're doing single octave scales starting on the G string or two octave ones anywhere then the pattern will be slightly different when you move from the b string to e but other than that you're Gucci. Also this is only based upon which string the root is on, the pattern will hold anywhere on the same string if that makes sense.

  3630. musictheory 2019-02-19 01:00:57 iimpz
    so you’re saying you’d root G at tenth fret on 5th string and just use the normal ionian scale instead of rooting off the third fret on 6th string and using the mixolydian scale? if so thats fine, it’s just a mental game on making sure you treat it correctly, don’t start at the G and end on C or whatever, you’re essentially just explaining using the mixolydian scale in a different position

  3631. musictheory 2019-02-19 01:35:55 CaptianToasty
    The pattern will change actually based on where you are. You can also chance the pattern however you please let’s say you wanna go through the Cmaj scale starting on your 8th fret on the E string. CDEFGABC. You could go 8-10-12. 8-10-12. 9-10. Or 8-10. 7-8-10. 7-9-10. Or even 8. 5-7-8. 5-7-9-10 or 5 on your g string. Sorry if that reads dumb, each period is saying move down a string. What I’m really trying to explain is there are numerous ways you can play each scale or get to the next note. I think being able to play where the next note is rather than a specific position really opens up your creativity and freedom moving along the fretboard. Good luck

  3632. musictheory 2019-02-19 03:10:47 Syncopia
    Gonna start off by saying that I won't be of much help. I think a lot of it has to do with prog rock as much as jazz and soul. Mateus does a lot of time changes, though mostly it seems he's playing in free time when he does one of his little flowy parts at the end of a phrase. Polyphia subverts expectations a lot with their note choice, going out of key on purpose, using bends, vibrato and tremolo flutters to make it sound appropriate. Playing a note too low and bending into the note you actually want to hear is a common way of adding feeling into a song, especially if ending on a slow vibrato; same with using the tremolo bar to bend down. Tremolo flutter is essentially flicking the tremolo bar to give it that 'magical' stutter noise that bands like Polyphia and Skyhaven are known for. Mateus does a pretty simple technique where he continues plucking a string as he bends/unbends it. I'd suggest practicing tabs for some of their songs and learning a lot of jazz/extended chords for a start.

  3633. musictheory 2019-02-19 03:13:14 cubistguitar
    Hi there scale worker. I have been slogging thru scales longer than I can remember, and they still challenge and delight me. Maybe I could share a few tips I stole from better players. I sometimes warm up by playing thru all major and minor scales, I use the Klose clarinet scale warm up that is a common aid to student clarinetists. This one covers 2 octave major and minor scales ( melodic minor ascending natural minor descending). You will need to make your own fingerings, but that is the fun part. I find I generally use what I would describe as “CAGED” fingerings, but have to extend them as needed. Often I will play 4 notes on the lower strings to end up in a more familiar fingering for the remainder. I guess I never studied CAGED as a student, but I get the idea, basically visualizing scales by referencing common chord shapes. I was much more a metal head in my teens and learned 3 notes per string, which is a bit limited for some things and great for others. I find the simplest advice I can give is to learn each scale (2 octaves) by finding moveable patterns that start on either the E or A string, starting with your first, second, and fourth fingers. So 3 patterns on the low E and 3 on the low A string. The ones from the first finger are the usual 3nps patterns and the ones from 2nd and 4th finger are your CAGED ones. Once you have a grasp on these fingerings, then start the melodic pattern work. Start with intervals, play the scales in 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, 6ths. Then play 3 note and 4 note sequences, if all this is unfamiliar, I know there is a good resource at zentao.com on melodic sequences. Of course one should extract all the triads and seventh chord arpeggios from a scale and learn those as patterns also. First one octave, then 2 octave and 3 octave. That is what I call memorizing all my major & minor scales. I don’t crush my other scales as hard as the major and minor, but come closest on the pentatonic. I’m still trying master the Pentb3 and Pentb6 from Gary Campbell’s Expansions. I need to put more into diminished, whole tone, and hexatonics, so a lifetime should be just enough time to get it down pat.

  3634. musictheory 2019-02-19 05:02:28 motorboyxx
    Air on the g-string and prelude 1 ( C maj)

  3635. musictheory 2019-02-19 10:40:08 xiipaoc
    I don't know what "pattern 1" and "fret 8" mean (though I do know that on guitar, fret 8 on string 6 is a C, but wouldn't it be better to just play it on string 5 fret 3?). If you want fingering advice, I recommend thumb hole and the three finger holes on the left hand, all open on right hand. Probably makes as much sense to you as "pattern 1 at fret 8" means to anyone else. Anyway, if you lower the 7th of C major, you do get C mixolydian. Great scale, mixolydian. Very useful in rock music, for example.

  3636. musictheory 2019-02-19 11:08:54 ILoveKombucha
    I'd agree that the string quartet gives you freedom that the piano doesn't have. But some of these statements are too broad. You can do homophonic music for string quartet. Individual string instruments are capable of some amount of basic counterpoint, and certainly capable of more than one note at a time, which adds even more complexity to the potential of a string quartet. You can do 4, 5, even 6 part counterpoint on keyboard (see Bach's Musical Offering for an example of 6 part counterpoint for keyboard, and numerous musical works from all eras demonstrating independent 4 part writing for keyboard, including many examples by composers like Frescobaldi, Froberger, Bach, etc, where the keyboard music was intentionally written on 4 separate staves, ie open score). One of the big limitations for keyboard is carrying out convincing voice crossing. With two separate instruments, an alto note dipping below tenor is much more appreciable than it is on a keyboard, where voice crossing is entirely apparent, but not necessarily real. You still see a lot of voice crossing in various contrapuntal keyboard compositions, but it is hard to pull it off well, and I think there are limitations. Like, in some polyphonic vocal works, for example, you have voice crossings that, when reduced down to keyboard score, look like a bunch of forbidden parallels, and such.

  3637. musictheory 2019-02-19 11:12:12 65TwinReverbRI
    Yep just index and middle as the little numerals imply. When playing guitar, though this is not a hard and fast rule all the time, we typically play "one finger per fret" for a span of four frets. Thus playing "in 4th position" means your first finger would be on the 4th fret, your middle on the 5th, your ring on the 6th, and you pinky on the 7th - covering a 4 fret span from 4-7. Your fingers can "collapse" and play a smaller span than that, or in some cases you may have to reach further than 4 frets, but your first finger is basically "hovering over" the 4th fret ready to play any notes on that fret. So obviously 2nd position is same thing, over fret 2. You usually start learning in "1st position" but we also usually refer to that one as "open position" because we're counting the open string as part of what we can reach.

  3638. musictheory 2019-02-19 11:14:44 notreallyme42069
    Honestly, don't ask "why" just learn it. Once you've learned it, then ask "why". "Why" isn't an easy thing to answer. Some people think that showing the history of how it developed works as a "proof." Others think showing something unique about the way it developed is enough. In some ways, there is no answer. However, my favorite explanation is this: the harmonic series introduces the perfect 5th and the major 3rd as intervals that exist in a simple vibrating string, and therefore should be included along with the fundamental frequency in music. That gives you the major triad. The perfect 5th is more important than the major 3rd, since it occurs on a lower harmonic/overtone. So build a major triad on an arbitrary note, a perfect 5th higher, and a perfect 5th lower. Re-arrange those notes in sequential order and you have the major scale, which happens to have intervals that are mostly equidistant in perception (our ears perceive exponential change in frequency as linear), with two exceptions, between the B and C and E and F if you arbitrarily choose C as the root note, which are roughly half the distance between the others. Derived this way, there would not be exactly the same distance between every whole or half step, but to round it all off that way was a conscious compromise made my musicians long ago. "Temperament" is the key word to search for for more info on that topic.

  3639. musictheory 2019-02-19 12:13:53 caters1
    Well, I'm not comparing all piano music to all string quartets here. I'm just comparing piano sonatas and string quartets. Of course fugues for the piano are going to have voice crossings that you wouldn't necessarily find in a sonata. But that doesn't mean that me comparing a sonata to 2 part counterpoint is wrong or that me comparing a string quartet to 4 part writing is wrong.

  3640. musictheory 2019-02-19 13:17:13 Heike_Skjerli
    Mostly I'm a fan of atonal music that uses its atonality deliberately in order to achieve some goal. Atonality for the sake of atonality is just boring. When you employ atonality in order to evoke a particular emotion, mood, setting, etc. You're going to think more about the textures of the notes and orchestration, and depending on it's the arrangement of textures it can evoke moods not possible through tonal music. Therondy For The Victims of Hiroshima captures the intense fear and horror of being a civilian in Hiroshima during the bombing. It uses distinct atonal textures to recreate the sound of air-raid sirens as well as other unnerving clusters of random string articulations. The appeal for me is, when a piece has a clear thing to accomplish, and it can draw out genuine emotions from me, be it fear, discomfort, or whatever, the piece in question has succeeded. More important to me than music being pleasant to listen to is its ability to make me feel something.

  3641. musictheory 2019-02-19 21:04:41 PostPostMinimalist
    > Therondy For The Victims of Hiroshima captures the intense fear and horror of being a civilian in Hiroshima during the bombing. It uses distinct atonal textures to recreate the sound of air-raid sirens as well as other unnerving clusters of random string articulations. FYI he named the piece after it was written, at the suggestion of someone else

  3642. musictheory 2019-02-20 01:29:49 gief_moniez_pl0x
    A lot of people here have mentioned an appreciation for the unsettled or uncomfortable sense that they get from listening to “atonal” music, which is completely fair. But I do want to point out that plenty of new music can facilitate feelings outside of that sort of pleasantly unpleasant paradigm. New music that doesn’t use common practice tonality can be exhilarating and lyrical ([Kurt Rohde’s Violin Concertino, first movement)](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u_4h-LxGjpU)), contemplative and impressionistic ([Dai Fujikura, Okeanos Breeze](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tWChrUPsYqI)), or downright beautiful ([Thomas Adès, Three Mazurkas](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pak3U_f0H4o)). The problem with answering this question is that each of the three pieces I linked don’t actually lack tonal centers. They all employ pitch or key centers — they’re just not using the same types of “keys” nor methods of moving within and between them that we’re used to hearing in pre-20th century music, and much of the popular music since the 20th century. As a few people have already pointed out, most jazz — even the blues — can’t be considered strictly tonal either. To write something without any sense of key or pitch center requires a deliberate effort to do just that (for example [Schoenberg, String Quartet No. 4](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L85XTLr5eBE)). Despite the lack of pitch center in the Schoenberg, several elements — notably the form, the memorable and thoughtfully constructed rhythmic motifs, the melodic contour, to name a few — make the piece quite listenable, even to someone who doesn’t have a lot of experience with dodecaphonic music. Oh, and also: efforts to create music with a deliberate lack of pitch center are pretty uncommon these days. Schoenberg himself despised the term atonal and we might see why: it’s such a vast, exclusive term (i.e. everything that’s not common practice tonality) that it’s essentially useless as a descriptor. What about gamelan music, for example? Not only does gamelan not use the same keys as common practice music, it doesn’t even use the same notes. Gamelan is as “atonal” as it gets. Yet we would be hard pressed to consider gamelan harsh or unpleasant in most circumstances. I would encourage anyone who believes that they don’t like atonal music to deeply consider what atonality truly is.

  3643. musictheory 2019-02-20 11:30:35 wendlel
    Well, I already made an argument about the difference between tonal and atonal music, so I've contributed more than you have. Here's more thoughts, at your request: flailing against labels is as pointless as it is vain. "Baroque" was initially an insult, used to describe something as overly ornate. Plenty of people fought against that designation at the time, but it has since lost its negative connotation and now people can spend their energy on analyzing/reviving/interpreting baroque music instead of trying to impress people with jargon-filled diatribes that reek of "I know more than the establishment." Your insights into atonality as a misnomer are nothing new. Anyone who has had a passing interest in atonal music or a Music History/Advanced Music Theory course knows that 'atonal' is a poor title. The only music it really applies to would be non-melodic percussion music, since it truly possess no "tones". However, most have recognized that the label "atonal" really just means that a piece does not employ traditional tonality with tonic-dominant functions. And having that first clue, that inaccurate label, allows us to begin our approach to performance or study in a more appropriate manner. To put it shortly, atonal music and tonal music should be approached different in both analysis and performance. The labels are imperfect but what matters is they delineate the two types of music so that we can delineate our approach to each. Also, since your trying to passive aggressively throw the "scholarship of 20th century music", you must be aware that the era of atonal music has largely passed and living composers are more concerned with employing the techniques developed during the 20th century's eclecticism in pieces that are more engaging and generally more aesthetically pleasing, meaning we're in a new era. Atonality is largely *out* although, some recent pieces might still be called atonal, like Death Valley Junction for String Quartet, or the Khan Variations for Marimba.

  3644. musictheory 2019-02-20 14:58:56 hazysonic
    I apply this stuff ALL the time in live settings, but I like to think of it in a way that seems more practical to me, to recall quickly in live playing situations. One way to think of it, is that there are ALWAYS three PENTATONIC scales that will fit over the key you are in (it won’t work for the regular major scale and the modes that go with it, only pentatonic scales). You can go up a 4th or a 5th and play a pentatonic scale, and know for certain that all the notes will work in the key you’re in. I want to stop and interject about modes. Modes are way simpler than the confusing explanations that are usually given. Since a major scale has seven notes in it, the modes are simply the exact same scale, except each mode is shifted up the neck to start on the next different note of the scale. The third mode is literally the exact same scale as the first mode, except that it begins on the third note of the scale. Similarly, there are five modes of the pentatonic scale, which could be thought of as five different positions or ways to play the same scale. The confusion with modes comes when teachers assume that modes are going to be always treated as if the low note of the scale is always the root, which is completely not true. One can get a Lydian sound (major scale with a sharp 4) from ANY of the modes, depending on where you imagine the root is. That is why I think it makes more sense to learn them as positions of one scale, so your mind only needs to know what the root note is instead of sorting through a mental catalog of scales and positions. So, back to my original point of overlaying any of three pentatonic scales over a particular key... you can do this by moving your hand up or down by 5 or 7 frets and playing the same pentatonic scale. This is a very easy way to verify for yourself that it is a very useful and music trick to have in your bag. It is much easier, however if you simply switch modes so that the root of your scale is on the next string over, either on the same fret, or up two frets. In other words, in the key of C major or A minor, you could typically play: 5th fret pentatonic (aoelean) 8th fret 2nd mode pentatonic (Ionian) 10th fret 3rd mode (Dorian) 12th fret 4th mode (phrygian) 3rd fret 5th mode (mixolydian) these are all using modes as different positions of the SAME scale. But it is a lot more interesting if you can easily use other scale shapes on the same fret for some variation that is still in the right key: 5th fret Phrygian (like if you played a D minor pentatonic starting on the 5th fret of the A string) This will sound a little darker and more minor sounding, like playing D minor over an A bass *OR* 5th fret Dorian (like if you played E minor pentatonic on the 7th string, but you needed to shift down 2 frets and stay in position) This will sound more ambiguous than the regular pentatonic, perfect for sus chords or when you want to sound more floaty Etc... this idea holds true for each of the PENTATONIC scale positions/modes: Aeolian/Phrygian (scale root up 4th) Dorian (scale root up 5th) Ionian/Mixolidian/Phrygian Dorian/Aeolian/Mixolydian Phrygian/Ionian (1fret up from Phrygian)/Aeolian (same fret as Phrygian) Mixolydian/Dorian/Ionian Hopefully this helps someone understand modes and scales in a new way. I may get *a little* carried away posting about music sometimes, so take it for what it’s worth. Happy practice y’all...

  3645. musictheory 2019-02-20 15:06:39 GoodGuitarist
    This is a basic outline of some ideas that I feel help the most when you're first getting into it. This is the order in which I would approach this subject. 12 notes = 1 octave. It used to be divided by ratios (2/3rds of a string is a 5th, etc), but people eventually just divided it 12 ways equally. Pick any of those 12 to be root. Then, from that root note go up 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1. This is the formula for the major scale. You'll commonly see it as "wwhwwwh or ttsttts" this is covered extensively on google. Now that you have a major scale, forget about those 12 notes, just focus on these 7 notes that you've picked out using the "major scale formula". Oh yeah... Remember that root note you picked before? That's your key. Key of C is C D E F G A B C. You end up with 7 notes. The 1st and 2nd note have a certain amount of space between them. This is called an interval. Major 2nd, Minor 2nd, Perfect 5th, etc... these are all just interval names. Once again, you can look these sorta things up pretty easily. Take your C major scale and knock out a couple notes (let's take away F and B because they are right beside E and C, which makes the frequencies collide a bit causing "dissonance." By removing these 2 notes, we are left with 5. The C major pentatonic scale is born. C D E G A. If we take those same 5 notes, but start on A instead, we get A C D E G. This is the A minor pentatonic scale. Even though it's the same set of notes, we're focusing on a different "root." It doesn't mean you need to start and end on that note, it just means that note feels like "home" based on which notes are chosen and in which order etc (ie. music). Going back to C major scale, if we "focus" on any note other than C (choosing a different root out of the same group of notes) we get a bunch of different modes. The minor scale is technically a mode, but it has been explored so much that it gets special status. 7 notes, 7 possible root notes, 7 modes. &#x200B;

  3646. musictheory 2019-02-20 16:46:16 Jongtr
    As a guitarist myself, the way I like to understand it (and this goes way back to ancient Greece) is as beginning from divisions of a string - not divisions of the octave. After all, if you were to divide the octave in a way that seemed mathematically logical, you might go for 6 whole steps! (and then you'd wonder why it sounded weird....) Dividing the string simple fractions gives us the following: 1/2 = fret 12 2/3 = fret 7 3/4 = fret 5 Those are the "perfect" intervals - octave, 5th and 4th. Now we can start dividing up those two 5-fret spaces. As you can see, if we take that 5-7 fret space as a basic unit ("tone" or "whole step"), we can fit two and half of them into each 5-fret space. We end up with a 7-note scale - which is why the "4th", "5th" an "octave" ("8th") have those names to begin with. The thing is, those additional two notes between 0-5 and 7-12 can be positioned a fret one way or the other. We could space them 2-2-1, 1-2-2, or 2-1-2. So the 2nd and 3rd and 6th and 7th scale degrees are *variable*. They can be one fret lower ("minor") or higher ("major"). Here's the basic formula: HALF-STEPS/FRETS: | | | | | | | | | | | | | INTERVALS: P m-M m-M P P m-M m-M P SCALE DEGREES: 1 \2/ \3/ 4 5 \6/ \7/ 8 If we choose all the M (major) versions, along with the P (perfect ones), we get what we call the "major scale": HALF-STEPS/FRETS: | | | | | | | | | | | | | INTERVALS: P M M P P M M P SCALE DEGREES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 If we lower all except the 2, we get the "natural minor" scale: HALF-STEPS/FRETS: | | | | | | | | | | | | | INTERVALS: P M m P P m m P SCALE DEGREES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Other variants of the m-M options give us all the common "modes": mixolydian, dorian, phrygian. (Lydian and locrian require moving the P4 or P5 - raising or "augmenting" the P4 for lydian, lowering "diminishing" the P5 for locrian.) We can also take the natural minor scale and raise the 7th to make "harmonic minor", and the 6th as well to make "melodic minor": HALF-STEPS/FRETS: | | | | | | | | | | | | | HARMONIC MINOR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 INTERVALS: P M m P P m M P MELODIC MINOR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 INTERVALS: P M m P P M M P Notice we now get a big 3-semitone step from m6 to M7 in harmonic minor. This is known as an "augmented 2nd", because it's one bigger than major (measuring the distance from note to note in this case, not from the root). Obviously I'm not mentioning note names here - because they would change depending on where you started measuring those formulas from. The important rule here is that you need *one of each letter* - that governs how you use the sharps and flats (and you want to avoid double sharps or flats). Let's say we wanted a major scale starting on A#. Our second note would need to be two half-steps up, which is C. But now we have no B! We could call C "B#" (which is quite valid) but then the next note needs to be another two half-steps up. That would land us on D. Do we call that C##? Nope. We go back to our A# and call it Bb instead. Now it all works out and we get Bb C D Eb F G A - the Bb major scale.

  3647. musictheory 2019-02-20 21:54:31 ellblaek
    yeah dude there are five major pentatonic positions. play the scale on the low e string then write down their order then play the same order of notes but each time starting on a different note! so if the pentatonic notes are c maj ( c d e g a) and you label them 1 thru 5 then you have five interchangable scales 12345 c d e g a (maj pent) 23451 d e g a c 34512 e g a c d 45123 g a c d e 51234 a c d e g (min pent) all you have to do is learn the patterns over two octaves each and voila- you are now fluent in neckboard this can be done with any scale, mode or arpeggio

  3648. musictheory 2019-02-21 00:18:59 CapedSam
    O.k. but in your example if you had the power chords (F,C) (G,D) and (Bb F) and they are pedaling off of the open string E is that not E locrian if they don't play the B natural?

  3649. musictheory 2019-02-21 03:46:40 VideriQuamEsse
    Why didn't you write the title of the video in your comment?? This would be way higher if people could tell (before clicking the link) that this is *a heavy metal version of Shosty's String Quartet No. 8: Allegro Molto!!!!* Bad ass

  3650. musictheory 2019-02-22 01:12:36 blueleo
    I play a large number of instruments, have taken lessons on piano (14 years when I was young) 3 years each of 5 string banjo and harmonica (harmonica taught by a great blues player who lives in chicago). I am self taught in many others, am going to start lessons in a few weeks on saxophone. But guitar, ukulele, balalakia, pennywhistle, bagpipes (believe me, I should have taken lessons), various percussion, accordion,concertina, and no formal theory training, yes it is possible to teach yourself, but you need at least some background with a teacher to get started.`

  3651. musictheory 2019-02-22 11:47:22 clothmother
    Their guitars go as low as bass. They use 8-string guitars in drop-e tuning

  3652. musictheory 2019-02-22 16:05:05 GoldmanT
    >If I had to pick any set of things, it would be that contemporary orchestral music for the concert stage (excluding that which hearkens back or is homage, etc.) is primarily interested in "sonic attributes" of timbre and "sound events" (see heavy use of percussion below). Yep I recognise that. Out of interest I searched for some composition competitions, and the Basel and Geneva competitions seemed to come high in the searches, but listening to the winners they all sounded interchangeable, all using the same lack of regular pulse, glissandi and pitch bends on string/brass/wind instruments, percussion hits, pauses, fast runs of amelodic notes etc. If strictly tonal/functional music is like primary colours (and I can see why people might get bored of that) then too much dissonance is like that muddy grey/brown colour you get when you mix all the paints together (and I can see why people might think it all sounds the same). [Basel 1st prize](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYxGrS3TL1w) [Basel 2nd prize](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3CGofDbDnU) [Basel 3rd prize](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPSsHm7wxvg) [Geneva 1st prize](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPFzvVP7jSw) [Geneva 2nd prize](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvphGvDA_30) It reminds me of [this excellent post](https://www.reddit.com/r/piano/comments/alv5ya/is_webern_a_net_positive_or_negative_experience/efipr4z/) from u/yeargdribble (from which I derived the word 'wankposium', of which this will soon be the sole googleable example).

  3653. musictheory 2019-02-22 17:17:41 highbrowalcoholic
    What a cunt. I hope you made plenty of one-and-a-half-step string bends in your solos while staring at the pianist.

  3654. musictheory 2019-02-22 17:57:09 Jongtr
    8-string guitars. Looks like this will explain it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDxkLEBp19Q

  3655. musictheory 2019-02-23 02:27:39 goldilocks_
    Tosin uses a drop tuned 8 string so he can cover bass and guitar parts simultaneously

  3656. musictheory 2019-02-23 12:21:18 drunk_and_homeless
    I play baritone uke with a high d string specifically so I can voice major 7ths with the notes a semitone away from each other. I'm never mad about finding a dominant 7th or 9th chord with the notes a whole tone apart either.

  3657. musictheory 2019-02-24 03:00:30 ferniecanto
    I don't think harmony and chord progressions are the most essential elements of disco. Off the top of my head, I can notice a preference for minor keys and m7 chords. The strongest elements of disco relate to rhythm, instrumentation and production. Disco commonly uses a solid four-on-the-floor rhythm, i.e. a strong kick drum on all four beats. Funk employs sparse and more complex drumming, but disco maintains the pulse steady, while the other instruments (guitars, keyboards, strings and brass sections, etc.) work on more complex, syncopated rhythms. An open hi-hat on the "ands" (e.g. I Will Survive, Dancing Queen) helps a lot. Melodies are usually based on funk and blues, with a *very* sing-along chorus. Analog synthesizers, string and brass sections are very traditional in disco songs, so they can bring a familiar flavour. Production is often tight and dry, to emphasize the rhythm, with clean guitars, melodic bass lines and melodies that jump out at the listener.

  3658. musictheory 2019-02-24 07:00:46 65TwinReverbRI
    Exactly. Because the higher the notes you play, the fewer the overtones. It's not as "rich and full". Part of this has to do with our own hearing mechanisms. Overtones that define timbre exceed our range of hearing as the fundamental gets higher. But another part of it can be the instrument's construction. This is pretty much true of every instrument, though it's less noticeable on instruments that are either really high to begin with, or that don't have as many overtones to begin with. When you shorten the sounding length of a pipe, or string, you're actually cutting off more and more overtones as you go up, making the sound "mellower" or "less bright". Some instruments, like Piano, are more consistent over their range because they're using a different string for each note. But winds tend to use one sounding length for all the notes, which they shorten. It's more involved than this, but basically that's how it works - higher notes have less distinct timbres because we either can't perceive the overtones or the instrument doesn't produce them as the notes get higher.

  3659. musictheory 2019-02-24 13:41:36 Cello789
    Cortosia and InTune are good apps for this. The second one, InTune is like a game - plays two pitches and you decide if the second one was higher or lower (and swipe it up or down). The difference in pitch gets smaller and smaller as you go. If you can do this, you can learn intonation. If you can’t, then you’ve got some ear-training to do. If you can reliably hear which is higher or lower (on a very small scale, like 2%), then the issue is not recognizing intervals, so learn those. Not just minor chords, but minor thirds. And perfect fifths. Et cetera. I’ll assume you’re playing guitar based on some of how you described things in your original post, but if it’s another instrument, that could help us give you better advice too. Lastly, tune using harmonics and not frets (and definitely not an electric tuner, except to get your A string in tune. Or even better, use a tuning fork!)

  3660. musictheory 2019-02-24 15:18:54 0RGASMIK
    A few things number one tune by ear and correct yourself with a tuner detune and try again. Use a piano to tune or a tuning reference note. Another thing is to record yourself perfectly in tune and then play it gain slightly out of tune listen to how the two sounds clash/ phase. Get used to noticing that and fixing it. I haven’t played guitar in a long time but I can still tell when it’s out of tune just by how the notes clash. Unless you have perfect pitch you’ll always need a reference to tune to but once you’re good you’ll be able to tune midsong to anything. I haven’t played in a band for a long time but when I was I was able to telI if I was out of tune or if someone else was out of tune. It was to the point I could tell when the drummer needed to tune his drums which i didn’t even know was something that needed to be done until I mentioned they sounded weird. I didn’t see what instrument you play but I recommend using guitar or some string instrument to practice tuning.

  3661. musictheory 2019-02-25 00:49:38 notreallyme42069
    Only the major scale is used in naming intervals. The 2 in the major scale is a whole step above the 1, so that is a major 2nd. A minor interval is defined as a 1/2 step smaller than the major interval, not by the minor scale. That's the rather confusing method that I learned in high school music theory anyway. Say you're in the key of G and you want to know the distance between A and C. Pretend you're in the key of A major with 3 sharps - F#, C#, and G#. The C is sharp, so A to C# is a major 3rd, and therefore A to C, one 1/2 step smaller, must be a minor 3rd. I distinctly remember the entire class struggling with trying to understand this while me and one other student were able to name intervals easily and quickly. Our secret - we were guitar players, and we knew where the notes are on the fretboard. A major 3rd is up one string and down one fret, like G to B or E to G# or F to A, etc. Knowing most of the class didn't know guitar, I raised my hand and said "why don't you just count the half steps?" Pretty much everyone in the class liked my method better, and the teacher didn't like me very much after that. The point is, regardless of your instrument, it's easier IMO not to think about the major scale at all when naming intervals. They are defined by the distance, the number of half steps between them. The 1, 4, and 5 are perfect, so if it's 1/2 step smaller than perfect it is diminished and if it is a 1/2 step larger it is augmented. Everything else (2, 3, 6, and 7) is either major or minor, or diminished if a 1/2 step smaller than minor or augmented if a 1/2 step larger than major. Also - the distance between the letters tells you the number in the interval name: A to C is always a third, for example, whether that's Ab to C# (augmented 3rd) or A# to Cb (double-diminished 3rd) or whatever else. So, in your example above, the minor 2nd above C is Db. C to C# would be an augmented unison.

  3662. musictheory 2019-02-25 01:36:10 selloa
    some phones have a slowmo video function. you could record a string playing a note together with a timer, that counts small increments of time. choose a pitch that makes counting the vibrations easy. maybe like this you'll get a good estimate on what the frequency is?

  3663. musictheory 2019-02-25 09:44:23 notreallyme42069
    It comes from the major scale, which comes from the harmonic series. The harmonic series is a natural phenomena that occurs in a vibrating object. In addition to vibration with a wavelength of the entire string, it simultaneously vibrates with wavelength half, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 etc the length of the string to create a series of frequencies that a 2, 3, 4, 5x etc that of the lowest "fundamental" frequency. As a result, when we hear vibration we don't just hear one frequency, we also hear overtones, and when new pitches are made using the overtones from the first as the fundamental frequency for the new pitch, we get notes to start to fill in the major scale. The first pitches made by doing so, from the lowest and loudest overtones which are not octaves above the fundamental, create the perfect 5th and the major 3rd, so now you have 1,3, and 5 of the major scale. If you do the same thing starting a 5th higher than 1 you get 5, 7, and 2. Do the same thing a 5th lower than 1 and you get 4, 6, and 1. Put that all together and you have the major scale derived from the overtone series. If you did that you'd have a major scale that is similar to but not exactly what we have today. Today, the major scale consists of whole and half steps, all of which are identical to each other and with half steps exactly half of a whole step. Derived from the overtone series none of that would be exact. At some point in history a compromise was made where musicians decided that rather than trying to be exact and true to the overtone series, we would round everything off to whole and half steps for the practical reason of being able to build instruments that could play in any key. Whence, the chromatic scale was born.

  3664. musictheory 2019-02-25 09:51:08 pianistafj
    There are also imaginary tones and ringing tones that create a third tone should your C and A be perfectly in tune. String family and voice instruments are capable of producing these, as well as similar wind instruments. On a stringed instrument, the ringing tones will be audible. The C and A will likely cause your E string to vibrate. However, imaginary tones will always fill out a major chord, so if there are not sympathetic tones, you should hear imaginary tone should as an F.

  3665. musictheory 2019-02-25 11:45:41 65TwinReverbRI
    Your Tonic Triad is the "primary tonic". In the key of C, this would be a C chord. The "I" chord. This primary tonic has it's own primary dominant - G (or G7, etc.) - the dominant chord in our primary key of C. The G chord is "V". V is the dominant, I is the tonic. In the key of C, this is the G chord (V) and C chord (I). A "secondary dominant" is a dominant to one of the other chords in the key, that basically temporarily treats it as a tonic. Therefore, ii, or Dm in C, is not the "primary tonic". But it can be treated like a "secondary tonic" (or temporary tonic) by "applying" the V chord from the key of Dm. In fact, an older term is "Applied Dominant" - because you "apply it to" some other chord than the original tonic. That would be an A (A7) chord. So A7 is the "dominant chord of the tonic of Dm, but Dm is not the "primary" key nor is A7 the "primary" dominant - it's a "secondary dominant". We say, "it's the five of the key of the ii chord" and it's written like V/ii (spoken: "five of two"). Each chord that's capable of being a tonic chord, can have a dominant applied to it. That means, in any major key, a secondary dominant can be applied to ii, iii, IV, V, and vi. You can't have a secondary dominant of I, because that would be the primary dominant! And there's no such thing as "the key of X diminished" so a diminished chord can't be a Tonic. In C: G is primary dominant, V. A7 is a SD, V/ii - A is the V chord of the key of Dm (which is ii in C) B7 is a SD, V/iii - B is the V chord in the key of Em (which is iii in C) C7 is a SD, V7/IV - C is the V chord in the key of F (which is IV in C) (note: this one has to be a 7th chord to make it distinguishable from the regular tonic!) D7 is a SD, V/V - D is the V chord in the key of G (which is V in C) E7 is a SD, V/vi - E is the V chord in the key of Am (which is vi in C). In minor keys it works the same way, except there is no V/ii^o because a diminished chord can't be a tonic. But there's a V/bVII instead. So there's still the primary dominant (say, G in Cm) and 5 secondary dominants (that go to bIII, iv, v, bVI, and bVII). ____ The circle of 5ths is about Keys, not chord progressions. But, if you have a string of secondary dominants, they follow the same pattern as the circle of 5ths. When you have a string of Secondary dominant chords, the chord they resolve to can be another secondary dominant. Em - Am - Dm - G - C is a pattern of 4ths in C. Since V-I is a 4th pattern, any of those could be a secondary dominant. E7 - Am - Dm - G - C or Em - A7 - Dm - G - C or multiple ones: E7 - Am - D7 - G7 - C (remember, G or G7 is the primary dominant here). or even E7 - A7 - D7 - G7 - C. We call the E7 V7/vi because in C, it would resolve to Am, the vi chord. It doesn't matter that when it gets there the A7 is a secondary dominant itself (in the last example). So it's not like "five of the five of the five of the five" or something. We do V/vi that goes to V/ii that goes to V/V that goes to V. They are named for what they would go to (the chord that would be their [secondary] tonic, in the key) whether they actually go there or not.

  3666. musictheory 2019-02-25 18:30:53 Jongtr
    Just to add: The reason that the T and S duo was settled on was to do with some simple mathematics. This is where it helps if you are a guitar player, but should be understandable if not. (And yes I know the Greeks didn't have guitars... but they did know about mathematics...) If you take a stretched string and divide it in half, you get the octave - a 2:1 ratio. IOW - *this is the crucial point!* - the scale doesn't start by dividing the octave. It starts by dividing a string (or a pipe, or wood or metal bar, etc). The octave is the *first* division we make. On the guitar, the half-way point is marked by the 12th fret. (Yes, bear with me, we haven't decided on 12ths of an octave yet....) The next simple fraction is into 3rds. The Greeks observed (as no doubt other cultures had before) that strings divided in that 2:3 ratio sounded "harmonious". They didn't need to know anything about frequency or cycles per second, these were easy conclusions to make by experiment and listening. Now, what happens on a guitar when you divide a string into 3rds is you land on frets 7 and 19. I.e., the first division of the octave we get is into 7/12 and 5/12. Already it's irregular. (Fret 7 is 2/3 of the way between 0 and 12.) Fret 7 is the "perfect 5th" (and yes we still haven't decided it will be the 5th note of scale yet...). Go one further, into 3/4 of the string length, and we land on fret 5 (which is exactly half way between 0 and 12). So now we have an octave divided 0-5-7-12, marking the "perfect" intervals (unison, 4th, 5th, octave). The next step (roughly what the Greeks did) was to take that 5-7 fret space, call it a "tone", a basic scale step. And then see how many they could fit into those other two spaces (0-5, 7-12). It doesn't take a mathematical genius to see that you get two and a half in each. So you end up with a scale consisting of 5 tones and 2 semitones. And its all been done by following the pleasing sounds of simple ratios. I.e., it's mathematical, but only because the math *sounds good.* (The Greeks concluded that God must be a mathematician because of this magical alignment between purity of sound and simplicity of number - and they went to a whole philosophy of the "harmony of the spheres", believing the planets themselves made inaudible music...) In fact, the Greek system also included quarter tones in some of their modes, which did not survive into the simplified medieval modal system. But the idea of the fixed perfect intervals (1, 4, 5, 8), and the movable minor-major ones (2, 3, 6, 7) is one that does survive, in all the common modes and scales on which our music is based. (Only Lydian, now very rare, involves moving on of the perfect intervals, raising the 4th. Locrian involves lowering the 5th, but is not generally used to make whole pieces of music from.) However, it was inevitable - as 65TwinReverbRI outlines - that experimentation with the 7-note scales (especially the desire to *transpose* some of them) would involve dividing up some of those tones into semitones, and therefore introduce flats and sharps.

  3667. musictheory 2019-02-25 19:47:37 bullymamm0th
    Chord shapes will look something like this: e \|-|o|-|x|x| B \|-|x|x|-|x| G |x|x|-|x|-| D \|-|x|-|o|-| A \|-|x|-|x|x| E \|-|o|-|x|x| o=root note, x=other notes I don't know if you can read tablature but I'll try to tab out what an Am scale would look like (hopefully the formatting is okay and you're not on mobile) e--------------------------------------(5)---- B-------------------------------5-6-8-------- G------------------------4-5-7--------------- D------------------5-(7)---------------------- A-----------5-7-8---------------------------- E--(5)-7-8----------------------------------- Root notes (A) are in parentheses. Try playing eighth notes from the first A on the low E string (5th fret) to the A on the D string (7th fret) and back down. A really good introduction would be to learn the pentatonic scale and add the new notes in as you get more comfortable: e-----------------------------------(5)-8- B-----------------------------5-8-------- G-----------------------5-7-------------- D---------------5-(7)-------------------- A---------5-7---------------------------- E--(5)-8--------------------------------- I would suggest learning the pentatonic scale front and back, once you get used to it you'll be able to develop different picking patterns and licks. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions or need more help.

  3668. musictheory 2019-02-25 20:47:19 bbbbenjamin
    Lots of detailed answers here, my advice: 1) Learn the major scale (start in C) and write down the notes on a piece of paper 2) Look up the chords in the key of C major (notice how they reflect the notes of the scale but alternate between major, minor, minor, major, major, minor, diminished), also note down 3) play the chords in order and hear how you are playing the major scale 4) look up common chord progressions (in numeral form) and play with the chords you have just noted, I V vi V is a common start 6) apply all the above to other keys as you wish This is just chords progressions and you can go a lot deeper. You could also start to find the relative minor for you progressions and use the pentatonic minor to make riffs. The easiest way to do this is below: 1) Say you are starting in the key of C, find C on your guitar (E string 8th fret) 2) Move down three frets - now you are on A, this is your relative minor. A minor will work great with a C major chords progression. Moving down three frets from a major will always give you the relative minor. Again, you can take this deeper as time goes on. Apologies for the horrible formatting, I’m on my mobile

  3669. musictheory 2019-02-26 16:13:07 disposar
    Thanks! I tried that yesterday and it worked. Well, i dont want to sound like I never tried that before, I always fuck around and adding removing fingers, hammer-ons/pull-offs.. but yesterday I tried to actually make something that got.. i dont know.. melody? I tried to work on picking style so the bass string was more rhythmical and the rest played simple melody. Wasnt that bad. Im starting to believe that someday I will be really able to make a song :D

  3670. musictheory 2019-02-27 00:17:53 Orsonius2
    I wrote them on a paper. basically my motivation comes from the way I tuned my guitar (D# A# D# G# C F) And the whole sharp vs flat thing is very weird for me because I understand notes more by their sound than by their description so I don't see a difference between a D# and an Eb even though I understand for theory there is some purpose to it. https://i.gyazo.com/7d337684f8a28c5eb36db1b1bfcb8e75.png here is basically how I went about that lead me to this question. I wrote down the key on each fret on my 2 lowest strings and then I realized that all the first 6 modes with the base of D#/Eb correspond with 6 modes of A# the second lowest string I have. After I realized this pattern reoccurring after I did this for the first 3 modes on my lowest string (D#) I thought this must be true for all of them, but then it wasn't because of the flat 5 on Locrian. I then wondered why the modes aren't in a way that 7 of them could work this way if 6 did. But I understand now that it has to do with something that I didn't understand (how all relate to the Major scale of each note)

  3671. musictheory 2019-02-27 01:20:00 Orsonius2
    > They do! -es is the suffix for flat, and -is is for sharps. I heard of them but some words sound weird so I wasnt sure. I never had music in school past elementary school because we didnt have any teachers... Ais and Aes sound weird to be honest >But what would happen if we didn't close it off with a diminished fifth and just kept stacking perfect fifths? Well, then we would make the "circle of fifths," like so: F-C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#-D#-A#-E#. So if we don't close off our circle with a tritone, our next stop is just the full chromatic scale.* is that why guitars are tuned the way they are? when you go from E to A to takes 5 steps then from A to D 5 again, then from D to G 5 but then it gets weird because it goes from G to B which is only 4 steps while the last is 5 again, which makes octave chords weird, at first you only need to stretch over 2 frets but once you get to the third string you have to stretch 1 fret more.

  3672. musictheory 2019-02-27 02:02:08 nmitchell076
    You know, I have never thought about that, but it does seem to be operating under a similar principle! The goal is to stack as many perfect fourths as possible, but to get back to E by the time you reach the 6th string, so as a result one of your strings has to be "almost, but not quite a 4th" above another one!

  3673. musictheory 2019-02-27 03:58:29 omegacluster
    My opinion on it is that it's very ambivalent depending on the context. If P4 is there as an inverted P5, it is very consonant, but if it is intended as a P4, it can sound quite jarring. I believe this is due to the fact that the P4 ratio doesn't appear in the first few and most important string harmonics, therefore clashing with the tonic despite its simple ratio to it. As such quartal harmony exploits the tonal ambiguity provided by P and A4s. This brings me to another point. Consonance is highly subjective and has greatly evolved since even the 1900s. Today, much more of what we call dissonances are used quite generously, so they are slowly losing their edge and becoming more and more accepted, thus becoming consonant. The P4 has gone through this long ago and is generally accepted as consonant despite its ambiguity.

  3674. musictheory 2019-02-27 04:08:50 Cello789
    Cellist here. Dissonant. P5ths are easy to play in tune by ear, listening for beats, etc, across strings. Tuning in 5ths is equally easy. Playing perfect 4ths, even if tuned in 4ths (bass, etc) is not easy. You say this is because we’re more used to hearing 5th, but I say we’re equally used to hearing 4ths vs 10ths and those are far easier to find by ear. In terms of math, not sure if this has been covered, on mobile so didn’t read every comment, **4THS ARE NOT NATURAL** as in they are not low on the harmonic order of overtones. As a string player I’m very familiar with the overtone series and the playable harmonics on my strings. Bowing any string on my cello, I get, in order of strength, octave (half the string), 12th (P5 above octave), 15th (second octave), 17th (natural major 3rd above that octave), 19th (P5 in that octave), b21 (dominant 7th) and lastly another octave. Beyond that, they certainly exist, but with the length of a cello string and the thickness of a human finger, they’re almost impossible to cleanly hit without hitting another as well. That gives, for the D string, the following notes: D, D, A, F#, A, C, D, E (barely). There is no G harmonic on the D string. No 4th. Now, that means (to me) that the interval is naturally dissonant without context. Anything can be made to sound consonant in a context though, like having dominant 7s in all chords of a jazz tune, etc. &nbsp; Why are guitarists always tuning? Sounds like a joke, but 4ths are not forgiving, small margin for error. With consonant tones (3,5,6 especially) they can be slightly off either way and end up sounding “close enough.” Not true for octaves, but that has more to do with the overtones of the lower tone being in unison with the fundamental of the upper tone. Try to tune a synth with sine oscillators (no overtone) and even a perfect octave is a bit trickier by ear.

  3675. musictheory 2019-02-27 04:16:36 Cello789
    Interesting about minor 3rds not being in the overtone series. Before the advent of equal temperament (like 3 strings per piano key), organs had 1 pipe per note, and people would tune to the organ (when playing in a room with one). Songs in D Major had a different “feel” than Ab Major, because the intervals were actually different. in d minor we get the f as the note that when sounded gives the 5th overtone to match the 7th of the root. So the harmonic (c) on a D string (cello) is pretty darn close to the harmonic (c) you’d get from the 5th of an F string (or a string stopped at F) so you tune around until the *harmonic* matches, not the fundamental. Does that make it dissonant? Bach seemed to think so... Especially in D minor, which was apparently the most horribly dissonant sounding key to play in before equal temperament. At least on organs (which can still be heard today). If you listen to Bach’s Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor on an organ, and could convince someone to transpose it to A Minor and record on the same organ, the intervals would be mathematically different, and it would be slightly more consonant in places. (Depending on the organ in which city, of course).

  3676. musictheory 2019-02-27 04:38:38 -x-x-checkers
    > In terms of math, not sure if this has been covered, on mobile so didn’t read every comment, **4THS ARE NOT NATURAL** as in they are not low on the harmonic order of overtones. As a string player I’m very familiar with the overtone series and the playable harmonics on my strings. Curious, why don't you consider intervals given between interior members of the harmonic series to be "in" the harmonic series? E.g. a 3:4 is given by the third and fourth elements in the series. No right or wrong answer I suppose, just wondering if this helps with some other conceptions. > Why are guitarists always tuning? Sounds like a joke, but 4ths are not forgiving, small margin for error. With consonant tones (3,5,6 especially) they can be slightly off either way and end up sounding “close enough.” Not true for octaves, but that has more to do with the overtones of the lower tone being in unison with the fundamental of the upper tone. Is the relative tuning of strings by fourth relevant? I think they typically tune by unison, holding appropriate frets or playing harmonics. Could be wrong, I don't play with a lot of guitarists. > Try to tune a synth with sine oscillators (no overtone) and even a perfect octave is a bit trickier by ear. Yeah, messing around with sine wave intervals is really eye opening. &#x200B;

  3677. musictheory 2019-02-27 04:51:44 Cello789
    Any string instrument goes out of tune as you play it and the strings stretch or tuners settle, etc. guitarists tune multiple times per session (or at least much more often than a violinist or cellist). I think it has to do with 4ths tuning. The G and B are hardest to intonate because it’s a B instead of C string which tends the instrument toward either the B (a third) or the G (4ths). As for intervals between the harmonics, sure, I guess those numbers exist, but if you play a D, you hear (naturally without playing harmonics) those overtones. You don’t hear a G. There’s a 4th between the A and the next octave, though, right?? So there’s a 4th! But if you play an A, you don’t get an overtone on a D, that only happens because you were playing a D in the first place... That’s why I don’t care about the intervals between the harmonics. If you play a C Major chord on a piano, CEGC full with the octave, you get a 4th between the G and the C, but do you also hear a minor third in between the E and the upper C? I doubt it... is it mathematically a minor 6th? Yes. Functionally? No. Because the lowest note (c) has all of the others as harmonics, so it is perceived as the “root” note. Keep in mind, I’m not strictly talking about consonance, but also natural sounds that exist outside our compositions. If you hit a street lamp with a stick, it makes a pitch, right? And it has overtones. But not the 4th (unless it’s a weird shaped pipe maybe...) When wind blows past a hollow tree that some animal burrowed a hole into, it whistles. Same thing. Depending on the speed of the wind, you get different overtones (like an overblown flute). You won’t get a 4th above the fundamental. Look at fingering charts for brass instruments, same thing. You can play a 4th *melodically* and have it sound ok, I think. But a 4th above the root of a chord sounds unstable because it’s either inverted, dissonant, or suspended. C-F-A has a 4th but it’s not stable. The lowest note doesn’t produce an overtone that matches the other notes. Yes, the F produces a C that should also be in the C series, but that’s what makes the F the root note. Sorry for rambling and formatting, mobile still!

  3678. musictheory 2019-02-27 05:46:52 mayoayox
    Something that's interesting to me is that for almost all the harmonics on a guitar string, they rest in the same place as the note (ignoring octaves). So the octave harmonic can be struck on the 12th fret, the five harmonic on the 7th fret, and the major three harmonic on the 4th fret. The twist comes when we go to the fifth fret (which is where the four is on a guitar when the open string is the root), I would expect a 4th but instead we hear the second octave up, which is the third harmonic you mentioned.

  3679. musictheory 2019-02-27 05:52:08 Cello789
    You’re “cutting” the string in half at the 12th fret (or killing the fundamental and allowing both halves to resonate independently as they normally do, but killing other harmonics in the process). At the 7th fret, I think you cut the string at 1/3 (so 1/3 on one side of your finger and 2/3 the string on the other, as you see 2:3 ratio in other posts here). At the 5th fret you’re at 1/4, and 3/4 on the other side. This is half of half. If you stop the string in the 6th fret, so the 5th fret is also touching behind the finger, and pluck the string between your finger and the nut? You get that same octave as if you’d done 24th fret. Should be the exact same fretted pitch. Basically, I think all the harmonics are the note BEHIND the finger, on the nut side instead of bridge side. Not sure why... maybe someone from r/physics can help haha

  3680. musictheory 2019-02-27 08:19:35 65TwinReverbRI
    > Say you’re out with some musician friends and they start playing a song but you don’t want to interrupt to ask for the key Fuck that, they're my friends, I shout "what key" :-) It's harder for me to tell you because I can look at a guitarist, bassist, or keyboard player and see what notes they're playing ;-) As a, let's say "mature" professional, what I'd now do is listen to the song without playing. I'd let it go through a pass - especially if a typical 4 chord song, and see what it does and if it sounds major or minor, and which of the chords sounds like the tonic (often the first of the cycle). Then, with the knowledge of whether I think it's major or minor or not, I would just try a note - a somewhat educated guess but even a wild guess. Now remember, I have decades of playing experience doing this and am familiar with tons of forms and progressions and styles, so I'm going to notice pretty quickly if it's a typical 12 bar shuffle, or a I-IV-V country song and so on (I'm not going to try this on a jazz tune though mind you, or some prog rock tune which needs to be played correctly). Then I'll just narrow it down from there. Usually I'll close, and then move closer, then have it. Sometimes I luck out and get it on the first or 2nd try. I have to say, the reason I'm good at doing this is that this is how I learned to play guitar - I turned on the radio every night and played along with the songs. There was no re-winding of the radio in those days. If you didn't get the song, you had to wait until tomorrow when it might be played again. I tended to find out chord progressions first, then would know the key in order to improvise, but sometimes I would just noodle around until I found it from a melody standpoint. Now, of course I had records I could replay, and cassette tapes you could rewind, but I would just often put on something and try to play over every song. I easily spent at least an hour a night doing that - sometimes more. There were days on the weekend when I was a kid that I literally played from the time I woke up until I went to bed. I forgot to eat a couple of times. That really served me well in later life because now I can hear a pop song on the radio and know the chord progression and often identify the tonic without ever touching an instrument. But on stage, on the fly, I need enough information to narrow things down - a pass through to get the general changes - but like I say, I'm generally in a position where I can see what everyone's playing (though those damn 5 string basses still mess me up!) and catch up pretty quickly. FWIW, for me, this all came from learning songs and leads and riffs by ear. I noodled and tried to make solos, sure, but I also spent a lot of time learning how to play the real song and real solo etc. and that made me more familiar with the sounds of keys and which chords were which and so on. I'm not going to say I'm great at it - I have colleagues that will kick my butt. But I think that sitting down with a song and learning it, and learning any riffs or solos, on the fly, trial by fire, made me get used to really listening to what's going on and helped me be able to narrow things down more quickly. Ear training of course helps with this as, if you play a note, you might go "wow, that's like a 5th away rather than a 2nd" so those are good skills to have too.

  3681. musictheory 2019-02-27 11:21:01 Cello789
    When you fret 12, your finger goes between 11/12 right? You pluck near the bridge and get an octave. If you fret between 12/13 and pluck near the nut, you also get an octave, right? Now try where another harmonic is, but fret it, pluck near the bridge. Then fret one past it (so the string stops at the same point) and pluck near the nut.

  3682. musictheory 2019-02-27 15:48:11 The_Original_Gronkie
    Consider taking up a string instrument - violin, cello, or bass. Orchestra directors always need more string players. Strings are the backbone of the orchestra, and there is great music composed by the greatest composers for solo and for every combination you can think of. In addition, a lot if schools have instruments you can borrow until you figure out if you're in love with it. They will try to talk you into viola, because they always need violas most of all, but just say no. The harder they push, the harder you say no. Stand your ground. Be prepared to walk away. The viola is a nice enough instrument, but it, and the music composed for it, is boring. And before you violists jump down my throat, save it. I dont want to hear it. 90% of all violists would have taken up another instrument if they could do it all over. We all know it. BTW, the same goes for the baritone horn. Just say no. Being in the band and/or orchestra is a blast. Have fun.

  3683. musictheory 2019-02-28 02:05:02 brain_damaged666
    so like strings and anything with pitch vibrates in a certain way. theres a fundamental pitch, but also higher pitches (harmonics) which vibrate at multiples of the fundamental so if you have a 100hz string, youll also hear pitches (at softer and varying volumes) at 200hz, 300hz, 400hz, etc. literally just multiplied 1,2,3... and so on. tambre, characteristic of a sound, us what results. also, these can be slightly out of tune. like short strings tend to go sharp on the harmonics, like an upright piano or guitar and all these harmonics are ratios to the fundamental. 200hz/100hz =2/1 which is the interval of an octave. then its 3/2, the 5th. then 4/3, the fourth. then 5/4, the third. so theres an embedded major chord in the harmonic series. actually, you can derive a major pentatonic scale from the harmonic series (however the 6th in the pentatonic scale is really flat from the harmonic series. a b7 is actually a bit closer. dominant chords sound really close to the first 7 harmonics to me). this is probably why the pentatonic scale is so universal in music. most all music systems around the world with pitch usually are pentatonic based, plus some extra notes. another thing to note is that powers yield the same sort of note/pitch class, going up in octaves. let me explain powers of two give all octaves. this just means doubling the fundamental, which just increases the octave. 100 200 400 800 1600 powers of 3 are all 5ths. 100 300 600 900 1200 powers of 4 are octaves again powers of 5 are thirds. 100 500 1000 1500 and again power of 6 are fifths. prime numbers yield new notes/pitch classes Youll notice that as you climb up the harmonic series, the pitches seem to sound closer and closer together. but youre increasing up by the same amount of hz every time. like in the example im using, its 100 each time. 100, 200, 300 so why does it sound like theyre getting closer together, like were inching up slower slower, even though its a straight linear pattern? well humans hear logarithmicaly. Our ears hear all those powers of x i was talking about earlier. if i listen to a note, then go up one octave over and over, up and up, to me it sounds like its just going up a step at a time. the same distance each time. but its actually doubling every time, its actually an exponential growth. but it sounds linear to me. its strange to think about

  3684. musictheory 2019-02-28 03:37:17 adoriandoorway
    Empty Pocket Blues by The Incredible String band is a favorite of mine with the bVI appearing in the verses

  3685. musictheory 2019-02-28 03:50:11 metalliska
    >Are there many composers from the last hundred years who incorporated a regular drum set into an orchestral piece? I'd suspect not. The Drum Set has been added on piece by piece each decade (roughly). Ride cymbals in the 30s. Chinas in the 80s. Splashes in the 20's; cowbells via prescription. >Are there any musical or practical reasons Definitely. Name me a good composer who learned drumkit as their first instrument. Most composers and musicians lack the dexterity (or discipline to learn) to play using all 4 limbs. Thus, they might reinforce their writing as such. I'd suspect most composers learn on piano or strings, and might incorporate those ideas more often. Another thing to consider is the posture of the audience. Most orchestral music is intentionally boring to keep mosh pits from forming. Audiences which crowdsurf might run into difficulty with such cushiony chairs, gowns, and tuxedos prominent with a large string section.

  3686. musictheory 2019-02-28 04:16:45 GoldmanT
    >Name me a good composer who learned drumkit as their first instrument. Frank Zappa. ;) Explains why he was comfortable incorporating a drum kit without necessarily giving it 'rock' patterns though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjrnFsca5jY#t=2m13s In fact I think what I've been aiming for is that rock and jazz drumming has a focus on the 2 and the 4 in a way that classical music never really has, it's much more focused on the 1. So if you put a rock beat behind some Beethoven or Mozart it immediately seems to devalue it in some way. And if you add an orchestra to a rock setup then it just sounds like something you could do with one keyboardist. It's difficult to play a drum kit without dropping into the standard rock/jazz patterns, although Trout Mask Replica proves it can be done. [And string sections can mosh](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc0uwHCXDtA)

  3687. musictheory 2019-02-28 06:01:34 metalliska
    > that's enough difference in my mind to prove my point. Definitely. That's like telling an opera singer to waver mid-note. Or a guitarist to pitch bend. > They're usually a fair amount bigger than a kick drum. I think the problem is you have set in your brain what a "kick drum" is. Most on /r/drums never call it a kick drum but instead a bass drum; be it 18, 22, 24, 26, or larger. >Is that common? Not really, but Evans [has varieties](https://www.musiciansfriend.com/accessories/evans-calftone-drum-head) and Remo [does as well](https://www.remo.com/products/drumheads/concert/) most large bass drum heads can't be found in store anyway if you have a specific fabric in mind. >Tremolos are a really common, standard, and necessary part of orchestral bass drum technique I think you and I have now discovered how far behind orchestral drumming is and why. If you haven't attended a Taiko concert I highly urge you do so. I suspect it's mostly western-europe string players who might not have much experience in international rhythms.

  3688. musictheory 2019-02-28 08:16:40 reckless150681
    Understanding the overtone series requires a little bit of science and physics - it's a little less than you may think. In the most general terms, the overtone series is a phenomenon that occurs in natural, acoustic instruments due to the way that the excitation of the vibrating medium is imperfect. In other words, we can't perfectly strum a guitar, or vibrate a reed, or whatever. Even if we did, material properties would make the materials vibrate at some resonances even if you weren't literally delivering an exact frequency. The easiest one to think of is a string. Imagine a guitar string. This string is pinned at both ends - one end at the bridge, the other at the nut. Every musical string in the world has a similar setup. With that in mind, what is the most basic way for this string to vibrate? The answer is...pretty trivial. There would be [one hump](http://hep.physics.indiana.edu/~rickv/sw_1.gif), or antinode. A node is where the amplitude of the string is 0; an antinode is where the amplitude is maximized. This is called the fundamental because it is the simplest way for the string to vibrate. You might see that within the two pinned ends, you get half a wavelength. Not terribly useful for now, but let's move on. So what's the second most simple way for a string to vibrate? Well, for the fundamental we had zero nodes (excluding the end nodes). One might think that the second harmonic (as it's called. It's also known as the first overtone, because it's the first one that's over the fundamental) would have *one* node, or thereby giving you a full wavelength within the end pins. It's better to think of overtones as having a multiple of half-wavelengths, so the second harmonic would have two half-wavelengths, or double the frequency of the fundamental. This pattern continues; the third overtone has three half-wavelengths and is triple the fundamental frequency, the fourth has four half-wavelenghts and quadruple the fundamental, so on and so forth. You'll notice that each overtone is **an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency**. In other words, if my string's fundamental is 100 Hz, then the possible overtones are 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, etc. This sort of pattern can be expanded into wind instruments. I won't go into details because it's a little outside the purview of this answer, but if you're interested I can really delve deeply into it (wind instruments have three categories. Two of those categories basically are the same as strings, but one of them is 100% NOT). Now this is the most important part. A string will vibrate at its fundamental frequency **AND A SPECIFIC, INFINITE COMBINATION OF OVERTONES AT THE SAME TIME.** In other words, a string that has 100 Hz as its fundamental will exhibit 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 etc. Hz at the SAME TIME. This here is due to the imperfect excitation I mentioned above. If you imagine my guitar pick, each time I put the pick on my string I'm essentially creating another boundary condition where I'm forcing the amplitude to be 0. If my string is only capable of vibrating at specific frequencies (in other word, I cannot force a vibration at 150 or 110 or 12375721 Hz), how do I accommodate for this fact that I can pluck the string anywhere? The answer is this thing called superposition. It turns out, if I pluck at a certain distance from the bridge, I am causing a wave with a half-wavelength of that distance. The string will vibrate at a multiple of the fundamental that contains a half-wavelength close to that distance, in addition to the fundamental. Depending on how imperfect that distance is, there will be different amounts of other harmonics as well. This is why picking a guitar closer to the bridge is twangier and closer to the neck is mellower. The closer to the bridge you get, the shorter you're forcing the wavelength to be; the farther you get, the more you allow the wavelength to be longer. This results in more higher frequencies and lower frequencies, respectively. Why don't we hear these infinite amounts of frequencies? It's mostly psychoacoustic. Our ear is very, very good at picking out a fundamental, especially if it recognizes a harmonic series. If you were to generate a bunch of pure sine waves that form the harmonic series, then took out the fundamental, we would still "hear" the fundamental despite it not actually being there - this is how didgeridoos work. So we'll only *hear* the fundamental, but the other harmonics form the tone. The specific amplitudes of each harmonic are what define the tone and timbre. This is how we're able to tell the difference between a trombone and trumpet playing the same instrument. At any rate, then you assign each frequency its equivalent note name. Let's take A110 (two octaves below tuning A). Its harmonic series, then, would be: - 110 - 220 - 330 - 440 - 550 - 660 - 770 - 880 - 990 If you give each frequency its name, then you have: - A2 - A3 - E4 - A4 - C#5 - E5 - flat G5 - A5 - B5 and so on. We can generalize this series by just saying what their intervals are in between each harmonic: - Unison - Octave - Fifth - Fourth - M3 - m3 - flat m3 - sharp M2 - M2 You'll notice a few things. Firstly, you can extract a weirdly-tuned dominant 7 chord in just the first few harmonics, and definitely a major chord in even fewer harmonics. Strictly speaking, if you keep going on infinitely, you can get all 12 chromatic notes, but realistically we can only hear the first few. Anyway, that's an overview. I'll leave you with [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC9Qh709gas). Remember that the singer is constantly producing the fundamental - she's only changing the content of the harmonic series above it.

  3689. musictheory 2019-02-28 20:00:50 Jongtr
    1. Reverb (lots of it, and big). 2. Slow tempo 3. Sustained string sounds (probably a synth patch) 4. Plenty of low frequencies (strong bass). 5. Prominent minor chords. (1) is really the most important factor for the mood of this track. Reverb is a standard studio effect, but it's used (one might say) to excess here, to create a huge sense of cavernous space. It makes the sounds seem more portentous and doomy, especially the low ones. The minor chords do help with the moodiness of course, especially because the longest one has both 7th and 9th added. The Cm9 in the 2nd bar is not the key chord in a tonal sense (which is G minor / Bb major overall), but is "key" to the mood, for the way the sequence briefly lingers on it. The C7/E in the 4th bar (of intro and verse sequence) is an interesting deviation from the key, suggesting F or Fm might be the key, but it's just a non-resolving secondary dominant (returning to the opening Gm7).

  3690. musictheory 2019-03-01 00:24:34 markjohnstonmusic
    Dude, classical music has been incorporating new and exotic elements since there was classical music. Name a tradition and I'll point you in the direction of a composer who has used it. And what do you mean by "underwhelming" here? Mozart is only behind Mahler chronologically. The quality of the music isn't dependent on whether there's a kitchen department in its orchestration. Otherwise you'd have to justify not including claves in your string quartet.

  3691. musictheory 2019-03-01 00:33:27 metalliska
    > tradition and I'll point you in the direction of a composer who has used it. awesome. [this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig5nf5KXdw4) [or this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA_3g8zgMf0) > Otherwise you'd have to justify not including claves in your string quartet. I don't think of it as a justification. I think of it as breaking the mold of what came before. Because that's also unreasonable, given that when writing any aspect of music, you only have your familiar tools with which to present a work / piece. But I'd also argue that quality is subjective which is why people make music in the first place. >underwhelming Basically breaking no new ground. Combining elements of same-old-same-old. Underwhelming, too, is just an aspect of my subjective taste. But this might resemble meaning: Oversized String Section, 2 rows of brass, 8 clarinets, one timpani. I'd say it would be able to transmit more hidden messages (such as diction or rhythms) by using more polyrhythms between people instead of 8 cellists playing 2 notes over one another.

  3692. musictheory 2019-03-01 01:01:48 markjohnstonmusic
    This is such an absurdly simplified mischaracterisation of classical music that it's clear you don't actually know any classical music, from which it follows that it's not worth telling you what's wrong with your arguments, since you'd know yourself if you did your homework. Suffice it to say that everything you say was challenged, overturned, revolutionised, or abandoned a century ago. And you're missing my point about claves in a string quartet. I'll state it more clearly: you're confusing form and content. Further, I can't listen to your links and tell you which composer worked with those specific traditions because I'm on my mobile in a museum. But you demanding specific examples smacks of deliberately looking past the general argument I was making (by means of a rhetorical device) because you want to prove me wrong. Why don't you do that research? Even if it turns out those are virgin fields, you'll undoubtedly learn a lot more by searching yourself.

  3693. musictheory 2019-03-01 05:20:21 orangebikini
    When playing guitar you often need to sacrifice certain notes of the chord to get the voicing you want and the 5th is usually the first one to go, since it's arguably the most boring one. If you want to voice the root on top, like in the first diagram, you just have to lose the fifth. It's really normal, many voicings do things like that. Like if you're playing a C9 or a C7b9 or a C7#9 on the 5th lowest string you'd do the same, lose the fifth. Also often playing chords like C13 on the fattest string you'd not voice the 5th either. If you think about it, C7 only needs the C, E and Bb to be a C7. The 5th doesn't matter.

  3694. musictheory 2019-03-01 06:17:25 all-thethings
    Just for clarity - are you looking at playing something like xx2x13 into xx3x24, low E string left? There's a concept called **appogiatura**, where a note overshoots its destination by step and then resolves. It can apply to chords as well. Also, check out **chord planing**. I'm not sure why the person used a drop 2 voicing, but that's likely not relevant. By "passing chord", I'd think of the second chord in x32010 x5543x x7555x. The other chords are just variants of C chords, while the middle chord is just serving as a few notes to get to the next chord. The specific inversion, second inversion triad, is called a passing 6/4 chord in this context, 6/4 indicating the distance between the bass and fifth/root, respectively. I would check out non-chord tones if interested, but as these are mostly ornaments/connectors, I'd make sure to understand how to use chord tones tastefully within a song first. The non-chord tones are glue to the foundation of chord tones.

  3695. musictheory 2019-03-01 10:02:39 65TwinReverbRI
    >A guitar isn't tonally linear so most chords are going to not be sequential. HUH? You know I was talking with about 10,000 other guitarists my whole life and not one of them has brought this up. You're WAY over-thinking it, especially if you're concocting these kind of statements that have no bearing in anything. An INVERSION is simply which note is the lowest sounding note of the chord, and yes they make sense. How the notes of the chord are distributed otherwise is called "voicing". If you play the low open E string with that same A chord you posted, you now have an inverted chord - it's A/E or an A chord in 2nd inversion, because the 5th of the chord (E) is now the lowest sounding note. If you don't play the 5th string, you're also playing an A/E because E is again now the lowest-sounding note. It's all about what the lowest sounding notes is when you're talking inversions. Play a C Major chord and include the low E - you know have C/E or a C chord in First Inversion. So yes, inversions do make sense. G - D/F# - Em or C - G/B - Am are two EXTREMELY common chord progressions on guitar. In each example, the 2nd chord is in First Inversion. What's less applicable to guitar, and especially pop guitar is *voice-leading* and to some degree retaining consistent voicing structures because the limitations of the instrument mean some voicings are just not possible. Thus we constantly move between 6 note, 5 note, 4 note, etc. voicings and so on with little concern of where actual parts lead.

  3696. musictheory 2019-03-01 10:14:09 BirdBruce
    Consider guitar chord voicings not in the abstract, but rather the context of each chord within the over all progression. For example, in the key of G, a I-vi-IV-V works well using all open chord voicings largely because of the motion of the high E string, which lands on the leading tone before resolving. In contrast, let’s suppose you’re playing barre chords (for whatever reason, key is unimportant), and want to move from a IV chord to a borrowed iv chord. The only difference is a half-step movement in the 3rd, so it probably won’t doesn’t make any sense to move to a different voicing, since the pull and the drama of that chromatic movement is the reason to use the borrowed chord in the first place.

  3697. musictheory 2019-03-01 10:38:29 jtizzle12
    Theory is theory regardless of the instruments and applies to piano, guitar, bass, horns, every melodic instrument. An inversion is just where you place the root in context of everything else. If you play a C chord (cowboy x3201x) chord, and add the open low E string (03201x) it's an inversion. I don't get the question you're asking. The example you're giving is of a root position A cowboy chord. But what's your question? Is it that the third is not exactly a third above the root? That doesn't matter. Voicing does not mean anything in the context of the chord type. An A chord is an A chord whether you're playing x0221x or x4765x. Inversions are just a way to facilitate playing a chord in a certain position so the voice leading makes sense and, on a piano for example, don't have to jump all over the place to play GBD then down to CEG.

  3698. musictheory 2019-03-01 11:33:54 notreallyme42069
    If you mean "inversions" as taught on piano than no, because the guitar is not the piano. If you mean "inversions" un the general sense than yes, because the guitar is a polyphonic instrument so the same general principal applies. If you play the open A chord and let the open low E string ring out, for example, that sounds different than muting the low E string and keeping the A in the bass.

  3699. musictheory 2019-03-01 11:46:30 MeButNotMeToo
    Using a capo isn’t playing in a different key. You can play in C-Major with or without a capo. I can grab a 6th or a 5th string C2 in any key, but that C-G 5th will be the same width regardless of what key you’re in. And it will be the same width as the G-D 5th, regardless of the key you’re in. Equal Temperament has stripped the color differences between the keys. There are plenty of videos out there with pianos tuned to different temperaments. You can even buy guitars with squiggly frets to get a Meantone Temperament. A guitar in meantone: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E0pUt_Wvht0 Two comparisons between classical pieces in their original temperament vs modern EDO: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vri-3kXv-tc https://youtu.be/TBt6APk21tU

  3700. musictheory 2019-03-01 13:03:06 PM_ME_UR_TRIBULATION
    I think it is time to bring this pun string to a resolution

  3701. musictheory 2019-03-02 04:44:54 MeButNotMeToo
    I hear you, but “us” guitarists would be well served by being more pedantic. We talk about modes as merely fingering patterns, oblivious to the root/tonal center. I’ve heard folks say things like “I’m playing G-Mixolydian over C.” — no, that’s C-Major We call vibrato tailpieces tremolo. We call all tapping legato, even when it’s staccato. We call flat, non-radiused fretboards “zero radius”. We have people that insist the lowest-pitched string is the 1st string just because it is physically located the furthest from the ground. Similarly, people insist that playing higher-pitch notes closer to the body is playing “down” the neck. Guitarists too often look like idiots to other musicians because they use terms wrong and rely on coincidental effects and not the real root causes. But more to the point of your reply, the different “color” isn’t due to changing the key, it’s due to the physical reality of a guitar. It may seem like it’s related to a key change, but it’s not. It’s a factor of the instrument/player. If was related to the key, then playing a C-Major scale would have the same color regardless of which C4 the player uses C-Major would have the same feel regardless of which octave is played. C-Major would have the same feel independent of the tuning and/or instrument. Yes, transposing a song to another key MAY give the song a different feel TO AN EXPERIENCED GUITAR PLAYER, but that’s more because they can easily reach a different “B” than the key change. The difference is coincidental to the key change, not caused by it. Also, it’s only a timbre change that is more likely than not lost by pick-ups, effects, amps, speaker, enclosures, etc.

  3702. musictheory 2019-03-02 22:29:34 RadioUnfriendly
    I think G (E minor) is the easiest key for guitar players. C actually has the F chord, but I guess you can play the 4 string easy F. I usually go for the 6 string F.

  3703. musictheory 2019-03-02 23:53:14 livin4donuts
    There's only one E string, dude. The other one is in Drop D 🤘

  3704. musictheory 2019-03-03 00:46:52 MonogamousNugget
    What I do is I tune to a song I know the tuning of for the first string and then I use the fifth and seventh fret harmonics technique to tune the other strings

  3705. musictheory 2019-03-03 01:25:16 balboafire
    A440 — or “A” above what we call “middle-C” — is the note which all string instruments in an orchestra and pianos tune to. I would think it would make sense to pick the note that we all tune to and name it “A.”

  3706. musictheory 2019-03-03 04:02:38 LittleOmid
    This is completely wrong. Music in this form originated with Pythagoras’s musical theories, and string ratios. There’s no minor third in nature, ala the oldest instruments, horns. A minor third interval was considered dissonant all the way till renaissance.

  3707. musictheory 2019-03-03 10:20:24 vornska
    [Our FAQ addresses this question](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/wiki/faq/core/keys). Really there's very little difference (or the difference is very subtle). However, if you want to get out of a rut, working in a different key may actually be helpful. On an instrument like guitar or piano, the different keys do lie differently under your hands. (E.g. only E major/minor has the tonic as your open lowest string.) So the things that come naturally to your muscle memory in one key might not feel so natural in another one. Since we think so much in terms of habit & muscle memory, even a small physical difference may lead you down different avenues than you're used to following.

  3708. musictheory 2019-03-03 11:17:55 mayoayox
    I wanna pick this back up cause there was one thing I didnt mention cause it seemed stupid then but I'm still compelled to share. On a guitar or bass with a lot of gain, I can press my finger (the same way for any harmonic) next to the nut or my pinkie on the bridge and get a kind of zero fret harmonic. Like, it sounds out the root note and it has a much deeper timbre than an open string. It's a fantastic way to quickly generate a deep rumbling feedback. Tl;dr the zero fret of a string also seems to have a harmonic but you need a bit of gain to coax it out. I might also be mistaking something else for a "harmonic"

  3709. musictheory 2019-03-03 17:30:04 simeumsm
    > if you are stuck into some cliches, it's all your fault. It sure is! I'm even breaking some songs apart to learn different progressions and modulations to help me avoid my own cliches. &#x200B; > In 12 equal you there is a variety of different progressions beyond the diatonic that are impossible in a more accurate tuning systems, because they require enharmonic shifts Sorry, I don't understand this. Could you elaborate? &#x200B; > IF you are really into diatonic/pop/early classical music, there are better unequal (and equal) tunings than 12 ET (for example - any meantone, any diaschismic or whatever exotic Arabic/African etc tuning you may like) But how practical is this? I mean, my style is more rock guitar and I don't have any illusions that I'll be in a famous band. I've read that a band (Sonic Youth, IIRC) used different tunings for different songs and had specific guitars for these specific songs and it was a nightmare to organize everything. I'd rather mess up with different scales for sonority rather than mess up with different tunings and almost have to re-learn everything I know, and then convince my band to also change tunings and re-learn everything . At most, tune everything 1 step lower or drop the 6th string.

  3710. musictheory 2019-03-03 20:56:05 Jongtr
    The I-IV-V progression was attached to the blues by W C Handy (if we are to believe his autobiography ;-)), as he sought to make the "primitive" folk style (his word) more palatable to bigger audiences, just as he formalised it to 12 bars in order for bands to be able to play it. The famous story of his first encounter with the blues is [here] (http://www.msbluestrail.org/blues-trail-markers/w-c-handy) in brief. In 1905 he had another epiphany when his band was upstaged by a local string band: *"They struck up one of those over and over strains that seem to have no beginning and certainly no ending at all. The strumming attained a disturbing monotony, but on and on it went, a kind of stuff associated with [sugar] cane rows and levee camps. Thump-thump-thump went their feet on the floor. It was not really annoying or unpleasant. Perhaps "haunting" is the better word."* Here's how he says he interpreted the blues *"The primitive southern Negro, as he sang, was sure to bear down on the third and seventh tone of the scale, slurring between major and minor. Whether in the cotton field of the Delta or on the Levee up St. Louis way, it was always the same. Till then, however, I had never heard this slur used by a more sophisticated Negro, or by any white man. I tried to convey this effect...by introducing flat thirds and sevenths (now called blue notes) into my song, although its prevailing key was major...and I carried this device into my melody as well...This was a distinct departure, but as it turned out, it touched the spot."* *"The three-line structure I employed in my lyric was suggested by a song I heard Phil Jones sing in Evansville ... While I took the three-line stanza as a model for my lyric, I found its repetition too monotonous...Consequently I adopted the style of making a statement, repeating the statement in the second line, and then telling in the third line why the statement was made."* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._C._Handy This was all well before 1913, when he published his first blues composition, "Memphis Blues", which had the now familiar 12-bar form and 3-chord sequence. (In fact, a tune called "Dallas Blues" had been published a year earlier. It's quite likely that in later years Handy was keen to exaggerate his own part in popularising the form.) It would take advances in audio recording/reproduction technology before blues took off as a "popular music" genre, beginning in 1920 and led by female singers in front of small jazz groups. Many of their songs were not actually 12-bars, but 16 or 32 bars in ragtime form. Even Handy's "St Louis Blues" (1914) had a 16 bar minor key verse before its famous 12-bar chorus. The "folk" styles of players like Charlie Patton were very different - retaining the flexible crudity of the musician Handy saw in 1903. Often they played to just one chord, and the 12-bar 3-line form was something hinted at, rarely counted as such. And of course a lot of their music wasn't "blues" at all, as we'd define it now. They were street entertainers, playing/singing anything that would earn them a few $$: ragtime, vaudeville, old folk tunes, spirituals, etc. Robert Johnson was of a later generation than Patton - around 20 years younger - and his music was much more influenced by the blues recordings of his teenage years, so he was well aware of the more formal structures of that music. Even so, being a solo performer, he would extend or truncate lines according to his vocal and guitar phrasing, the same as the old delta guys. Mamie Smith ['Crazy Blues'] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaz4Ziw_CfQ) was the record that sold in quanitities that amazed the record company, kick-starting the "classic blues" era, led by Ma Rainey and her protege Bessie Smith. You'll notice this tune has a 12-bar sequence in there, but is a complex form overall. Blind Lemon Jefferson was the first male singer-guitarist on record (1926), which is where the "delta blues" as a recorded form begins - and in fact the first recordings he made were gospel tunes. [Booster Blues] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2aPvtX0hp8) was his first recorded blues, and you can hear the 3-line form, with the V chord on the 3rd line. But the IV chord is hardly there (more an embellishment of the I), and it's stretched way beyond 12 bars. Charlie Patton - although older - didn't record until 1929 when he was nearly 40. [Pony Blues] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoKKJjf-oQA), likewise, has mere hints of IV and V chords, no more than colouring of the I chord. It's the vocal that suggests the changes more than the guitar (in a way that W C Handy probably noticed). By the time Robert Johnson recorded (1936), the blues was well established as a popular form; in fact, in the light of other popular music of that year, you can see his songs as a nostalgic harking back to the older delta tradition of his mentors (Patten, Son House etc). I.e., Johnson was arguably the first blues revivalist! He certainly nailed the concept of the blues as an anguished personal expression, where his forebears had seen it largely as a form of entertainment, recycling old folk stanzas and playing dance tunes. (Of course, Johnson was up with that tradition too, as Hot Tamales proves.) As others have said, the main difference with the post-WWII Chicago blues was that it was played by bands using amplified instruments. It was the group context (as well as the desire for popularity) that meant the 12-bars got standardised, while solo performers like John Lee Hooker could maintain the older tradition of flexible form and one chord.

  3711. musictheory 2019-03-03 22:32:15 Jongtr
    > These notes would have little difference in timbre/register, right? Well, timbre *is* the difference. Middle C can be played on the guitar on string 2 fret 1, string 3 fret 5, string 4 fret 10, string 5 fret 13 (and string 6 fret 20 if you insist ;-)). They all sound different because of the string gauge - its materials and density. Thicker strings have a mellower or warmer timbre. The tuning of the guitar is a whole other thing. Naturally alternative tunings will make the same keys and chords sound different because you will be using different shapes and voicings. In any tuning, you have the option of different shapes for the same chord, which are partly about different register (higher or lower), partly about which strings they're on. (x-x-0-2-3-1 and x-5-7-7-6-x are both the same voicings for a Dm chord, but they sound different because of the string qualities.)

  3712. musictheory 2019-03-04 07:56:34 jazzadellic
    Interesting thing I just noticed: the version on the album "Room for Squares" he uses an Ebmaj7 arpeggio for the second chord, essentially minus the F on the 4th string, and he hammers the D on the 5th string to an Eb. The live video you linked however, he doesn't do the D to Eb hammer on, and I *think* the F is in there. I might find more interesting things as I learn it. I've actually always wanted to learn this tune but never got around to it (it's on a list of like 100 tunes to learn lol). So I took this opportunity to learn it. Can play the first part after about 20 mins of practice, now to the next section. It's actually fairly tricky since the chord shapes are not shapes I've really used before.

  3713. musictheory 2019-03-04 10:56:27 65TwinReverbRI
    Er, ah, oh, um, ... Ok, The Circle of 5ths has nothing to do with chord progressions. It is a diagram of KEYS. It's kind of a misunderstanding that "chord progressions" "come from" the Circle of 5ths. Any chord progression that moves in 5ths (or 4th) simply by coincidence follows the same order as the fifths in the circle. Your chord progression is really just a string of chords. In fact, they're kind of random. If you'd been using the Circle of 5ths to "generate" chords or anything like that, you wouldn't really have come up with this progression. I'm not saying the progression is bad, but it is essentially a string of useless information to readers because usually we'd expect some kind of organization - are these all one measure long, are there phrases of any sort? That kind of stuff. My advice would be to learn tons of songs and get chord progressions from them. But more importabtly, melody, phrase structure and form. Also, don't use or try to use the Circle of 5ths as anything to do with chords. It tells you what keys are closely related other keys, and simply which keys have what key signature - again nothing to do with chord progressions. Best

  3714. musictheory 2019-03-04 11:48:46 65TwinReverbRI
    > However, I believe that it is impossible to classify something picked as legato. Sorry, you can disagree, but it's not true. People mistakenly think that just because the attack is so pronounced that it's not "legato". But the definition is not about the comparative amplitude of the attacks but simply that the sound sustains until the next note plays with no break in between. As long as the note played sounds until the next note is played, it's legato, regardless of the envelope of the sound. It may sound "plucky" but it's still legato as long as each note produces sound until the next one is picked. Rakes are also not Slurs because all the notes are picked (I assume you mean rake that is basically an arpeggio that's just super fast and typically just one direction one time). A Slur is when a note is not articulated (picked). Hammer Ons and Pull-Offs are Slurs. While one might argue that a pull off especially "plucks" the string again, it's considered a slur and more importantly, in written music notes marked with slurs are to be played hammer on or pull off (or tapped, etc.). A slur mark in music means that the first note is picked, and then any notes after it under the slur are pulled off/hammered on to. It produces legato by nature because you can't really put a break in sound in there. But just playing regular picking on a single string is legato too.

  3715. musictheory 2019-03-04 23:36:08 metalliska
    > Listen to three hundred Classical symphonies and you'll know instinctively what I'm talking about. I find that to be under-boiled down. Particularly when dealing with opera or any other lyrical content. Part of songwriting, and composing, to me, involves compressing many different voices into a braided result. 9 sections x 3 movements = a lot of same old same old in terms of instrumentation. Especially in Italian or any other language for these long durations of sitting. >adapted to make use of already available resources. Because tablas can be made in under a day. Almost all drums can. So in terms of time preparation, all you'd need is one guide and apprenticeship lasting 6 hours, and even a rudimentary approximation is complete. The same amount of time it took to break down that African polyrhythm into Cello #17 and Viola #6 on treble-clef notation inscription. >Look at the way West African polyrhythms, originally played on specific drums (kidi, kagan, atsiagbekor drums, etc.—and I have no idea if those are the correct spellings; I'm transcribing the pronunciations) turned up in simplified form in strumming patterns in, for instance, Bossa Nova Part of that bleed-over is indeed interesting. It's just frustrating to me how awful string players are at rhythm (overall / generalizing). But that gets to my point; really only fiddlers dance (or move at all) while playing. Brass sections can march and play; drums were developed on warpath; even fifes and flutes came out of a mobile purpose. String players lounge. > you'll miss a lot of examples of what you're looking for. I hope you're right. Much like in the Ghostbuster Mythos that the door swings both ways, maybe I can take some of the least boring rhythm patterns on strings and apply them to drumset. BRB.

  3716. musictheory 2019-03-06 04:51:10 65TwinReverbRI
    It can't be any mode because you've got Ab, A, and Bb, which are two half steps. No mode (of the 7 Diatonic Modes) has two half steps in a row like that. Am, Bb, and F can all be in one key or mode. It's the Ab that's the "problem child". If it were F Major, the Ab could be a borrowed bIII chord. But all this is really kind of meaningless. FWIW, it CAN BE a full progression and generally speaking, anything feeling like "home" is the "tonic" - or the **center** is going to be present in the progression. Also, all of this is kind of moot without a melody or other information. For example, if you played a melody that had B natural in it over the Am chord, that's not going to put that chord in the key of F for example. So it's really too little information. The best you can say about it is, 3 chords could be in a Key or mode, the 4th comes from somewhere else. How that's organized depends on which chord is truly the "home" chord, if any. And that's part of what makes this kind of thing an exercise in futility. Yes, you're THAT guy ;-) Seriously though, it's just a string of 4 chords that sound cool. Nothing else really matters.

  3717. musictheory 2019-03-06 13:37:28 GormyGorm
    I mean, this is kinda how our brain percieves pitch through hearing. Our brain detects frequencies that make certain ratios, the smaller the radio, the more consonant the interval is, therefore the more pleasant it is to listen to. This is why octaves, perfect fourths, and perfect fifths are really nice to listen to (small ratios, 1:2, 2:3, 4:3), but some intervals like the tritone (augmented 4th) are really disonant and just sound wrong (large ratio, 65:64). In theory our brain should be able to recognize these ratios through more than just our sense of hearing. In practice. I might argue that I may have actually experienced this on a gig once. My hearing went out (I have tinnitus, and possibly progressive hearing loss) and I was playing bass. I started playing by feel, and I think that I could feel the note I was playing by how the string was vibrating. This might be some weird trick that my brain is playing on me, but that is my experience with the idea of feeling pitch and harmony.

  3718. musictheory 2019-03-06 15:44:54 tigers4eva
    This question really interests me personally! This is something that i've been working on for a while, and will continue to work on for years. To start, the first question is context. Do you have a bass player? If they are holding down the root, you have the opportunity to go ham with inversions. If you don't have one, it might be more worthwhile to restrict their usage. You want the bass note to be the root. Not always, but at least most of the time in most genres. It's a matter of taste. Next, being a better rhythm guitarist. You have some idea of the importance of voice leading, so I'll start you off with this tip. Play less notes(in the vein of advice given by Nile Rodgers, Robben Ford, etc.). But play them with conviction. Nowadays, I almost never hit all 6 strings. I'm good at muting strings that I don't want to be heard. I used to aim for triads. Now I've rolled it back to 6ths and thirds. Triads are still a great starting spot though. I'd recommend that you start here, before you start with inversions of 7th chords or 6th chords. An easy way to start with triads is to play the triads on adjacent strings. I'd recommend starting the DGB set. Each triad has 6(3!) ways to be played on each set. As 135, 153, 315, 351, 531, 513. Not all of these are playable. I'd start with 135, 351, 513. Try major and minor chords first. Then try suspended. You'll get some wild ideas when you realize that 125 and 145 and 14b7 are all related structures. (Aka the power of quartal harmony) Next. Play a simple song. Even a 4 chord pop song works perfectly to get these inversions and sounds in your ear. Take the 4 chords and play them within the span of 4 frets on the guitar. You'll hear how it smoothens out. It's much smoother than just relying on 6th and 5th strong root bar chords. Then, use the same chords, but play in another section of 4 frets on the neck. Just restricting your chords to a small area of the guitar will force you to voice lead, without much other thought necessary. Afterwards, play around on different string sets. I personally love EDG. It's rough, with some huge left hand stretches. But I love the sound. Especially when you have a busy soundscape from other musicians. It feels like I've arranged a tight brass orchestra with my left hand.

  3719. musictheory 2019-03-06 21:55:17 japaneseknotweed
    We already do this with the resonances in our sinuses/sternum/jaw. Many string players tune those perfect fifths by feel, by awareness of when the right resultant frequency kicks in and rattles the right body part.

  3720. musictheory 2019-03-08 00:24:45 65TwinReverbRI
    That could simply be that you're just not used to hearing those inversions - many of us learn with root position chords and after a while they seem kind of "boring". I've graded many a student paper where, once you allow 2nd inversion triads, every freaking chord they write is 2nd inversion, and music just doesn't work like that (well, it could, but not historically). Inversions are, in some ways, just different colors of the same harmony, in the same way open versus closed voicings are (there's also many a guitarist who will "discover" open voicings and fall in love with those sounds too, because again they're new and fresh and not so worn out as the close position "block chords"). They have been used in specific ways traditionally (voice-leading, bass note variation, different color, etc.) but they can really just be used today as a "different sound". Try this - play a harmonic on the 12th fret A string (A), the 11th fret (not harmonic) of the 4th string (C#) and the high E open (E). You'll have an A chord that has a very nice resonance and interesting sound. But it's just A-C#-E. Root position, close voicing. But the timbral differences (which is where the overtones actually are important) make it sound "fresh" most likely. Cheers

  3721. musictheory 2019-03-08 02:03:39 RitheLucario
    Sounds pretty good! What's the orchestration? I'm hearing cellos, violas, and two violins? You've got the sweet, gentle side of string instruments down, but there's so much more. The strings were Rimsky-Korsokov's favorite section because of their range of expression and articulation; you've tapped into only one way the strings can express. For your next string piece, why don't you try expressing some other emotion? Make the strings angry, or agitated. They can take it; they're not the sweet, docile, delicate things that some modern composers make them out to be. They can take a beating, and they will reward you. Strings are very versatile; you should learn how to exploit that.

  3722. musictheory 2019-03-08 04:08:57 65TwinReverbRI
    I've heard of the book, but never owned it. But even in having heard of it, I've never heard this particular aspect discussed. I'm sure that there's someone here familiar with it and hopefully can help you more. I'll just say that generally one of the reasons a lot of this stuff is hard to find information on is that it really just didn't make any significant impact in the musical world - it's "esoterica". And that's something I feel it's necessary to caution people about - especially people trying to learn music or learn to make music - this kind of stuff is very niche (though sometimes they're just specific names coined by an author for what is otherwise a common idea) and it doesn't tend to get you far - like learning 1 string guitar... It's interesting, and it's often a neat take on something, or a way to flesh out other perspectives, but I'd be careful about getting caught up in the whole "reading about music" versus actually playing the music. IOW, learn music from music, not written concepts about music that aren't very widespread or well documented. Hopefully someone else can more directly answer your question though. Cheers

  3723. musictheory 2019-03-08 11:45:33 NogodsaMan
    Learn your fretboard, it will end up being your home base when you’re conceptually thinking about notes and intervals. Its a large task, but work on memorizing the notes of every fret on every string, and all of the geometric patterns of the different intervals in relation to each other. 30 minutes of practice per day and you’ll improve very quickly

  3724. musictheory 2019-03-08 20:04:38 UseThisOne2
    My experience has been that the person with perfect pitch never mentions it first. I learn someone has perfect pitch because someone else tells me “OP has perfect pitch.” I think the initial conversation goes something like this “OP, seems like you have perfect pitch. Do you?” “Yes I do.” “Ok. Cool. Is my A string in tune?”

  3725. musictheory 2019-03-09 01:24:30 GreenPhoennix
    That's a good technique. It's widely used to give different voicings and so on. Hendrix in particular popularized it and it really spices up your playing from the same old barre chords. For a while my d string was unusable so I had to learn how to use chords solely using the highest 3 strings and how they fit into the scale I was using.

  3726. musictheory 2019-03-09 02:03:57 -x-x-checkers
    Well some music I can't even play, like Rachmaninov, because my hands are too small. But other people still play him. Requiring specific finger positioning on each key is only a bit more restrictive. And for fast passages, where this will get the most messy, I don't think the precise tuning is as important. But if you can comfortably reach all the keys, I think one could make micro-adjustments to finger positioning for slower passages with longer held notes. You could also restrict the range of frequencies reachable on a certain key to less than a semitone. Then it's not as sensitive but should still be able to hit the important micro-tunings. And fretless string players have to be precise in where they touch the fingerboard. Maybe piano players could rise to a similar challenge!

  3727. musictheory 2019-03-09 03:15:53 tchaffee
    I wish that guitar teachers would stop giving this advice. I know you have good intentions, but both guitar and piano have pros and cons to learning music theory. If you are going to learn guitar, you might as well learn how to use the guitar fretboard to your advantage and to be able to visualize music theory on the guitar fretboard. Adding piano to the mix simply creates an extra mental step that lingers forever until you finally start to be able to use the guitar fretboard itself. As just one example, the guitar being tuned in 4ths (except for the pesky B string) makes it ideal for learning the circle of fourths and fifths. I'm not a guitar teacher or even expert so I can't make an appeal to authority. But I can speak as someone who started out with piano and then learned guitar and got a load of guitar teachers who wanted to teach me theory using... a piano. It slowed down my progress learning the guitar fretboard. I finally hired someone who promised he could teach me music theory using only the guitar neck and I got my money's worth. Best guitar teacher I ever had and I'm finally able to start visualizing stuff on the guitar fretboard instead mentally bringing up the piano and then taking the extra step of trying to translate that to piano. How about learning piano *after* you've mastered music theory on the guitar fretboard? Then you'll truly understand the pros and cons of each instrument instead of always going back to the piano as a crutch while playing guitar. Please don't take it personally. Just consider it. &#x200B;

  3728. musictheory 2019-03-09 03:18:59 Chillywily2
    Learn what note every string is tuned to. Learn basic chord shapes. Write down (or make a playlist) of every song that has a guitar riff you like. This will be your music bank for when you want to see the theory you're gonna be learning in action. Do online research on the major and minor scales. Learn what chords you can build out of these scales with three notes (triads) and with four notes (7th chords) and the degrees they represent within the scale (7 notes in the scale I-II-III-IV-V-VI-VII chords in major I-II-bIII-IV-V-bVI-bVII in minor). Go back to your music bank and hopefully with the help of online resources and your own ear you can figure out the correct chords to every song you like and learn them as degrees rather than individual "shapes" or notes.(listening for basslines and replicating them in your guitar is huge here imo). This way you will start noticing similar patterns in different genres and you will see the same scale degrees masterfully used a million times over to produce an individual piece of artistic expression each (aka song) and with time you will be able to produce your own melodies, progresions and twists on existing ones. Trust what you hear a lot more than UltimateGuitar but do give tab notation sites a fair chance at giving you something you might be looking for. With energy and interest you will make a habit out of listening, enjoying and playing music; making it effortless to continue learning down the line.

  3729. musictheory 2019-03-09 06:50:26 65TwinReverbRI
    Yeah, but think of this: You can have a guitar string that is the same length, diameter, and mass, but just put more tension on it to make it a different pitch. So from all outward appearances, a guitar with a low E string tuned to E, or tuned a step lower to D will look the same to anyone looking at the guitar - you can't even tell by looking at it. Thickness would be most likely thing - you should feel a weight different though. There could be something inside that's dampening the vibrations too, that makes different surface area that can vibrate - which essentially makes them larger or smaller - you just can't see it inside. I can't remember if the bells vibrate like wine classes but remember you can fill wine glasses with different amounts of liquid and those of the same size and shape will produce different notes - so if the upper part of the bell were filled with some material, less of the outer rim would vibrate, changing the pitch. I would say the only way to tell is to take them apart. For 65 bucks though, I'm not sure I'd take them apart!

  3730. musictheory 2019-03-09 10:37:51 rick_RAWS
    THIS!! One of the most drastic/exciting developments in my music came after I stopped trying to strum every string on every chord. Less is more. You really emphasize the harmony and relationship of the notes when there are only three or four happening at once compared to six, and they're individually stronger and more consequential for it. My compositions tend to be really busy, and I've found that leaning into "smaller" chords really helps declutter an otherwise-dense arrangement. Slightly tangent to this concept, but I think in the same vein is omitting certain notes of a chord. I mention this because it was a by-product of my venture into "smaller" chords (and it's super fun). Leaving tones out of a chord totally changes the feel. I usually write them as, say, "Dm7no5" or "Cno3" (no idea if this is "proper notation," but hey, I know what I mean). Omitting a third is always really fun, because it can leave the major/minor distinction somewhat up-in-the-air, leaving it up to context clues. Omitting fifths is fun because you're without that super-secure fifth harmony to secure the chord, giving it a somewhat unstable feel -- even if it's a major chord. If you're feeling really bold, leave out a tonic. It's one of my ways of "minor-ifying" a major chord, or doubling down on the "minority" of an already-minor chord.

  3731. musictheory 2019-03-09 13:04:55 I_love_littlekids
    well take the E string for example, its E, F, Gb (flat) then G, I would recommend guitar for dummies for you, hell I barely even know theory but its a good intro

  3732. musictheory 2019-03-09 13:06:35 I_love_littlekids
    I was pushing myself this evening with coming up with improv parts and little licks and practicing arpeggio's, I'm doing two and three string and the three string I have up to 140-150 BPM

  3733. musictheory 2019-03-09 22:36:40 CaptainAndy27
    Yes, that would be a B major chord. The thing about the D chord shape on guitar is that you can move it along the G/B/E strings anywhere on the fretboard and make a major chord, and the tonic of that chord is whichever note on the B string you are holding down, which in this case, would be B.

  3734. musictheory 2019-03-09 22:52:01 CaptainAndy27
    Yes. In that case, basically what you are playing is the top half of an E major bar chord. If you don't already know, a bar chord is the concept of taking an E major/minor or A major/minor chord shape and moving it down the fretboard by barring your first finger across the fretboard on the note you want to be the tonic of the chord and then forming the A or E chord shape with the rest of your fingers. For example, an A major chord is (in order from lowest pitch string to highest pitch string) x 0 2 2 2 0. If you bring that up 7 frets it becomes x 7 9 9 9 7 where you bar your index finger across the seventh fret and make the A chord shape with your other fingers on the 9th fret. That chord's tonic would be the 7th fret on the A string and the 9th fret on the G string which would both be E, making it an E major chord.

  3735. musictheory 2019-03-10 02:28:03 jazzadellic
    Guitar takes a lot more pressure to hold down a string, then it does to press a key on the piano. Some coordination and finger independence will probably transfer, but the "muscle memory" on guitar is completely different. The thing that will help the most from your piano playing is just the basic grasp of how to play music, i.e. your musicianship.

  3736. musictheory 2019-03-10 03:39:00 RichardPascoe
    I'll just add that the root of a moveable D shape is on the B string. Wherever you play the D shape knowing the note on the B string will give you the name of the major chord. So for example - if you move a normal first position D chord back one fret you are playing a C# major triad in second inversion. The reason you are holding an F down on the high E string is because C# major is C# - E# - G# and E# is the same a F. No matter where you are playing the D chord look at the note on the B string to get the major chord name.

  3737. musictheory 2019-03-10 03:53:18 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, you need a reference pitch. For example, since 12tet is evenly spaced, it doesn't matter what note you start on. This chart starts on C. If you started your JI on D, it would be the E note that was -0.67 cents flat instead of the D. ____ Well, you can tune Piano, Harpsichord and other stringed instruments. You can't tune a MIDI Controller Keyboard or Synthesizer Keyboard, but you can tune the synth it's sending messages to. JI, Meantone, Pythagorean, Werkmeister, Kirnberger, and 12tet have been available on Roland synths since the 80s. On my FA, I can even make up tunings. _____ Even with JI or any other "fixed" tuning, as you've suspected the intervals are "note dependent" - you could say it's the fundamental but it's better just to consider them raw intervals. But what this means is an Eb in a Cm chord would be a different frequency then an Eb in an Ab chord, or a D# in a B chord. The "split key" instruments were designed because of this. To kind of oversimplify this - and string players will often tell you this - F# and Gb are not the same note - temperament be damned. They will play an F# sharper than a Gb because of direction in many cases - the F# is on its way up, so it's made sharper to push that direction. Opposite direction with the Gb. But also, they can be doing it to tune over a Bass note (and thus a chord) - F# is one thing over a D chord and something else over either a B chord or an Ebm chord etc. Maybe a better way to think of it is "just intervals" rather than "just intonation" as the system in strings and voices is kind of "variable" and the intonation "changes on the fly". And it's extremely difficult to do this and most people just do an "approximation" - like what 12tet is. Listen to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6zNO5Fieog They're being VERY specific about the intervals. Most vocal groups doing music like this will still "tune" the intervals, but they still "adjust" towards a more equal compromise. Part of this is about keeping the original tonic in the same place - there are some pieces from the Renaissance where this constant re-tuning of intervals will mean if it begins on D and ends on D, the final D will actually be a different pitch (intentionally so) than the starting D. This is generally considered a bad thing in modern performance, but TMK there has been some research that says composers were even intentionally doing this and writing music that would modulate in specific ways to end up a step higher than where they started - by writing specific intervallic sequences - even though the printed music starts and ends on the same note. HTH

  3738. musictheory 2019-03-10 06:21:59 65TwinReverbRI
    I understand. I was the same way. I want to caution you. You are going to get a bunch of responses about the Harmonic Series and it's going to sound very scientific and make you think it "must" be that way because it makes such obvious sense, but it's actually not the real reason we use what we use. In fact, we use what we use in SPITE of that in many cases. I suppose I was a little luckier when I was young because we didn't have the internet and I just had to be satisfied not having the answers - and I know how frustrating that can be for people like you and me - but, what it did was allow me to concentrate on **learning to play music on guitar** rather than worrying about "why did DaVinci paint this tree green" kind of questions. The real answer to your question - as unsatisfying as I know it seems - is simply that music evolved that way. The reason scales are formed like they are is because they evolved that way. There were notes, and people kept messing with notes over history - way back from Ancient Greece as far as we know - but probably earlier, we just don't have written records. At some points in history, they liked a certain group of scales, at another, they got tired of those old ones and started using some new ones, then people got tired of those, and started using some new ones (some of which were the older ones that got re-discovered!). What we use now - the Major/Minor system, is one evolutionary branch where two primary concepts, Major and Minor, which are represented by Scales, became the preferred method of making music, and we still use those principles today (along with many others). But it's like asking "why do we say an adjective before a noun, like "the red car" rather than "the car red" - because that's the way it evolved, and we're still doing it. We don't use Thee and Thou and all that, but we still write mostly similar to the people writing in the 1700s. Music is the same way in many respects. ________ You didn't ask HOW scales are formed, so I assume you understand that. You did ask about chords, and that's a little more concrete. Again the "why" is a more complex question and again the answer is really evolution. But let's stick to the concrete: "Triads" are simply chords of 3 different notes. We typically use the term specifically to mean the kind of chord that evolved in Western European Art Music that you're probably familiar with - Major and Minor chords, as well as Diminished and Augmented chords. A "Major Chord" and a "Major Triad" mean exactly the same thing. 4 note chords are "quartads" or "tetrads" but we usually don't call them that. We call them "Seventh Chords" instead. The system that evolved is called "Tertian Harmony" and tertian means "3rd" or we can say "every other note". In this system, we simply take every other note of a scale - A-C-E, or B-D-F, or C-E-G, etc. to make chords. If we use 3 every other notes it's a Triad, and if we use 4 every other notes it's a 7th chord. A-C-E is a triad, some sort of chord (with no other name qualification) and A-C-E-G is a "tetrad", some type of 7th chord. So "chord" could mean any old chord, but when we talk about 7th chords, we may use the word "triad" to specifically tell people, "oh that's a 3 note chord and not a 7th chord". But if you say "C Major Chord" it's assumed it's a triad. "C7" or "a C7 chord" is a "seventh chord". So you might say that "triad" refers to a specific type of chord, one with only 3 notes in tertian order. The word can be used more broadly to refer to any 3 note chord - C-F-Bb could be a "triad" as could C-E-B, but we don't usually use the term like that - we tend to use it specifically for Major, Minor, Augmented, and Diminished chords - which are all 3 note every other letter type chords. _____ Key is a little trickier and hard to explain. A Key is more a "concept". Think of what a "Language" is. That's kind of what a Key is. A "Scale" is sort of like the Alphabet, while a "Key" is like the Language - the Language uses the letters of the alphabet, but in many different ways to form many different words (chords if you like). But obviously we can string together letters and words and they can have MEANING beyond what's present in the letters and words themselves. So a Key is a "collection" of ideas. We could say it consists of 7 notes, of which one is considered the most important note (called the Tonic). The Scale is a "listing" of those notes in alphabetical order, starting on the most important note. Generally speaking, while "words or letters from foreign alphabets" are allowed in a Key (i.e. we can use notes out of the key), we stick primarily to the notes of the Key to make our chords from. What this means is, in the Key of C Major, the scale will be C-D-E-F-G-A-B - all 7 notes starting on the "important" one (but this just for a concept, not necessarily the way you have to play it) and all of the melodies and chords will be derived from those notes. Again you can have "foreign" notes and chords (that's actually what we call them too) but as long as the emphasis is on the primary 7 notes, and especially focus on the Tonic note, that orients our ears to hearing the music as being "in that key". So for example, a piece "in the key of E Major" will have the notes from that key, plus there will be musical emphasis on the E chord and notes of the E chord in the melody. Think of it like a story about Fred. You're probably going to mention Fred a lot. He's the "Tonic". And all the other words kind of support Fred or help us understand what Fred is doing or that he is important. ______ I'm going to give you this advice: The things you REALLY need to learn are: 1. Technical Proficiency on your instrument - ability to play it well - strumming, picking, fretting notes, forming chords. 2. Musical Proficiency on your instrument - ability to play music on the instrument well - play it in time, play confidently and expressively. 3. Music Fundamental Proficiency - ability to know your Notes, your Scales, and your Chords on your instrument, as well as "in theory" (on paper, or in your head, ability to conceptualize them, etc.). It's also important to learn your Key Signatures and to understand Key Signatures, and Time Signatures and Rhythm. 4. That is the "core" you need to get down and build on. Most of the rest is distractions from playing. You'll hear about modes. You need to learn Major and Minor scales and Key Signatures first and have a strong grasp on those. 5. For that reason (among many other distractions) it would really be helpful if you're serious about learning to make music on guitar, to get a qualified music teacher who can teach you music. Generally we learn music theory along with learning to play, and if you take lessons you will get the information as you need it and can use it - and most importantly, it sticks with you better if you can use it! Music theory in a vacuum isn't very useful at all. I know it sucks and it's great that people are hungry for knowledge, but we've all seen too many people knock around on guitar and get distracted by wild goose chases and never learn to play. I mean, you can do what floats your boat, but I know from experience that many people I've met over the years regret that they spent too much time on frivolous pursuits and should have spent more time on learning to play music on the instrument. A good teacher and regular lessons will make you grow light years as a guitarist, where playing around on the internet trying to get information as you can will only serve to confuse you, frustrate you, lead you astray, teach you wrong that you'll have to unlearn later, or just make you give up altogether. 6. If you get lessons, you should learn to read music. Real music, not tablature (but you should learn to read tablature and chord diagrams as well). If you don't get lessons, you should still learn to read music. It's basically like being able to speak a language, but not being able to read. It restricts you. HTH

  3739. musictheory 2019-03-10 13:03:42 megadevx
    Chords aren’t a work out? Any time a chord involves anything greater than an octave and your going to need strong ring and pinky fingers. You can get away with not having string pinky and ring fingers in most beginner music, but music after that and especially when you get into intermediate to advanced will require that strength. I know this because when I started learning more advanced pieces my pinky and ring finger we not strong enough. I then worked through a specific book on strengthening them. Oversimplification? No these fingers are important, just not for people who never get past beginner stuff.

  3740. musictheory 2019-03-11 00:44:27 65TwinReverbRI
    So let's put this simply: If the chord symbol is Cmaj7, the "safest" notes you can play are the notes of that chord. They are C-E-G-B - if you don't know this, then that's something you have to learn! As a Trombonist, you don't play chords, so it's not something you'd typically know. So it's not stupid at all. But it's a good thing to learn! You need to look up, and understand "chord formulas" for various chords. You also need to learn your "Diatonic Chords" in each key - because if you see Cmaj7, in a key, it can only be the I chord or IV chord, meaning the key must be C Major or G Major - which means you could, in addition to the chord tones, play the notes of those scales as well (once you figure out which). If you look at a string of chords, such as D - Bm - Em - A7 - those are all in the same key so you can use the same scale for all of them (and you'd often concentrate on the chord tones as well, but they're all part of the same scale/key). Jazz can be tricky though because some chords (up to a lot of them!) can go out of key. This means, if you're in the key of C, you have to know which chords are in that key because if you see an E7 you have to be able to know it's 1. not in the key and 2. which notes have changed. In this case, E7 uses G instead of G#. So you have to change all the G notes that you'd play in a C scale to G# for this one chord. Your best bet is actually to start learning some pre-written solos (which often come with charts especially in middle and high school) or learn some solos from great players. I'm sure there are books for T-Bone with Jazz solos transcribed in them. Otherwise, it's great practice to find something like a ii-V-I loop on You Tube and learn to play over that while it loops in the background - so you can practice (or "try out") different things over those chords and see what you like, and what sounds "jazzy".

  3741. musictheory 2019-03-11 10:11:59 nwanda27
    So , this mean it tells chords for any instrument or just 6 string tunnings? ( like ,duh, guitar)

  3742. musictheory 2019-03-11 10:48:07 Whistle-Punk
    I can work on a version where you pick the amount of strings --- that should not be that hard to implement. Right now it only is for 6 string instruments and I suppose you could enter the tuning you want on 4 and ignore the other two bbt that is not convenient

  3743. musictheory 2019-03-12 00:49:09 TheBecomingEthereal
    I'm interested in this for my 7 string so let me know when the strings can be selected. This sounds great

  3744. musictheory 2019-03-12 17:01:35 Jongtr
    Aside from the obvious effect of the lyric, the mood is created musically by the slow tempo, the sensitive string arrangement, the tender vocal style, the gentle dynamic. It's not "sad" necessarily, but it's obviously "introspective", "thoughtful". It's not a banging dance number, it's not an angry tirade - but neither is it "scary" or "dark". The major key (along with the tempo and arrangement) gives it a wistfulness, a suitable nostalgic feel, as opposed to the darker moodiness it would gain if the key was minor. I.e., the tonality or mode does have an effect on the mood of a piece, but it's secondary to many other factors - in particular tempo and arrangement/orchestration.

  3745. musictheory 2019-03-13 07:22:21 Jongtr
    There's a pretty big list of requirements: 1. An extensive (but not necessarily deep) understanding of all popular music styles up to 1960. In particular, rock'n'roll, blues, musical show tunes, early jazz, country, early Motown and soul. 2. A humorous and fearless attitude to throwing different influences together. A total lack of concern for theoretical jargon. A liking for pastiche. A desire to stretch and truncate standard song forms, and to mix metres. Borrowed chords, especially minor iv chords and major bVI and bVII. Mixolydian mode. 3. Relatively high vocal range (tenor) and a good ear for close vocal harmonies, in particular Everly Bros style. At least two good singers. A nasal quality of timbre; no vibrato. Use of falsetto for dramatic punctuation. 4. Appreciation of mid-60s advances in studio technology (for late period Beatles) - the overuse of specific effects such as double-tracking, reverb, unusual instrumentation such as mellotron, sitar, piccolo trumpet, etc. Otherwise, of course, acoustic and semi-acoustic guitars to the forefront, mostly clean sounds. Some 12-string use. An inventive drummer (within simple swing and 4/4 metres). More extensive insight can be found here: [http://www.icce.rug.nl/\~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-alphabet.shtml](http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-alphabet.shtml) And here's a band who showed how it could be done, back when no one would have believed it was that easy: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54KBPA20b9Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54KBPA20b9Q)

  3746. musictheory 2019-03-13 07:26:17 65TwinReverbRI
    I've not heard Klaatu, but The Beatles are definitely a band that really was the sum of all parts - the distinct personalities and playing styles. Now, caveat there - of course there were "Beatles songs" and then there were "Lennon songs" and "McCartney songs" and "Harrison songs" and those each had they're own unique style. So it depends on what era you're talking about, and whether it's more of an individual's song or the groups. Probably, Revolver and Rubber Soul (but I'd include Help and Hard Day's Night) mark the point where they are still "a band" and the "most Beatle-y" they were in that form (as the earliest music is not as different from that of early Stones and Who, and Kinks, and Animals, and Gerry and The Pacemakers, Freddie and the Dreamers, etc.) One of the primary standouts to me are the vocals - in fact I just heard "If I Fell" today and they're in harmony, then John jumps up to follow Paul in unison, then jumps down again at the end of the phrase. Then in the Bridge John is often on a static note while Paul goes above - and they're fairly far apart. But this vocal harmony, and vocal interplay is very important - think about "Nowhere Man" with it's parallel 3 part chords, versus something like "Taxman" with the wider spread, and then "Norwegian Wood" with the parallel duet ('she asked me to sit'). The other facet of this is the backing parts like in "In My Life", where vocals are doubled in harmony, then followed "oohs". When you look at something like "Help" with the "echo" backing vocals in the verse, then you've got pretty much all the stuff they typically do (contrast this with "Blackbird" which is essentially a Paul solo song, and he doubles his voice in unison and IIRC there's no other harmonies or other members singing at all). Musically speaking, unique chord progressions are the order of the day. I was just messing with "I Want You" the other day - the intro is Dm - Dm/F - E7b9 - Bb7 (!) A7(b13). All of the chords keep the F note on top. And what's interesting is the move from C to B to Bb to get to the Bb chord - we could call all this a V/V going to Neapolitan, which also goes to V (or a TTsub for E leading to the A) but it's just all a little "weird". Then I was messing with "Sun King": E - F#m - G#m7 (or E6?) - E6 C (!) - Cmaj7 - Gm - A7 C - Cmaj - C7 - F Some of those are just weird. It's even the same with stuff like "Day Tripper" where it starts of with what is basically a "blues progression" and a lick, then it moves to F#7 - A7 - G#7 - C#7 - B7 Just kind of unusual moves. That alone won't do it, but there are comparatively few songs (again, maybe more of the earlier "rock and roll" might not, but even some early songs do) that don't have some "unusual" chord changes so I'd have to say that's a hallmark of their compositional style. One thing a lot of people don't know - The Beatles had a great way of making transitions from one section to the next - I'll have to ponder some of the tunes I'm thinking of but I'm not just talking stark moves like in the Polythene Pam medley, but more how one section sort of becomes the next or just "falls right into" the next section in their middle period stuff. Besides maybe doing some little meter things like a 2/4 measure or shortened or lengthened phrase, they also did some neat things like like the "fussing and fighting my friends" in "We Can Work it Out" where, IIRC they use quarter note triplets in relation to the previous measure length, so it comes out like they went to 3/4 but the measure length is the same - they did this a couple of times IIRC. Also a STRONG sense of melody - especially from Paul. If you don't have this, don't even try :-) While there are songs like "I am the Walrus" where John pretty much sings monotone for a lot of the phrase, if you compare this with something like "I Will" from the White Album - Paul's vocal melody is all over the place - but very melodic and tuneful. My personal belief is that, besides riding on the coat-tails of their fame, the reason so many Jazz artists did instrumental versions of Beatles tunes where because there was such strong melody. Honestly, most people don't even come close (and this is one of the reasons it bothers me so much that people on this forum are so all about chord progression and just seem to be totally ignoring melody). From a playing standpoint, the two guitar interplay is important, and the 12 string plays a prominent role especially in the earlier albums - but it does give it "that sound". Then of course the use of Piano pretty consistently, or if not, Harpsichord, or sometimes Electric Piano (and then all the later stuff like Mellotron but that starts to go beyond the "core" of at least that central style). But Paul again is the musician's musician in the group - he plays bass like he sings - extremely melodically. In fact, way underrated as a bass player. He is all over a lot of the songs. It provides harmonic foundation, melodic motion, and rhythmic force all at the same time. Think about how the bass moves at the end of the vocal phrase in "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". "Penny Lane" - he's all over the place - tuned down IIRC. Of course it turned out that Paul also played much of the Guitar, Drums, and Keys on a lot of the songs as well, but really what's individualistic is his bass playing. And finally, a sense of humor. A sense of "not taking yourselves too seriously". Sarcasm, sardonic wit, not afraid to goofy, not afraid to do a cover, etc. HTH

  3747. musictheory 2019-03-13 12:32:41 jazzadellic
    It's a long process. There's not necessarily one correct way to practice everything, and there are many paths that end up at roughly the same place. I wasn't always super organized, but one thing I tended to always do that I think made a big difference was be very methodical. I would systematically go through every position and practice the scales or arpeggios straight up and down until I could play them from muscle memory and never make a mistake. It can get really boring, but it's necessary often to gain the basic technique you need in order to do the fun stuff or impressive stuff, or speed/sweep pick something. One thing I used to do with arpeggios that I think really helped was I would use a backing track with just one chord (Band in a Box is great for throwing together a fast backing track). I would systematically go through all the positions for that one chord's arpeggio. You not only want to be able to move from one box to the next, but also be able to jump from any box to any other box. Once you can play straight up and down each shape with no mistakes then you start doing different things like skipping strings and playing some of the other intervals contained within. You might also do single string playing, i.e. play the arpeggio up and down each single string. Try practicing with different rhythms at different tempos - eighths, swing eighths, full triplet eighths, sixteenths, various combinations of sixteenths (like sixteenth, dotted eighth, or dotted eighth sixteenth, etc..), and then maybe even do some tuplets like sextuplets, quintuplets etc...If you really want to get advanced try going from a group of sixteenths to a quintuplet to a triplet and back again, or any other combination of simple subdivisions to tuplets. Once you can do all that, then you might play over a set of simple chord changes for which you have basically mastered all the basic arpeggio shapes by doing something similar to what I described above. Now playing over a ii-V-I in any key will be cake because you have those arps completely memorized in all positions. There is so much to arpeggios though, beyond just playing the actual arpeggio. There is combining them with the other scale tones or chromatic tones -- this is what you need to ultimately do to get that professional sound. Being able to chain them together as you said is also important. If you are having trouble with that, then give yourself more bars of each chord. So instead of having 1 bar of Dm7, 1 bar of G7, 1 bar of Cmaj7 for example, give yourself 2 bars of each, or 4, so you have more time to think. Shorten the number of bars until you are down to 1 bar or 1/2 a bar for each. Remember that when playing arpeggios there's no need to play every single note in the arpeggio position -- you can just play a couple notes for each chord and then move on. This is necessary for very fast changes. Another thing that can really help with chaining them together is finding the notes they have in common -- so Dm7 and G7 both have the note F and D - use those as your connecting notes between those two arps. Being methodical and persistent with your practice will eventually pay off with great chops. As far as what are the fundamentals, well this may be open to opinion, but in my opinion the things you NEED to know to have a basic command all the fundamentals of improvisation: major/minor diatonic scale, harmonic minor, melodic minor, and a few other useful scales like half-whole, whole-tone, pentatonic, blues, & chromatic. There are of course many other scales you could work on, but I think with those you can get just about any melodic idea you can imagine. But if those aren't enough for your imagination it doesn't hurt to eventually learn things like the double-harmonic minor/major scale, harmonic major and other oddball scales. But you certainly don't need every single scale in the book. I also think knowing your basic arpeggios in all positions is important. As a jazzer I tended to focus on my 7th chord arpeggios, but simple triad arpeggios are good to practice too because remember a traid is really just the upper, lower or middle 3 notes of ANY chord built out of thirds - 7th, 9th, 11th, etc...So sometimes it's nice instead of playing a Cmaj7 arpeggio over Cmaj7 chord, play a minor triad from the third, or major triad from the 5th, as an example. Just keep doing what you are doing and you will be fine. It sounds like you are on the right track. Be methodical, practice all positions, keep it simple. The fundamentals are not hard to understand or complex in any way - it's just your basic scales and arpeggios.

  3748. musictheory 2019-03-14 05:04:03 SkyhouseStudio
    In the context of a chord chart or lead sheet, C/G just means that the lowest note should be G. In a band, that would typically mean the bass player should play G, and the rest of the players are free to use whatever voicing they wish. If it's solo piano, then the piano player should typically be playing G in the bass. If it's solo guitar, the guitar player should voice a G on the lowest string. When an inversion is specified like this, it is usually because of some specific movement happening in the bassline. For example, let's say the chord progression goes: F C Am C D7 G The above progression has two interesting features: - one, it implies a key change from C to G (or possibly from F to G); - two, the root note ascends almost stepwise, except for the first C. Putting a G in the bass of the first C chord allows the bassline to go: F G A C D before dropping back down to G. This not only gives a smooth and satisfying upward progression in the bass, it also reinforces the introduction of tonal ambiguity, and the resolution down to G, the new home key. So, re-voicing this chord progression as: F C/G Am C D7 G Would give it a distinctive sound and sense of progression, that wouldn't quite feel the same, if the bassline jumped up to C and then back down to A. The lowest voice in a harmony has a powerful effect on the sense of a tonal "center", so it doesn't matter quite so much what the other instruments are doing. As long as the bass player is playing G, the guitar can generally play any voicing you wish. Instruments like piano or organ, which are capable of going lower than a string bass or bass guitar, will typically lay off the bottom octaves and leave the lowest note to the bass instrument, if there is one, or else will take over bass duties with the left hand.

  3749. musictheory 2019-03-14 11:03:52 65TwinReverbRI
    Yeah - so Keys are what you're missing. Now, let's say keys aren't the answer to everything, but they're the "core" of most music most people are interested in writing so it's important to start there. What you need to learn are your Diatonic Chords for all your keys - at least the common keys like C, G, D, A, E, F, Bb, Eb, and Ab (though on guitar the flat ones are less common) and the minors that go with them. For example, the diatonic chords in the key of D are: D, Em, F#m, G, A, B, C#^o Then you string them together and make songs. But it's WAY better to take some songs you already know (which is why I was asking) and figure out what key they're in and what kind of chords they use. Sometimes, with a Bass Line, it's hard to tell - because it could just be a single chord vamp, or it could have a number of possibilities that all sound good. Same with a melody - sometimes it pretty strongly implies a chord progression, but sometimes it could work with a number of progressions. For that reason, people usually either start with a chord progression, or start writing a line with a good sense of the key they're going to use (or maybe even the chords they might imply) before they start. What you have to do with your bass line is figure out what the notes are, and which chords they imply if any. That means, you need to learn not only your Diatonic Chords in each of those keys, but which notes are in which chords (which can be done in the context of the key or in isolation). If the bass is playing an A, it could be a D, Dm, F, F#m, Am, or A chord - and that's just major and minor possibilities. But if it moves from A up to C, that might rule out the F#m as a possibility. The more notes you can identify, the more it helps to rule out other possibilities. Had you started with a clear chord progression in mind, that part would be done for you :-) Really, analyzing the songs you already know is the next step - seeing what chord progressions they do and basically stealing them :-) Find something you like and try to re-work it. There's tons of songs that use a progression like D - C - G/B - Bb then either back up or on to A. Or variations of that idea. So you take a progression like that and either use it with your own melody, bass line, and vibe, or you make a variation of it. There are tons of songs that use just I, IV, and V (you need to learn what those mean) and others that add vi to that mix. The "four chord loop" is super common (maybe unfortunately because it's super cliche now) but it can help you start putting ideas together. You start with basic ones, and add things that sound cool to you from there. Once you get the diatonic ones down, you just start adding in either variations of those or chords from other keys. HTH

  3750. musictheory 2019-03-15 02:25:57 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, both the other posters are correct. And you use different fingers, and a different technique to play it - so it depends on how technical you want to get! When you play an "open" C chord on guitar, not counting the 6th string, you are playing the notes, from lowest to highest, C-E-G-C-E When you play it as an "A form" (the shape an open A chord would be) on the 3rd fret, you have C-G-C-E-G So notice that the Barre version has two Cs, two Gs, and one E, while the open version has two Cs, ONE G, and TWO Es. Also, they both have in common the C-G-C-E notes, but the Barre form has a high G, while the open form as a lower E (on the 4th string) within the chord. The difference between the way notes are distributed like this is called "Voicing". How the chords are voiced. You could fingerpick the chords, and only play strings 5, 3, 2, 1 in the open version, and strings 5, 4, 3, 2 in the Barre version and you would have exactly the same notes. So in that case the voicing is exactly the same. However, as FwLineberry points out, the resonance is different in the open string version (also, generally, any time the same note is played lower (toward the nut) on a guitar, the more resonance that note will have in that position because of the longer string length, but open strings have a jump in resonance over fretted notes). _____ As for matching a voice, it doesn't matter. We don't pick chord forms based on that (I suppose we could argue that maybe we *should*, but we don't!). Choosing your voicing or position is more a matter of convenience, ability, logistics, sound you want, and so on. Many people can't play that Barre form - it's tough to finger it so all 5 strings ring freely. Instead, many people omit the highest string. Some people are able to "back bend" their ring finger and cover all the notes that would be on the 5th fret and still clear the top string. Others, like me - I play the 5th string with my index finger, the 4th string with my ring, and then cover both the 3rd and 2nd strings with my pinky (like playing a 3 note power chord but laying your pinky across an additional string, which is comfortable for me) and I just leave off the 1st string. If I HAVE to have that first string for some reason I'll use fingers 2-3-4 on the notes on the 5th fret and index will catch the 5th and 1st strings. But I void that one most of the time - as do many other guitarists. And some people get fed up with that, and play the E form at the 8th fret instead (which gives you the exact same notes as the 5th string version plus one more high C on top). ______ Here's something to know if you're a beginning guitarist - when you learn barre chords it's kind of exciting to be able to move shapes around and play lots of different chords and more chords than you can in open position. And when players get to that point they often see open chords as "too beginnery" and feel like it's something they shouldn't do. But believe me, if you gig 4 nights a week playing 3 45 minute sets a night, usually for very little pay, at some point you go "why am I killing myself here, I'll take the easy way out" - and play the open chords! Since many of them are similar or even identical (or can be made to be as I pointed out above) it takes some of the strain off your hand from doing barre chords all night long. And sometimes you need that extra resonance (like if you're the only guitar player or rhythm instrument in a band) for a fuller sound! There's no crime in using open chords (or barre chords). All the pros do. Just don't fall into that trap of, "they're for beginners". They are, but they're also for all the smart people too ;-)

  3751. musictheory 2019-03-15 03:25:46 DRL47
    Good explanation and advice. I would add the other family of chords, besides open and barre chords. The moveable four and five string chords that are NOT barres, like the "F" shape and the C7 shape, for example. You can still relax your grip to mute all the strings (like a barre), but they don't tire your hand out.

  3752. musictheory 2019-03-15 05:27:55 notreallyme42069
    6 chords have a 1,3,5, and 6, like C6 is C-E-G-A 13 chords have a 1,3,5,(dominant)7,9,11, and 13, like C13 is C-E-G-A-Bb-D-F-A The first chord is not a C6 because it has a dominant 7 - Bb, on the 8th fret of the D string. The second chord is not a C6 for the same reason, it has the dominant 7, this time as the lowest note played.

  3753. musictheory 2019-03-15 16:06:23 S8Nforemperor
    You could focus instead on the downward chromatically trickling melody of the chord tones on each string independently. You can get a lot of mileage out of variations of harmonies.

  3754. musictheory 2019-03-16 02:13:36 jazzadellic
    Applied music theory: pentatonic scale, blues scale, major/minor diatonic scale, harmonic minor scale, melodic minor, modes of the diatonic scale, half-whole scale, minor 7, major 7 & dominant 7 arpeggios, open chords, barre chords, movable 7th chords, and more. All of the above learned in every position, from every root, all string sets and/or combinations. I became proficient at finding any pitch anywhere on the fretboard. I memorized all my chord formulas. With those two skills I started constructing chords in different areas of the fretboard, and making my own custom chord voicings, instead of referring to a book with a bunch of chord diagrams. I went through a fakebook and learned 100+ jazz tunes using all of that guitar knowledge. Then, after doing all that for about 6 years on my own, I took my first music lesson on my first day as a music major in college.

  3755. musictheory 2019-03-16 14:03:55 bloodymangata
    So you took music theory at a college level, yeah? You’re probably familiar with soprano clef and bass clef. Alto clef and tenor clef are like soprano/bass clef, in that they help you identify notes based on their relationship to the staff. Alto and tenor clefs are helpful for instruments whose range falls in between our common soprano/bass clef. Because they’re not as common (for instance, only the viola plays consistently in alto clef out of the modern string family), it’s hard to be as fluent in reading them. Practicing how to read those clefs will help you read symphonic scores. Additionally, some instruments “read” one note and play another. In other words, they are transposing instruments. On a piano, you see Middle C, play the note that you’ve been taught is Middle C, and the frequency corresponding to Middle C is produced by the piano. Wind instruments do not always work like this. They may, for instance, see a C, play the note C, but the frequency that comes out of the instrument is actually a B-flat. For such an instrument, in order to get it to play a C Major scale in unison with a piano, the piano would play its C Major scale and the wind instrument would play what looks like a D Major scale. Becoming familiar with what instruments are transposing instruments will also help you read and study symphonic scores. I found Samuel Adler’s The Study of Orchestration to be a helpful resource for understanding these quirks of the modern, Western orchestra. You may find it helpful in pursuing your studies.

  3756. musictheory 2019-03-16 14:59:19 NovaCharlie
    There are some great suggestions here. I'm sure my suggestions have been covered already, but here's my take: -Theory, up until 20th century. Honestly, don't bother with contemporary stuff unless you are for some reason are passionate about it. - in terms of readings scores, you need to eliminate all cognitive dissonance regarding issues of reading multiple parts in different keys, in different clefs, as all scores are set up this way. I.e., you have a brass quartet with Fhorn, Bb Trumpet, Cbone in alto clef and C tuba. In any given measure, Yo y should be able to identify the chord, the type of voicing, and it's function without thinking more than 5-10 sec about all the transposition in between the instruments. This itself is a monumental task. -repertoire is super important for developing style. If you want to write in modern film score styles listen constantly to James Newton Howard, Howard Shore, etc. If you're trying to do more traditional work, get familiar with the late romantics. Regardless reading scores of Beethoven/Haydn concertos would be invaluable as these slightly more accessible composers set up both late romantic and film scores. -understand how instrument timbre and pairing affects emotional response is key. For instance, IMO one of the best parts of Howard shores LOTR FOTR score, in the first song on hobbits, is when he brings in the harpsichord. Nowhere in hobbiton is there probably a harpsichord (as opposed to a flute or lute), yet this instrumentation choices adds a layer of "Baroqueness" that perfectly describes the elegant, but folky, nature if hobbits in Middle Earth. -Dig into one of the major orchestration books mentioned above. I personally think Adler is the best, but even a textbook such as 18th Century Orchestration is great at explaining the basics of voicing for string sections. - At some point, tackling the Concept of "form" in an orchestral/programmatic composition will be crucial. This one is the hardest, as it contains all the abovementioned concepts. I honestly don't have a great suggestion for this one, other than getting a real orchestration/composition teacher. all this is just my opinion. Best of luck on the journey!

  3757. musictheory 2019-03-16 18:02:58 Murdo1988
    Maybe it’s because it can be interpreted as a rootless dominant 9th voicing. A m7b5 chord with a 6th string root sounds a lot more dissonant to my ears.

  3758. musictheory 2019-03-16 19:16:23 the_walru5
    If you want to extend a power chord with a 9, use this shape: 0 on the E string, 2 on the A string, and 4 on the D string. E-B-F# aka E no3 add 9. And the 7 would be on the same string, but either 3 frets lower for a maj7 chord, or 4 frets lower for a dominant 7 chord. So, E-B-D# for Emaj7, or E-B-D for E7. 0-2-1 on the E A and D string, or 0-2-0 for the dominant version.

  3759. musictheory 2019-03-16 21:25:59 chucho89
    Take music theory, harmony and instrumentations classes, also study piano at least to know the basics. When it comes to composition is good to study the allegro-sonata form. Also be patient this is a never ending learning experience. I have been studying and writting music for over 13 years since I was 17. One tip: once you studied harmony and composition buy full scores and start studying the scores. Like which instruments are double. Ranges. What is the best range for solo on each instruments, transposition of instruments, weak registers. So in resume I think there are four very important aspects to being an accomplished writer of music, whether a composer, arranger or orchestrator. Write lots of music and have it played by live musicians. 1.- write lots of music and have it play by real musicians 2.- dissect everything you listen to 3.- follow scores as you listen to audio 4.-known the ranges especially the strengths and limitations of the instruments of the orchestra. The work of instrumentations is very complex so be very very patient example Do you know the break on the clarinet? Do you know that the oboe, flute, saxophone and bassoon all finger basically the same in each of their bottom two octaves while the clarinet does not? Do you know the limitations of double and triple stops on the violin, viola and cello? Do you have an understanding of the overtone series and how it applies to all the instruments, especially the brass family? You have to know the ranges of each instrument, but more than that you have to understand where each instrument is powerful and where each is weak. You have to understand fingering difficulties, especially for woodwinds. Just because a book gives you the playable range of a specific instrument it does not tell you if the top or bottom notes are easy, or difficult, to produce. There is a lot to know about the Harp Here is something to think about. Concert 'D' which is one whole step above middle 'C' on the piano is playable by most instruments of the orchestra. It is too low for the piccolo and too high for the contrabass and some of the really low instruments. But most can play it. But each instrument sounds different on that same note. Imagine that note played by the flute. It is near the bottom of that instrument's range and sounds light and somewhat airy. There is not much power to that note when played by even a fine flutist. It is also a low note for an oboe but tends to sound loud, abrasive and sort of 'honky' when played on the oboe. It has a nice strident quality on a baritone saxophone (because it is in that instrument's upper register). It is a powerful sounding note on the trombone...because it is approaching its upper register. It is a good note for the trumpet but not a powerful one. Do you get my point? That one note has a different quality to it depending on what instrument is playing it. And that quality will change when you combine different instruments on that same note. You should sit at the piano and play that 'D' and imagine it is a French horn. Then play it again and imagine it is a clarinet. You must understand transpositions so that you know where on the clarinet that note is found. Do that with every instrument in the orchestra. There are a few books on orchestration that contain a wealth of information. Each has its strengths and biases. The four I'm familiar with are by Kent Kennan, Samuel Adler, Rimsky-Korsakov and Forsythe. Adler is the most recent. I have it but don't consult it as much as I do the Kennan. I got my Kent Kennan book while still in college. It has excellent information on string writing. The Rimsky-Korsakov is over 100 years old. But his was the first book to write about orchestration and he was a master at it. If nothing else, it is an interesting reference book. I'm the least familiar with the Forsythe book which dates to the late 1920s or early 1930s. Gerald Wilson told me it was that book that he used for information about writing for strings. I have that one, too. Find a good tutor, there are many good professors out there on the basic check Jjay Berthume on YouTube, Norman Ludwin (Hollywood orchestrator) he gives classes one on one, Rick Beato this are people you must subscribe. Good luck R.F jr He

  3760. musictheory 2019-03-16 21:43:30 koeno100
    I'd strongly recommend getting a composition teacher (private or in school, whatever feels right). The internet is a great place to find information on how to do stuff, but sitting with someone even once a month who looks at your work and tries to help you express yourself can be of great value for your work! I recently completed my first full orchestral work that's getting performed by a commercial orchestra, so maybe I could give you a path to follow based on the one I followed. I read below that you're a guitar player, so am I so maybe you can find yourself in what I'm going to write! The first step is listening. Listen, discover, then listen more and discover more until you know so much music that you can't even think about anything else but music. Listen to past composers like Mozart and Haydn, but even before that like Bach, but also Palestrina and Guillaume de Machaut, and younger ones like Stravinsky, Webern, etc. The more you listen, the more you tools you have at your disposal. I myself come from a pop background, mostly alt. rock, funk and metal. The first classical composer I actively started listening was Claude Debussy. From there I kind of went back into time, discovering the entire classical repetoire. If you really want to know your names, buy the book "A History of Western Music". I had this book for my music history classes during my musicology studies and it covers most of the important names in western music. Another important thing is reading and analysis. You say you've got two semesters of music theory covered, so I assume you're at the same level as someone who's done a first year of musicology here in the Netherlands. That should give you enough tools to start analyzing classical era music like Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Start by analyzing piano sonatas. Almost every sonata starts with the sonata form, and if you want to be able to understand symphonies, you have to be able to understand this form, because it was also common practice to write the first movement of a symphony in sonata form. So start by analyzing piano sonatas, find the structures of the sonata form and then get into depth and find how the themes develop, what the motives are, etc. Search for analyses of pieces on the internet to compare to your own findings and perhaps learn thing you couldn't find yourself to improve yourself even more. The most basic requirements is that you can read sheet music and do a harmonic analysis. If you don't know where to find sheet music, [www.imslp.org](https://www.imslp.org) is your goldmine! If you want to learn to compose a symphony, you have to learn to compose. How? By doing it. Start out with piano pieces. (Or guitar pieces or whatever your main instrument is) Write a chord progression and write a melody over it, then make an accompaniment, etc. Study compositional forms and tools and try to perhaps emulate styles that you like. A nice book covering the fundamentals of compositions is "Fundamentals of Musical Composition" by Arnold Schoenberg. If you want to build a house, you've got to start with the foundation before you can furnish your rooms. What I mean is composing a symphony requires a lot of knowledge and can be very overwhelming. It is a great goal to work towards though! Once you feel comfortable writing these pieces, try writing for ensembles like string quartets or duets or make an ensemble of your own. Also, if you have the possibility, have your pieces played by people! You can learn a lot from working with musicians because not everything you write is phisically possible and finding ways to work around these problems eventually enhances your creativity. Harmonic progressions are technically the same in classical music as in pop music, except that harmony in classical music follows conventions and rarely stays in one key when we're looking at late romantic music. If we look at the Adagietto in F major of Symphony No. 5, the progression of the first 10 bars is as follows: I - V - I - V - IV- I6 - i6 - II7 - #io7 - ii - I6 - V. Now this could be used as a chord progression in a pop song, but what makes harmony in classical music sound rather "classical" is the use of non-chordal tones to create fluent lines. Where pop music treats harmony as blocks of chords, classical music often treats harmony as distinct lines that together form a harmony. Note that most music in practice doesn't strictly follow the rules of part-writing. They're merely to train the ear and teach you how music "wants" to behave. Following this rules will of course result in a rather boring chorale because everything follows the rules. The way I use my part-writing skills: I can hear much easier where a chord wants to resolve to or what my options are to resolve certain tones, and so I can also hear what combination definitely WOULDN'T work. There's much more to say but in summary: listen to music, study and analyze music, start composing simple pieces for one instrument and then move on to larger forms so you can eventually write pieces for orchestra. Good luck and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask!

  3761. musictheory 2019-03-16 21:56:45 lrerayray
    You need to know A LOT of things actually. The 4 part writing and reading you had will give you a good start together with the theory classes. Honestly, I’d recommend a tutor or a solid orchestration course. It will bring you way closer (and quicker) than self study, books and youtube videos. They help, but they will give you data and information scattered that will be hard to put in a streamlined and organizes learning process. I’ve been studying hard by myself for years and the moment I started taking seriously a course I evolved so much quicker its night and day. Orchestration is complicated because there are so many considerations like instruments, timbres, combinations, notation practices, instrument ranges, tessitura, transposing instruments among many others, that someone not familiar with a simple string ensemble will get easily overwhelmed. Even good books like Adler, Rimsky etc are awesome reference books but horrible to start out. Because most content will fly over your head. Its a lifelong study and definitely not easy. What I recommend is start with bite size material. Short ensemble and read the scores. Then understand all orchestral instruments, then start writing the expanded thing. Listen to a lot of pieces. See you in 20 years.

  3762. musictheory 2019-03-17 01:25:32 Jongtr
    You might not think you're putting yourself into it, but you are, you can't help it. You choose the sounds you choose (in preference to others) because of how you feel about them. It doesn't have to be deep, or emotional. Music is not about emotion - really it isn't. It's much deeper than that. It's a language of its own, and (as Stravinsky) said "expresses nothing but itself". All you need to do is to want to make music in the first place. To want to make sounds you think are "right", when you're making them. The important is not to just string together chords in a way you've seen it done before, or following some formula in a book because it works. I don't be *deliberately* detached from the process - as if someone were paying you to produce something *they* wanted. It can just be a question of attitude - of a sense of detachment that feeds on itself. I.e., it seems like you're not feeling what you think you should be, which makes you more detached. You need to think about "getting inside" the music, and bringing out what is in there. Even if it's your own music, which you may think is imperfect, it's a series of sounds that you can always apply more expression to. *Play like you mean it.* The more you do that - even if you don't mean it to start with - the more you will start to feel it. Every chord, every note, has a character. Treat it like a script you have to act out. And you have to *act*, to *deliver* it, not just "read the lines". Tl:DR: Listen to the music, not to yourself. ;-) (I mean, the two are intimately connected, but thinking about your own feelings gets in the way of the music, blocks the flow of the connection.)

  3763. musictheory 2019-03-17 03:13:46 mattsl
    Sweet Home Alabama is pretty blatantly in D. Listening to the harmony in the context of "this is bluesy rock" already makes that the answer, but if you need more convincing, the way there is always a string of pick up notes that lead back into the D solidifies it.

  3764. musictheory 2019-03-17 03:49:26 soyboi4lyfe
    Not sure if this answers your question but because each string is different the notes are colored differently. Same pitch but it will have a different harmonic recipe on each string. That’s not super important but as a performer I don’t hesitate to play across the strings, in fact I prefer to do that if it means less shifting. When I’m playing orchestral music sometimes I keep a melodic phrase on the same string to keep the color the same. It just depends on tempo and what the line is like.

  3765. musictheory 2019-03-17 03:53:03 sxwr909
    you usually put the string number in a circle next to the note that you want played on that string. its most often used in situations to help infer what position that you should be playing in. or in your case arpeggiated patterns. You arent going to be able to get it to sound different on your notation software though.

  3766. musictheory 2019-03-17 04:09:43 65TwinReverbRI
    In music notation for Guitar and Bass (especially in modern pop contexts) you notate any string to be played Open with a "0" - that's zero, as in "zeroeth fret" and "zero" finger. Usually the font is the same that is used for fingering for other fingers of the fretting hand (1, 2, 3, 4, T). Sometimes you'll also see an "O" (oh) as it also could mean "open". The following is excellent typical notation for Classical Guitar: https://www.thisisclassicalguitar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Easy-Guitar-Sample-Notes.png Note the "0" for open strings. Notice that once a pattern is established, every single open string is not re-notated as such - so the E in the 3rd measure and the G in the 4th measure don't need an "0" now as it's assumed by this point. If those notes were to be fretted - for example, the high E could be on the 5th fret of the 2nd string, just having the finger number could be good enough as it should be clear what it is - so a "4" if that's the finger to play it is all that's needed. But, sometimes more info is needed and the string number is included. String numbers for guitar are an Arabic numeral in a circle - 1-6 (usually a slightly different font than the fingering number, but not always). Additionally sometimes the position (fret) is indicated as well, and this is done by Roman Numeral with "C" in front, like CVII or C.VII (I prefer the latter). Some people use the "C" just to mean "position" in general, and some use it specifically to mean Barre chords. On bass that might not be an issue but the people who use it only on Barre chords just put a Roman Numeral. Here's some well-notated music with string numbers and position numbers included: https://www.8notes.com/school/scores/guitar/tarrega_adelita.gif Notice that the very first measures show the E and G notes are to be played on strings 3 and 2 - the numerals in circles. Also the "IX" shows you are starting in 9th position with your first finger over the 9th fret, the first note high E to be played by finger 4. The first low open E note HAS to be played as an open string, so no need to notate it, but some people might. Usually we assume the lowest possible version of a note (closest to the nut) when no other information is given. You can though see the "0" used in the last measure of the first system as it might not be clear that some, but not all of those notes possible on open string should be taken on open strings. The other system of notating it is Tablature, and in some case some publications include both. But Tablature alone is fine as it clearly indicates which string and fret a note should be taken on. Now, in terms of your getting to sound different for playback, you're probably stuck. Honestly I don't think it would be worth the effort. Open strings are "brighter" and "more ringy" so it's possible you could go into a DAW and just select those specific notes that are open and give them a higher filter cutoff point or use an EQ on just that note (which would be easier if it were on a different track). Also you could put all the open string notes on a different track and assign a different instrument to them and try to find something that sounds more like an open string versus a fretted string. But this is just very time consuming for very little return on that investment IMHO. By the time you do all that you might as well just record the live bass. _____ One slight aside, string players use "sul G" to say "play this note on the G string" and sometimes you see that in guitar music (rarely) but they also use string numbers but use Roman Numerals - so if you were to ask this of a classical Double Bass player, they might say the numerals are different - I'm working from a modern published system that's commonplace for modern guitar and electric bass notation, which shares much with classical guitar published sheet music now as well). ____

  3767. musictheory 2019-03-17 06:34:12 victotronics
    1. Then don't play a 7th..... 2. Ok, if you have one string left, play a 5th up on that string, then slide 3 frets up. But why don't you start by playing nice and low and finding cool riffs with a 7th?

  3768. musictheory 2019-03-17 07:24:19 Jongtr
    The most common kind of 7th is a minor 7th. That's 2 frets below (or 10 frets above) the root. 10 frets above is, of course, 5 frets above on the next string, or the same fret two strings across. The other kind of 7th is a major 7th, which is 1 fret higher than the minor 7th. You should know which kind of 7th you need by how it sounds.

  3769. musictheory 2019-03-17 08:43:17 jayteejay
    Best voicing is root-third-seventh. "Guide tones" Works from the E or A string very well. For example from the E string: play D on the E string; play C on the D; and play F# on the G. Same chord from the A string: play D on the A; play F# on the D; and play C on the G. Both of the above are D7 Another fun inversion is from the A string: play C on the A string; play F# on the D; and play D on the G. Remember these chord shapes. They are INCREDIBLY useful. Anyone who tells you not to play chords on the bass are no fun. Though too low, yes they're muddy.

  3770. musictheory 2019-03-17 14:57:49 EverythingBurnz
    What's the qualitative difference between the open-D string and a D note played on the A string at the 5th fret. Does that minute tonal difference come from the string gauge?

  3771. musictheory 2019-03-17 20:07:50 Jongtr
    Well, you could do what the Beatles did (between 1957 and 1963) and copy 100s of other people's songs and singing styles, including rock'n'roll, country, blues, mainstream pop, musical show tones, vintage jazz, Motown, gospel, etc etc. (And then as they progressed through the 60s, copying stuff from Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, etc.) But I'm guessing you don't have that much time or insane level of commitment! The problem, of course, is that they did have such a wide spectrum of influences, spreading themselves across several pop subgenres. And yet they still sounded like themselves! A lot of that - IMO - is in the vocal style, especially Lennon's nasal timbre. Their harmonies (inspired mainly by the Everlys) were quite harsh for the time, they didn't use vibrato or attempt any sweetness of tone. And they also understood the power of falsetto at moments of drama, to get the girls screaming. The guitar tones were often distinctive too: those clanging semi-acoustics: Harrison's Gretsch, Lennon's Rickenbacker, the occasional Epiphone Casino, the Rickenbacker 12-string. And of course McCartney's bouncy and melodic Hofner bass and Starr's cymbals, often zinging and hissing throughout the songs (at least in the early days). In terms of song form, they would freely extend or truncate sections to follow the natural phrasing of the lyrics. They would express their influences lightly, even humorously. They never took themselves too seriously. But you could take inspiration from Neil Innes' Rutles, who showed that Beatles pastiche was easier than you might think.... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54KBPA20b9Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54KBPA20b9Q) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePaHG6g7uFw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePaHG6g7uFw)

  3772. musictheory 2019-03-17 23:44:48 markjohnstonmusic
    Apologies for the delay. > 9 sections x 3 movements = a lot of same old same old This is exactly the kind of thing you're going to say if you haven't listened to ten thousand classical symphonies and understand exactly what, from the scale of the individual note to that of an entire piece, is "standard" and what constitutes innovation and how composers and works differ from one another. It's way more subtle than you're giving it credit for. And it's only once you've done that homework that you can start to understand what is so brilliant about Mozart. Your comment about "other languages" I'm going to ignore, since it's obviously irrelevant for anyone who speaks those languages (including all of the cultures from which this music originally comes)—in other words, if you can't understand it and can't be bothered to try, that's your problem. > Because tablas can be made in under a day. Almost all drums can. If you have the knowledge and the equipment. I'm not necessarily talking about 2019. When Mozart's contemporaries borrowed the sounds of the janissary bands they heard on the battlefield before Vienna, they didn't necessarily have the knowledge and equipment to copy those instruments exactly. Nor was fidelity their main concern. Why should they do it your way? They aren't borrowing to achieve some kind of academic or philosophical wank. They're borrowing because they're interested in new sounds, and it's their right to do that in whatever way they feel like. So you can come in here with all kinds of expectations for how borrowing is done, or you can come in with your ears open and see what people have done, unjudgementally. > It's just frustrating to me how awful string players are at rhythm This is silly. String players are exactly as good at rhythm as they have to be. Watch a good orchestra accompany an operetta, or for that matter a new year's concert by the Vienna Philharmonic: they play together even when the the tempo changes multiple times within a beat. Classically trained string players don't generally have to play complexly constructed rhythms, and they don't have to play really fast offbeats or incredibly precise rhythms the way percussionists do, though if you listen to people who specialise in new music ([here](https://imgur.com/gallery/vgWBHNu)'s what I'm currently working on) you'll find that too. And what a classical orchestra can do—play by sight a work with constantly changing tempo, for instance—it's not common to find non-classical players proficient in. The reason ensembles of string players on foot don't exist is that string instruments are "indoor" instruments. Winds and brass basically developed as outdoor instruments, often in bands and the like, and were often played on foot; strings were played in orchestras indoors. They're softer and some of them cannot be played while moving. They're suited to their (original) purpose. Why criticise them for something for which they're not meant to do? Nobody's criticising an oboe for not having a four-octave range.

  3773. musictheory 2019-03-18 01:26:13 65TwinReverbRI
    Many factors. String gauge, string tension, string mass, core mass, winding mass, sounding length, finger as a stopping mechanism against a fret rather than the nut, and then in some cases, factors like how much string length there is behind the nut or behind the bridge. It's actually pretty amazing it doesn't sound a lot more different than it does! But those would be the major factors.

  3774. musictheory 2019-03-18 04:44:13 Spokler
    I've played in almost every ensembles, orchestra, string quartet, duos, etc... Now i can play with friends if i want to play my [future] compositions. Thank you for responding

  3775. musictheory 2019-03-18 06:56:15 65TwinReverbRI
    I think Haydn suffers from this: He was actually quite adventurous because he really is "the father of" Classical music and most classical forms (String Quartet, Symphony, Concerto, Piano Trio, Piano Sonata - in their Classical forms) so actually "shook the world". But for some reason him "breaking with tradition and starting a whole freaking genre" doesn't get the same press as Beethoven doing it, I guess because he didn't have this "romantic struggle" that makes Beethoven seem that much more the superhuman. Haydn was the consummate craftsman as a composer. And he was very crafty too. He put in lots of musical "in jokes" that only composers or people familiar with composition would "get". This guy has a great series pointing out some "composerly" things to appreciate from various composers and I would say everyone should check these out (despite his somewhat deadpan delivery). Here are some on Haydn that might connect with you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJdeI1ptKf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=876DYEwzk1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yifLSGNCO3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX_JSzCFCQA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8T4BWVima0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnY3U2Mtt-w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2X0w2ZLCV8 Let me know if any of that changes your mind. Cheers

  3776. musictheory 2019-03-18 16:08:37 FixGMaul
    30 cents is a pretty significant difference tbh. If a string is flat by ~10-15 cents it's noticably out of tune.

  3777. musictheory 2019-03-18 23:16:31 metalliska
    > Why should they do it your way? It's the way of re-representing the culture they visited. It's a cylinder made from the most abundant renewable resource possible: trees. 2nd most available renewable resource ever? Animal skin. >They aren't borrowing to achieve some kind of academic or philosophical wank. They're borrowing because they're interested in new sounds, and it's their right to do that in whatever way they feel like. So you can come in here with all kinds of expectations for how borrowing is done, or you can come in with your ears open and see what people have done, unjudgementally. You're correct. Disconnecting judgmentally from what music I've read and heard throughout my adult life is far easily said than done. >play by sight a work It's also difficult to explain how unimpressive this is. There's never a rush to perform nor an instance of cohesion spontaneity that I respect. It's akin to not missing a word in reading CAT IN THE HAT for the first time to a newborn. Sightreading is one of those academic / philosophical wanks that nobody asked for. Maybe it's great for teambuilding like those trust falls. >Why criticise them for something for which they're not meant to do? Because of what you're saying based on original purpose. Why should the 'original purpose' not be left behind like other badly fitting forms? Where's the musical evolution? Why not criticize form? > Nobody's criticising an oboe for not having a four-octave range. Double reeds are shrill enough that they can pierce through anything. >String players are exactly as good at rhythm as they have to be. That sounds like it's from someone who hates dancing. It's like an excuse to limit body language because someone else inked blots on paper. Coming from an audience unable to crowdsurf. > since it's obviously irrelevant for anyone who anyone who speaks those languages I mean that seriously. Italians end words with vowels. It's like that selection of words in any opera can't rhyme or use advanced diction and consonance / assonance without escaping that vocabulary 'set'. Try and sustain a formata on a "*husk*" or "*toothlessness*". >Your sheet music Really cool, by the way. I'm a big fan of any composition. As a "reader", I'd add one comment about note spacing you're probably familiar with that I was taught: On the first line, where you're tying into the "mi / uh" of C# (like the pickup 16th), it implies that your previous 3 whole notes are shifted to the left of the beat by 1 / 16th. As if the 16th quintuplet (E/A-F#-D#-F#-E) is lacking that final 16th which pushes the rest over. The way I was taught to do it is to have that 16th [tie into the whole](https://imgur.com/a/lqpsj9a). although on your snippet I couldn't see the time signature so it could be 100/8 for all I know. The lyrics remind me of [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY3_AhqNDoQ) >The reason ensembles of string players on foot don't exist is that string instruments are "indoor" instruments. Right. The "original purpose" has proven ineffective by a simple certainty of moving air. Next thing they'll be unable to play around "fire" or "can't play in the rain" or some other everyday guarantee.

  3778. musictheory 2019-03-19 04:31:06 65TwinReverbRI
    So, a couple of ways to think of this. The first, and best, ultimately, is to really know your notes and where they are on the fretboard and that helps you "move away from the pattern". But if course, if you're not there yet, you still need to get there, and thinking in patterns can be meritorious in its own right so worth spending some time on. So the next way is this "pattern" based thinking. There are 5 Pentatonic patterns on guitar (let's assume Am from here on out since that's what you mentioned). There is one at the 5th fret. There is one each at the 8th, 10th, 12th, and 15th fret as well. These are patterns that are 2 notes on each string and stay in a basic "box" pattern. You can think of these as 5 different "rotations" of the scale - one starting on A, one on C, one on D, one on E, and one on G (and thus they're actually available open, at the 3rd fret, at the 17th fret, and so on). Some people present them as "modes of Pentatonic" which they could be, but really we're just usually treating them as different positions to access higher or lower notes. Within this "box" context, you can think about each box as "overlapping" - for example, the highest position note in the 5th fret Box on each string is also the lowest position note in the 8th fret box. Probably the easiest way to see this is the "last" rotation - which in my example would be at the 15th fret, but let's take it on the 3rd fret. If you look at your Am Pentatonic Scale, you have a note on the 5th fret of every string, plus another note on the 8th or 7th fret. Now if you were to move down to the last rotation at the 3rd fret, then all those notes are still on the 5th fret, with notes below them at fret 3 or 2. It's sort of a "mirror image" (not quite, but you can think about it that way). So it's pretty clear how those two patterns share these notes on the 5th fret - they "link" the two positions. Now, take a step back - there are two extremes: You can play your Pentatonic in one position, 2 notes per string and stay 100% "in the box". But, you can also play the Pentatonic up (or down) a *single string* which is "in a line". So you've got a very vertical approach versus a very horizontal approach. So you can actually use this idea to connect any two positions. For example, you could play A-C-D-E-G-A-C-D then, on the 3rd string, just continue up that string - E-G-A-C and then play D-E- on string 2 and G-A on string 1 because you're now in that position. IOW, these "linear" versions of the scale on a single string can be used as "connectors" between the various "box" positions. However, we don't typically play that way. Instead, we use one common type of "connection". Taking that low 3rd fret position again, you play G-A on the 6th string, then C-D on the 5th string, then slide up on your ring finger from D to E on the 5th string. This now puts you in position to play the rest of the 5th position box. However, what this means is, any time you get to a D, you can slide up to the next position! Taking your basic box Am at the 5th fret, you could go up each string until you get to the 4th, and play C-D, then slide up to E, and then play the rest of the scale in that next position (the one that would have started on the 8th fret). So what you're doing is "shifting" to either side of the box. This takes the 3 fret span from fret 5 to 8, and extends it down to fret 3 and up to fret 10. Now, ultimately this only gives you access to a low G and high D that you couldn't reach before. But this shifting pattern is crucial to know and in millions of songs by now. If you learn The Yardbird's version of "Boom Boom" it's the main lick (though it uses open strings). _____ Now, since there are multiple positions, where you encounter the D note is going to vary, but any time you get to the D going up (on the upper end of the pattern) you can slide up to E and put yourself in the next higher box - from there you can continue up, go back down in the new box, or go back to E and slide down to the first box. For example, if you went up the 5th fret standard box until you get to the D on the 4th string, and slide up to E, then go down but stay in that position, you'll end up on C on the 8th fret of the 6th string. But instead of going all the way down to C you can hit the D and slide up to E, putting you in the next position up. Now, you can slide on any note of chord (usually 2 frets though rather than 3) to shift positions as I first mentioned. But this one on the D is so common, I'd consider it a "must know". _______ To make this more obvious, let's use MAJOR Pentatonic as an example - let's talk about C Major now, starting on the 8th fret. BUT, here's the thing: You're going to use the slide idea on the D again. So you play C-D on frets 8 and 10, then slide up to E on 12 with your ring. Now you're in position to play G and A on 10 and 12 of the 5th string. Now this 5 note pattern is the complete Major Pentatonic scale. Now, the next note up on the next string STARTS THE PATTERN OVER AGAIN!!! So you play C-D on 10 and 12 of the 4th string, then slide to E on 14, then continue on the next string with G-A on frets 12 and 14. THEN THE PATTERN STARTS OVER AGAIN ON THE NEXT STRING!!!!! You have to shift up one extra fret because of the tuning of the B string, so it goes C-D slide to E on frets 13-15-17 of the B string and G-A on 15-17 of the high E (and to complete the scale if you like, you could go on up to fret 20 for the high C). This is one reason I make students learn the intro riff to "My Girl" by The Temptations, because it is this riff! But you can see now, we've started at fret 8, and gone all the way up to 17! So now, rather than playing "vertically" or "horizontally", you're playing "diagonally" if you like. And this is a better way to connect more distant positions than the "up one string" way I mentioned before (though that's still good to know). _______ Now, taking this back a step - if you start with G on the 6th string and go G-A on 3-5, and C-D-slide-E on 3-5-7 of the 5th string it puts you back in the standard 5th fret box. That's what I did above. But can you see how this little 5 note element (G-A-C-D/E) is similar to the "diagonal" one above? It's the same idea, except the G-A part is on the bottom of the pattern. BUT, the pattern still works. You're just now starting your C-D/E idea on the 5th string and happened to play a couple notes below it you could reach. We're thinking Am here, but this could be C Major and you just have two notes (G A) that lead up to the first C, and then you go "diagonal" from there. Of course by having two additional notes at the bottom (G and A) you lose those notes at the top (though you could shift up to them) but you have this G-A-C-D/E thing 3 times as opposed to the first diagonal one I gave you which is C-D/E-G-A - but the *principle* is the same. So to summarize: You can play in a single position or jump between them, you can shift from one to the other using the "shared" note or where they "overlap", you can shift up a single string as far as you need to get to the next position, or you can even just play the whole stinking thing up 1 or a pair, or a trio, of strings if you like. But, most commonly, people use this "diagonal connector" idea that is sort of half-linear and half in the box to not only connect positions, but to "shift through them" - which basically allows you to access the greatest number of positions with the least amount of effort (and who doesn't love that!). With just a few additional shifts you can cover the entire range of the guitar from low open E up to the highest note you can reach (and want to shift to) using these ideas. E open, G-A-C-D/E to get up to 5th position, shift up to 10th position and play G-A on the 5th string rather than the 4th and you've got that pattern again, and can continue in what would have been starting the C pattern on the 8th fret up to the next G-A-C-D/E possibility then either play G-A on the high E or you want, jump again and play G-A on the 2nd string and then you'd have C-D/E if you've got a 24 fret guitar! It's a little jumpier, but it's an example of how you can "move across the neck" diagonally as opposed to just staying in a box or jumping from position to position (box to box - again that can be useful too though). HTH

  3779. musictheory 2019-03-20 00:18:32 ttd_76
    Don't learn the big box shapes. Learn how to play any scale over an octave range. That's all the big box shapes are-- octave scale patterns that repeat themselves. Doesn't matter if it's 3 NPS, CAGED, horizontally on one string, or whatever. A scale is an octave pattern, so any "shape" on guitar that claims to be a scale is just repeating octave patterns. If you know a little fretboard geometry, you know that for any note there's usually two octaves in easy reach of it. One is two strings up and two frets to the right (ignoring the 2nd/3rd string adjustment). We'll call that Pattern #1. The other is three strings up and three frets to the left. We'll call this Pattern #2. So learn to play the minor pentatonic, or major pentatonic or whatever scale from the root to the note an octave higher two strings up and two frets to the right. Now you can take that smaller pattern/shape anywhere. If you're playing A minor pentatonic, find an A, play the shape. Then learn to play the minor pentatonic (or any other scale) from the root to the note an octave higher that is three strings up and three frets to the left. Now you can take this pattern anywhere, too. Find an A, play the pattern. There are very few times you will really make a finger-busting two octave run across all six strings on guitar, unless you are a classical metal guy or monster prog-rock player. So why learn things in six string, two+ octave chunks? It's better to know a smaller, flexible one octave pattern you can take anywhere on the neck, than to see the neck in isolated, big, six string, two-octave chunk shapes. The interesting thing though, is if you can play those little one octave shapes, then you can actually play every larger pentatonic box shape and every CAGED shape. Because every one of those shapes is just alternating between Pattern #1 and Pattern #2. Take the most basic box minor pentatonic shape where for A minor pentatonic you start with your index finger on the sixth string on fifth fret. The top half of that shape is you playing Pattern #1 from A on the sixth string, fret 5 to the A on the fourth string at fret 7. So two strings up and two frets right. The second half of that shape is you playing Pattern #2 from the A on the third string at fret 7 to the A on the first string at fret 5. So three strings up and two frets left (because of the 2nd /3rd string fret shift). Every single CAGED shape and pentatonic shape is like that. You're just starting at different points in either Pattern #1 or Pattern #2 but it's always just alternating between Pattern #1 and Pattern #2 and then having to scootch one fret over for the 2nd string. But that is how you can "connect the shapes" or "unlock yourself from shapes." Don't think in terms of large shapes in the first place. The octaves are the lego bricks. The "shapes" are just a few specific configurations of those lego bricks. If you understand how to stack the bricks, you can build those same "shapes" yourself. But you'll also be able to build whatever you want.

  3780. musictheory 2019-03-20 00:52:17 smurfy101
    We are bad at being random ourselves. If you flip a coin one hundred times, you will probably get a string of 5 or more, but if we generate the results ourselves we almost never do. The fact that the things we perceive as random are planned therefore means planned music sounds random.

  3781. musictheory 2019-03-20 10:05:17 65TwinReverbRI
    Ghost notes USED TO BE "unintentional" notes - notes that were caused like when a finger was lifted and an open string accidentally sounded or a player bumped into an adjecent string with their finger causing it to vibrate. I've heard all kinds of stuff now - but guitarists aren't exactly known for their book learnin'. I've seen some people say ghost notes are muted notes - like the "chuka chuka" one might play between chords - percussive strokes - muted strokes - but I don't believe that was the original definition. I see the almighty Wikipedia uses this definition, but it, like "legato technique" is a misappropriation of the term. ____ Polyrhythms don't have to be 2:3 or 4:3 only (I take these to mean like 2 8ths against a triplet for example) They can be any two rhythms that are distinctly identifiable on their own, and can still be "followed" (to some degree). e = 8th, q = 1/4, s = 16, and r is rest below: e e q q q against qr er ss qr er ss Would be a polyrhythm if both continued against each other (but would be in different instruments so the distinction was clear). Likewise, a pattern that is only 2 beats could cycle against a pattern that is 3 beats: q. e q. e | q. e q. e | q ee q q |ee q q ee | One of them sounds like 3/4 and the other like 2/4 or 4/4. If they continue strongly like this it's considered Polymeter.

  3782. musictheory 2019-03-21 00:45:16 GlennMagusHarvey
    The (diatonic) "circle of fifths" progression is, in major, I IV vii° iii vi ii V I, or in minor, i iv VII III VI ii° V i. (In minor, the VII and VI are sometimes written as bVII and bVI, to show that they're not built on the same root notes as their major versions.) Basically, take the downward fifth (or upward fourth) root motion from V to I, and then copy that into a sequence of that same direction of motion, and if you do it all the way you cycle through all seven notes of the scale as chord roots. This is semi-common progression in pop music as well as other western music (though elements of it show up more often these days in east Asian pop than in western pop): https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/CircleOfFifths Essentially this is setting up for the V-I cadence, and then setting up for the setup for the V-I cadence, and setting up for the setup for the setup for the V-I cadence, and so on. There are some variants to this, the most common of which are to cut the cycle in half and take only the last four chords (vi ii V I), or to do that and then replace ii with IV. (And similarly with minor.) You can also adjust the notes in some of these. Note that only V-I and I-IV have the full true V-I flavor to them (I-IV is just V-I in the IV chord's key), but people often alter the chords to make more pairs have V-I flavor, because V-I flavor is a strong harmonic direction. Some people even string together an infinite series of V7-flavor chords. The circle of fifths is not the only way to write harmony -- but some of its progressions, particularly anything including the last pair (i.e. V-I), form a strong forward motion, so it's a useful trope. And like all tropes, it's a tool available to you when you want to use it, though not necessarily the only tool you want to use. (Note that you can also prepare V-I with a variety of other chords before the V.) And you can also do what I might call "retrograde" motion -- i.e. I to V, or IV to I. This is going "backwards" in the circle, but is apparently also rather common in pop music (the very common I V vi IV is an example of both). I don't personally like it as much, because I feel that it gives a sense of stagnation, but that's just my opinion -- it's clearly very popular.

  3783. musictheory 2019-03-21 01:58:41 sxwr909
    you choose large key sigs like that when you want to be a dick to the performer, or if its because of the sound it has. otherwise you will usually choose your key signatures based on what your writing for, wind ensembles will like flats, string groups will like sharps as a general rule of thumb.

  3784. musictheory 2019-03-21 03:27:30 TaigaBridge
    Adjusting the range to suit a particular instrument's or singer's range rarely requires using too extreme of a key. I can't imagine changing from G to Gb, rather than from G to F or G to D, if the reason was range-convenience. As a string player, I think a lot about how choice of key affects my own instrument. If I use an extreme-sharp or extreme-flat key it's usually with the intention of causing the strings to sound muted by preventing any open-string resonance from happening. (Similarly a key like c or g minor gives great low-string resonance without any high-string resonance, and sounds rich and dark; something like A major the opposite, bright and almost twangy.) Sufficiently good players can overcome those tendencies, and make any key convey any mood; but it's in everybody's best interest to take advantage of nature rather than fight it when possible, especially if your music is likely to be played by students or amateurs. Similar resonance considerations may apply to other instruments - especially to horns in less-than-expert hands - but they seem to be most strongly present for strings. (I THINk that's an acoustical reality, but I can't be 100% sure it isn't just bias because of me understanding my own instrument better.)

  3785. musictheory 2019-03-21 04:21:59 da_Bank
    I don't have much wisdom as far as woodwinds go, but with string instruments we favor sharp keys (Open strings, and when sharpening a note you can always stay on the same string).

  3786. musictheory 2019-03-21 11:15:24 readyou
    Yeah. I was thumb picking the Open A string once... and then the Eb and Ab notes... which is probably some kind of Asus2 open chord triad. Next I moved it to the 5th fret doing the same there... and then as you said correctly the Open A string with thumb yet again, plus C and F# together, which is where the chord shape changed. I wondered if someone knows how this technique is called. I believe this is not too uncommon... I'd like to find videos about this but I just don't know what I need to look for. It also remembers me a bit of the Drop D tuning, where you can use the E string as base/thumb note too and do funny stuff. Except that in this case it's standard tuning and the open A string is used.

  3787. musictheory 2019-03-21 11:44:01 Xenoceratops
    >Open A string, G string 5th fret, D string 4th fret? >It looks like this... >XXXXX >XXXXX >XXXX0 >XXX0X >OPEN >XXXXX These notations take up a lot of space and are difficult to read. I find doing tab like this keeps it nice and compact: x-0-4-5-x-x This is a first inversion diminished triad, by the way. (F#°/A) You can turn it into a movable shape like this: 5-x-4-5-x-x (A F# C; F#°/A) Now you can transpose it up and down: 6-x-5-6-x-x (B♭ G D♭; G°/B♭) 4-x-3-4-x-x (G# E# B; E#°/G#)

  3788. musictheory 2019-03-21 16:11:17 guiporto32
    Radiohead's "Airbag" follows a similar pattern and plays around with a 006700 chord, but Thom Yorke tunes the B string down to an A, which creates a pretty beautiful ringing sound.

  3789. musictheory 2019-03-21 17:53:33 LeahTT
    A Harp is tuned to C flat major (seven flats). To play in C major each pedal needs to be engaged once. To play in D, pedals F and C need to engaged a second time, etc. It makes playing in any key signature equally simple (though suddenly switching the key from several flats to several sharps and then back again will stress your harpist!), and the best resonance comes from the least amount of pedal engagement. Chromatic passages are doable, but a challenge. For each half step up, you must either quickly damp the sounding note, engage the pedal once and play the string again, or you must work out how to coordinate enharmonics with adjacent strings (you could play D# on the D string or on the E string as a flat for example). Pieces with many accidentals are also a challenge to play, but its usually doable with planning and practice. I could talk about the harp all day, so thanks for the questions!

  3790. musictheory 2019-03-21 18:43:42 LeahTT
    Of course! The pedals each have three possible vertical positions: resting in flat at the top, natural in the center, and sharp at the bottom. You can either press a pedal straight down and let it spring back up for a quick effect, or you can press it down and slightly to the side into a notch to hold it until you take it out. Each string is wound onto a tuning pin at the top of the harp and passes vertically through two sharping disks. Each disk has pair of tines, and when the pedal for the string is engaged once, the top disk rotates so that the tines pinch the string, effectively shortening it enough to make it sound a half step higher. That took the string from C flat to C natural. If you engage the C pedal again, the second disk rotates and pinches the string again, shortening it into C sharp. Here's a good diagram of how the disks work: [https://www.harpspectrum.org/harpworks/composing\_for\_harp/images/discs.gif](https://www.harpspectrum.org/harpworks/composing_for_harp/images/discs.gif) You can't really manage quarter tones, though you can press the pedal only halfway towards the next half step. That makes the vibrating string buzz violently against the sharping tines, and causes a wonderful racket like a machine gun if you do that with one of the thick, metal bass strings! That wakes everyone up! XD If you were near central Ohio, I'd love to let you play around with my harp. I hope you can get your hands on one--they're really a delight!

  3791. musictheory 2019-03-21 20:14:51 mrclay
    You may be hearing this A-F#-C as a D7 without the D. Try adding a D on top: x0453x. But anyway the general principle is you’re using the open A string as a pedal tone, and it’s a fine way to make a more random set of sounds sound more connected.

  3792. musictheory 2019-03-21 21:48:32 DRL47
    I have always thought of harps as being "in C", with the option of flatting or sharping the natural notes. But since the flats are the "open" string position, it is really in Cb with the option of raising to the natural or sharp. It doesn't change the music, but it is an interesting shift of viewpoint. When you pack up your harp, do you put all the pedals in the flat position for storage?

  3793. musictheory 2019-03-21 22:18:37 LeahTT
    Right. It's tuned to Cb, and you keep in Cb anytime you're not playing it to keep unnecessary stress off the mechanics. But it's 6 feet tall and 80 lbs, so it just sits in its spot in the house, and it gets its gear put on when it's going out to play somewhere. Lever harps, on the other hand, are much simpler, lighter, smaller instruments, and many of them are tuned to C with the option of sharping the notes once with hand-operated levers just below the tuning pins on top. If each string has a lever often you will tune a lever harp to Eb major, so you have the ability to play in keys with up to four sharps or three flats.

  3794. musictheory 2019-03-22 02:54:11 assword_69420420
    Unless youre some open string playin pussy ass BITCH**

  3795. musictheory 2019-03-22 02:54:14 WilsonTheWombat
    Eb major is only underrated by string players. Horn players love that shit.

  3796. musictheory 2019-03-22 03:40:32 augmentedseventh
    Nobody has mentioned string instruments yet. The more open strings you can use, the easier the key. A-flat Major is less convenient for a violinist. Nobody likes F# Major. G is awesome.

  3797. musictheory 2019-03-22 05:00:30 UrbanJuggernaut
    Literally describes me haha. I meant I don't have to full voice the chord, more outlining, which makes tuning to 4ths make more sense than on a guitar where you're playing 4-6 string chords.

  3798. musictheory 2019-03-22 05:26:33 TwoFiveOnes
    I’m actually trying to write a piece in C minor and tuning the 6th string to Eb is working really well for me

  3799. musictheory 2019-03-22 05:27:55 olljoh
    some instruments are constructed with a bias for some keys, because many (non electrically amplified) instruments have unique overtone-multiplies, which emphasizes some keys over others. simply put. flutes have generally stronger overtones than string instruments, but not all of those 2 are equal, some act more as low pass filters and some act more as high pass filters.

  3800. musictheory 2019-03-22 08:49:58 prufock
    Not an open tuning, but lately I've veen toying around with tuning the B string up half a step to C. It gives me some extra flexibility to use index and middle finger only on Am, C, G, F shapes, leaving an extra finger or two for some melody.

  3801. musictheory 2019-03-22 09:33:24 ResidentPurple
    NST (Robert Fripp tuning) - CGDAEG All fifths until the high G string. One day I might try to see if I can get FCGDAE to work because I don't know what to do with that high G.

  3802. musictheory 2019-03-22 09:48:22 good_dean
    Open string (chords in the first position) not open chords.

  3803. musictheory 2019-03-22 15:02:15 TheChief275
    The DID tuning, turn your low e string down as low as possible since you don’t have a seven or eight string and test if it may, or it may not, in fact djent.

  3804. musictheory 2019-03-22 19:58:34 mrclay
    My favorites are low-commitment single string: EADF#BE (gives you access to easy 6add9) and EACGBE (easy m9 and add9s in the lower octaves). [More shape ideas](http://mrclay.org/2014/01/16/guitar-tunings-am9-and-d6add9/) for these.

  3805. musictheory 2019-03-22 21:05:49 brain_damaged666
    do you use 3 note per string scales? theres a pattern to triads with them. you can calculate the arpeggio if you already know the base scale shapes. or you can take the 3 shapes you get for each arpeggio within those shapes and memorize those

  3806. musictheory 2019-03-22 23:24:41 Fuhgly
    FYI it's not an open string if you have it barred.

  3807. musictheory 2019-03-23 03:24:21 RichardPascoe
    A good exercise is to mix up harmonics with arpeggios or triads. So in common time strike the low E string harmonic at the 12th fret and then play the Em triad as an arpeggio or chord for the other three beats of the bar. You can reverse this and play the low E string for the first beat and play an Em triad arpeggio using the harmonics of the three high strings at the twelfth fret. You can hear the harmonic arpeggio being played by the second guitarist on this Neil Young performance just as he sings the first line. Hopefully it will give you idea of what I am describing: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMjDc8MJotU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMjDc8MJotU)

  3808. musictheory 2019-03-23 03:55:02 itskylemeyer
    I know what an open string is. Lots of complex chords use them, like Dadd9add4, F#m11, even simple suspended chords. Barre chords are useful, and I’m aware of that. However, playing chords that require 4 and 5 fret stretches aren’t always necessary.

  3809. musictheory 2019-03-23 05:26:31 smithysmithens2112
    I came up with one the other day that I used to play Harvest Moon by Neil Young. It was (low to high) D A D A A E. It has a lot of perks to it. It’s got a gorgeous 9 sound to it but the lack of a third makes it androgynous enough that you can easily change chord quality. What I mean is that you can fret the high e on the first fret and get a Dm or you can fret it on the second fret and get a Dmaj OR on the third fret and get a Dsus4 or keep it open and get a Dsus2 or a D(m or M)9 sound. The other thing I like to do is slightly detune the two A’s that are ordinarily the G and B strings. This way you can get kind of a chorusy, 12 string effect and play unison melodies on them or you can even fret the low A and one of the high A’s on the same fret and make octave melodies with the D5 ringing underneath it. It’s a really versatile tuning and I’ve come to use it quite a lot.

  3810. musictheory 2019-03-23 09:54:57 darthmase
    I'll try to stick to the basics, because it can get extremely complicated fast, so here goes (I'll use the major scale as an example, but the concept can be applied to any scale): Every major scale **must** be made out of 7 different notes (C D E F G A and B), but the intervals have to fit the pattern of a major scale, so some of these notes have to be raised or lowered by a semitone (e.g we need a half-step between the seventh and the final note, so if our tonic is G, we have to raise the F to F# because there's a whole tone interval between F and G). That's why if you have a song in G# major, the notes of the scale would be: G# A# B# C# D# E# F##. This is an extra paragraph, it's related but not needed to understand: There's also an alternate view-on the piano or guitar, F## and G are the same notes that sound the same, but on instruments without discrete tone pitches (violin, viola, cello etc.) the F# in G major will sound different than on the piano. This is something that's very apparent since the renaissance era, when the tuning was different than today and emphasized the purity of the thirds (interval) but at the expense of other intervals being slightly off. It's called the natural tuning, in contrast to the 12-tone equal temperament(12TET), which we have today. All the tones are slightly off but not so much that we would mind and it gives us the freedom to play in any key and it sounds the same (all intervals are the same). Choirs and string ensembles on the other hand tend to play in natural tuning (if there are no 12TET instruments playing along).

  3811. musictheory 2019-03-23 13:41:38 ttd_76
    Sometimes you want the thinner sound. Either because a sparse arrangement suits the song or because you are leaving space for another band member. Of course, sometimes you don’t. But the way to look at it is that a thinner chord sound doesn’t necessarily make YOU sound better. It makes the full band/arrangement sound better. When people sing unaccompanied with just a guitar they tend to use fat six string open chords. That’s why they are called cowboy chords or campfire chords. You need to fill the space. When some one is playing rhythm during a verse, they tend to play triads because the bass player and other instruments are filling the space. If you play to fat, the whole sound gets muddy. Also, think about where you are playing the triads. Top three strings are kinda high up in pitch. Useful for soloing but kind of thin, squeaky and stablby. But if you are playing rhythm, middle section sounds better. A little fatter plus you leave space for the bass player and lead player or singer. The other way to think about triads is that a triad is the essence of most chords. When you hit a full Open E you are playing the E note three times. Those extra two E’s make the sound bigger, but they don’t add any extra information or flavor. So the idea of knowing triads isn’t to limit you to just playing triads. It’s to get the triad sound while freeing up fingers and other strings to add notes beyond just repeating the triad notes again, like Jax isn’t things up by adding a seventh, for example. Or you can play a triad but add a little riff-like figure on top to it with your now available extra finger. The other thing about triads is you can invert them. Which means you can voice lead. Instead of playing the same exact E and C chords constantly, you can decide amongst various E and C chord options. You can use this to voice lead so that your chord changes sound smoother and not choppy. But the major reason to know your triads has nothing to do with physically playing them as chords. It’s their function in musical theory and the way they open up the fretboard for you. If you want to play C major scale, the C triad is part of it. C major pentatonic, also C major triad. C minor pentatonic has the minor triad in it. And so on. So as you learn to play more scales and you are trying to memorize shapes on the fretboard, the triads give you a skeleton to build around. You’re getting spotted three notes for every scale or scale shape you learn if you can see the triads in the scale. And there’s also this which is the most important of all. All of your solos or other melodic lines should be based in following chord triads. So let’s say the song is in C major and the chords are C and F. You could randomly play notes from the C major scale, but it will sound random. What you want is to emphasize notes from the C major triad against the C and notes from the F major triad against F. So your lines follow and highlight the chord changes. It gives them a flow, instead of just sounding like scales. Listen to Keith Richards. All his little tasty riffs and rhythm parts are heavily triad based. That guy has pretty much made a career out of playing triads. Dave Gilmour is another good one. Most of his solos are just minor pentatonic plus a lot of straight arpegiated chord triads.

  3812. musictheory 2019-03-23 19:24:16 smurfy101
    public string[] methodmeanings()

  3813. musictheory 2019-03-23 20:17:36 rupen42
    Not really. Writing enharmonics properly can help with reading sheet music and playing too, even (or specially) for good musicians. If you are at that proficiency level, you probably follow shapes and intervals. Say you have a closed voicing of D# major. It's still easier/faster to understand and internalize that chord when it's written as D# F## A# (very simple, just skipping every line/space) than when it's written as D# G A# (is that a weird sus chord?). Sure, in the end you can play either with little struggle and they'll sound the same but it still helps. Another situation where it makes a difference is when writing for continuous pitch instruments like strings. Good string players often don't play in equal temperament and instead adjust to the context, so a G# can actually sound different to an Ab (though musicians also use their ears to adjust to the correct pitch, so you could end up with the same result).

  3814. musictheory 2019-03-23 23:11:53 assword_69420420
    Lol, I think we all know what an open string is mate. And playing barre chords sound even more plain and boring than open chords in my opinion, because its the same voicing ( R 5 R 3 5 ) every time

  3815. musictheory 2019-03-24 04:00:18 sevensixtwolove
    Only looked at the "Für Elise" but I really like it. I see what gap this fills, and I think others unfairly judges it as if it tries to replace sheet music. I think it's a great way to open up and introduce people to the concept of musical notation, a very large part of people who play an instrument have indeed mostly relied on hearing and never gotten around (or ended up struggling with) reading music. With very little effort it manages to convey the repetition of a few base notes, easily discernible patterns in the playing (due to reading the string of notes as words) and the timing/pauses in the rhythm. There are only two possible impacts from this service; either people learn the concept of notation and get a whetted appetite for it and wish to make the jump to check out their favorite music in real sheet notation, OR the people using the service will find a new way to enjoy and grow a closer relationship to music and will never take an interest in sheet music. The odds of it having any adverse effect on peoples will to learn sheet music is realistically zero. So to quote Michael Scott from The Office; It's a win-win-win. Maybe in the future you could add a feature to Musitude to switch visualization mode to actually incorporate/overlay traditional sheet music (and by all means tabs for different instruments) and other means to transition into learning traditional sheet music and thus gaining access to a vast archive of music through the ages. So many simple additions could be made to visually render an instrument, like a piano keyboard that highlights together with the key press, "fill in the gaps/missing note" mini games etc. &#x200B;

  3816. musictheory 2019-03-24 08:58:25 Musitude
    Tell me what the difference is between Musitude and someone playing from sheet music on a three octave $100 electric yamaha piano? In fact there is none. All music is reading an instruction set in the notation and translating that into manipulation of the instrument interface to create sound and music. Guitar hero is a rhythm game with four or so option keys and no notation system and no ability to interpret and add subtle accenting as you must tap the single plastic tab at the exact moment you see a light pass a line. Musitude is not like connect the dots drawing as there is no pre determined path. The Musitude player, as with traditional music, must read and absorb and remember then a split second later play the music on the page. Of course traditional music has a little more nuance but Musitude is very close to traditional music and very far from a rhythm game. Play Bach's Air on the G string and you will see.

  3817. musictheory 2019-03-25 07:51:22 alanklinke
    For a few compromises, kinda, yeah. One could tune a string in order for it to be 50 cents lower or higher than how it was supposed to be in relation to the others on a regular tuning. Not as perfect as to have enough frets, but fun anyway.

  3818. musictheory 2019-03-25 07:53:04 Thecrawsome
    Another feature request: Let users share their projects with each other. It would be cool to be able to share beats by just pasting a string of data, like a saved password ;)

  3819. musictheory 2019-03-25 10:48:51 65TwinReverbRI
    Only if you tune a string to be a 1/4 step out. Then every note on that string would be a 1/4 tone out, but compared with another string in standard tuning, you would have some crossover between the two strings (even if tuned 4.5 frets apart) where the notes on each are duplicated, but a 1/4 step apart. Otherwise, you can bend, or use a slide. You can also press overly hard between the frets to cause a string to go sharp, but getting this a full 1/4 tone would be unlikely.

  3820. musictheory 2019-03-25 13:27:33 TaigaBridge
    There is a flip side to that too: there's a reason why there's an old rule of thumb to the effect of "if you want to see if someone is a great composer, make him write a string quartet": it's to see if the musical ideas themselves are interesting enough to hold someone's attention for 10 or 20 minutes, without resorting to mood effects. Timbre is incredibly important. But it's still supposed to support the musical idea, not BE the musical idea, if you're using it for anything more than a few seconds of scene-setting.

  3821. musictheory 2019-03-26 02:36:43 tigers4eva
    Bluegrass can occasionally be tricky, since there tend to be a lot of chromatic embellishments. At least with flatpicked guitar. I would start with using your voice, and not your cello. You could try to sing along until you found a stable resting note. The key of a song is the note around which the song stabilizes and converges. If you listen to the end of the instrumental intro(0:36), the string instrument converges onto one stable sounding note. Try and sing that. You should be able to tell by ear and how it feels, that it is a stable sound. Your best resource is your ear. As for which scales to use, you should try the Major scale, since almost all bluegrass is in a major key. Then you can identify the chord structure, and work on things from there.

  3822. musictheory 2019-03-27 03:24:23 south87
    Basically, riff driven music is based on single melodies stacked in fifths. A "riff" is a characteristic musical pattern that permeates the music and will give cohesion to it. These riffs are based on pentatonic fragments, modal fragments, blue scale fragments, etc. The riff is rarely developed (unless its more progressive) and is repeated and contrasted with other riffs. It is very tone centered music, usually at pitches where the guitar has an open string like E minor, A minor. This music uses quasi cadential modal figures to give sense of rest. It rarely modulates, the whole piece can be solely in a modal key. The power in this type of music is the amount of punch all the elements can generate so it is pounding.

  3823. musictheory 2019-03-27 12:48:27 Tottery
    The open E on the 6th string and 1st string do not share the same location on the staff. That's how you know which to play. It tells you how to play the song. It's all there. I strongly suggest getting Hal Leonard's Guitar Method Book I if you're interested in learning how to read. It's a easy book and if you like it you can continue with the other 2 books. Its like 9 bucks or something.

  3824. musictheory 2019-03-27 20:35:18 SocialIssuesAhoy
    There’s not a quick and easy answer because music theory isn’t a set of laws or truths waiting to be discovered. It’s just people collectively trying to describe things that have been done in the past and can be done now. If I play just a melody (no accompaniment) and the melody moves from C, to G, to E, then back to C again, you might say that even though we only hear one note at a time, that’s clearly a C chord being outlined. Well now imagine that same song. It’s just your typical melody in the key of C, no funny business. Now instead of CEG, there’s an entire measure where it ONLY plays C and G. Then in the next measure it plays GBD (again, one note at a time) and then in the third measure all you hear is a C. The middle one is easiest. Even though they aren’t played simultaneously, we still hear all three pitches to make a G chord so we label that. The first measure is tougher because there’s only the two notes (C and G) but you might swallow the pill for a moment and agree to call it a C chord. Then the last one is the hardest because there’s literally just one note (C). And you would say “how in the world can we call that a chord if there’s just one note??” Having set all of that up, the easiest answer I can give is that chords can be implied. A very common music trope is I -> V -> I. In other words, a tonic chord, followed by dominant, and then tonic again. If C is tonic then G is dominant. So when we look at that little example again, even though several notes appear to be missing, we should still be able to see the general idea of a I chord (C), then a V chord (G), and then a I chord again. What you should take away from this is that context is everything. In this case the context is that this is part of a song and we have expectations. If you’re working through some theory exercises and you see a string of intervals (pairs of notes) that it asks you to identify, you’re not going to try to call them chords because in a series of individual and unrelated exercises, there’s no expectation of a chord progression. This stuff is easier to explain in person but I hope that helps you out a bit!

  3825. musictheory 2019-03-27 21:30:20 Atkinsr
    They are whats known as "power chords" however they are not chords at all, they are dyads, which means two notes played simultaneously, in this case the notes are the 1 and 5 of the chord. You can form power chords by placing one finger on the 6 string any fret and one on the 5 string two frets up(towards the bridge) from the your fretted 6th string, this relationship remains the same for every string except between strings 3 and 2 which you have to account for the tuning of the 3rd instead of the fourth so it would only be 1 fret up on the 2nd from your 3rd string root.

  3826. musictheory 2019-03-27 22:28:33 EliQuince
    But the fretted fifth fret of the b string *does* share the same location on the staff as the high e, and they have different tonal qualities. Personally I usually go for fretting the note so I can add my own inflection to it through my fingers.

  3827. musictheory 2019-03-28 10:25:38 Oriamus
    [Hengilas by Jonsi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVcjArU_qCo) is my all-time favorite piece of music when it comes to synesthetic associations. The bass at the beginning is a gorgeously dark green and purple, and it bends and flows, kinda like river waves flowing over a rock, and then at [1:07](https://youtu.be/sVcjArU_qCo?t=66) everything blossoms like a flower and his harmonized vocals turn pure white. The green and purple there also gives way to crimson. It's the most beautiful song I've ever seen and every single time 1:07 hits I get shivers, which is less synesthetic but whatever. [I also love Joe Satriani](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5TTdDF0gzQ) and how he manages to squeeze so much versatile sound and color out of single distorted electric guitar. Part of it also comes from his melodies, because again, my synesthesia is pretty "wholistic" in terms of what affects it. Joe Satriani has a lot of lime green and yellow, like a lot of similar electric guitars, but the song "Surfing with the Alien" also has some maroon from the wah effects. In terms of what I was talking about with different songs played with different instruments, sometimes it's almost exactly the same, but other times different versions of the same song are *completely* different colors and textures. The best example I can think of is the difference between Simon and Garfunkel's version of [Sounds of Silence](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fWyzwo1xg0) and Disturbed's rendition of [the same song.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJEA0RlVUsI) Disturbed's is exponentially better imo, and I think it's because they have more unique instruments contributing the overall sound: they've got a piano, a string ensemble, a unique vocal timbre (I love his sunset orange voice), timpani, acoustic guitar, and bass guitar where Simon and Garfunkel's version is the fairly standard guitar, drums, bass, and vocal harmonies. For one more comparison, everyone I've shown [Pentatonix's version](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdVjVtpr55M) to have absolutely loved it, but I think it's only meh, possibly because none of them have a particularly unique timbre to their voice. Their harmonies are great, amazing even, but they blend so seamlessly that it becomes a uniform grey more or less throughout the whole thing, with exception of the purple-black bass, whereas Disturbed adds drama and multiple stuff going on in terms of timbre, eliciting more from my predominantly timbre-based chromesthesia. That said, I'm honestly still trying to figure out my synesthesia, because one solo piano piece could be [many, many colors](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5_V-d8HjhU). Good old Chopin never lets my synesthesia down. His Op. 72, No. 1 begins a pretty solid dark blue, and morphs into green when the right hand comes in. It kinda goes back to blue for measures 4-5 before going back to green for measure 6. Then at [1:40](https://youtu.be/h5_V-d8HjhU?t=100) in that video it just decides to be sunshine yellow out of nowhere (which is cool because I rarely get yellow). Then when that musical concept returns at [3:35](https://youtu.be/h5_V-d8HjhU?t=215) it becomes beautiful baby blue. All of this is just one timbre, the piano, which makes me think I also have some kind of pitch-color synesthesia as well as timbre-color. All I know for sure is that there is more consistency in timbre than there is in pitch, but as evidenced above, one timbre can also be varying colors. idk, I don't know my brain very well I guess lol

  3828. musictheory 2019-03-28 22:37:55 ferniecanto
    There's a lot of stuff there to discuss, and a lot of stuff to process. First off, I don't know what resources you've been using to understand harmony, but I can see in your descriptions of frequency ratios many of the symptoms of what I consider an *absolutely wretched* way of teaching music. See, I'm not critiquing your knowledge; I'm critiquing the methods of teaching that you've fallen prey to, and which I try to deconstruct as much as I can. To put it short: the way you understand harmony isn't based on "pure math". Such thing isn't really possible, because "pure math" is simply a group of axioms and theorems you can derive from them, and they don't need to have any relationship whatsoever to the real world. The moment you try to make a connection between mathematics and real world phenomenon, we're talking about applied math, and there are ENDLESS ways in which we can apply mathematics to the physical world. For example, I could devise an entire system of consonance which is based on applying the golden ratio to sound frequencies, and I could argue it's based on "pure math"; but that system is entirely incompatible with what you're describing, so using "pure math" here makes no sense. The harmony you describe is based on a physical property of objects: the sound produced by an object can be decomposed into several frequencies, and those frequencies tend to roughly follow a pattern, in which every frequency is a multiple of the lowest frequency, a.k.a. the "fundamental". It's believed that our brains have evolved to identify this pattern and recognise it as "natural". This is why ratios of 2:1, 3:2, 5:3, etc., are more "consonant"; because they're very prevalent in nature. If you blow into a bottle or pluck a string, those ratios will naturally arise (well, *roughly*; only ideal objects could produce exactly those ratios, and objects in the physical world aren't ideal), and that's where consonance comes from. Consonance is not a mathematical property; it's a *phenomenon of* ***perception***. And even though perception is naturally linked to how the real world works, it's reasonable to think there's a physical explanation to how we perceive consonance and dissonance; but the world is very complex and diverse, and humans are *weird*, so we can't boil down our entire understanding of music down to a bunch of fractions. This is why you have all those doubts about other factors that can make sounds more or less dissonant: perception isn't that simple. And yes, those are all valid questions, but they're complicated and difficult to delve into. It's a lot easier and more satisfying (and earns more likes on YouTube) to just rattle on about the harmonic series and say "simpler ratios are more pleasant" and stuff like that, but that creates this huge distortion in the understanding of music. This obsession with frequency ratios and proportions is, I believe, one reason why we get such a high amount of questions about chords and so little about melody. It feels sometimes like a lot of people think chords are the only thing that matters in music, and, well, they ain't. Well, one thing you're doing right: you're experimenting with sound and testing your own perception. That's fundamental, so keep doing that. And yes, if it sounds good, it *IS* good. Never let anyone convince you otherwise. As for the question of why we use theory: you're pretty much on the spot when you say that, if we want to emulate music from a certain period or style, we have to follow its rules. And that's exactly what music theory is there for: the majority of music we make and listen to follows tonal principles. Pitches are organised in specific ways to create specific impressions, and that's true in all forms of popular music in the west: pop, rock, hip hop, jazz, neoclassical, EDM and so on. Of course, each genre has its own variations, but they have many more similarities than differences. So, if you want to make music that sounds familiar to a general public, it's best to follow the guidelines that music theory has laid out (it's not proper to talk about "rules" anymore; they're mostly suggestions). The process you described to create chords, i.e. use every other note, is one of the most basic foundations of tonal music, so if you repeat that process, your music already sound rather familiar. But if the ideas you get in your head doesn't follow those patterns, and if the patterns of traditional tonal music don't represent the music you want to make, there's no much point in following those guidelines; and if there's one thing the 20th century has done for music, is provide ways to break away from tonal music. But of course, those sounds tend to sound more harsh to us, not because they're "mathematically dissonant", but because we're *less exposed* to them. If you spend enough time listening to Stockhausen, dissonance will gradually become more natural to your ears. And the truth is that most people don't expose themselves to Stockhausen that often, so dissonance remains "harsh" to them. So, if there's one thing that music theory can do to you is show you *how traditional and familiar* your music sounds like. Sticking to a major scale and only using triads? That's traditional. Using all notes equally without regards to scale? That's untraditional (I'm talking about popular music here, folks, not classical or avantgarde). So, studying theory can give you ways of knowing how far your can go into "untraditional" territory before it becomes too hard to digest; but theory won't show if your music sounds "good" or "right". Only your ears and your brain can decide that. So, if you want to study more about chords and scales, forget the math. Math will either make things too complicated or too simplistic. Focus on the *musical* concepts, and don't be scared of the music jargon; it's there to help. Learn the names of the intervals, the scales, the modes (I mean major and minor; leave the diatonic modes for some other time) and so on. Think of music in terms of sensations, not Hertz. Study the "traditional" chords, but keep experimenting with the weird ones, and most importantly: trust your ears and follow your intuition. Don't be scared.

  3829. musictheory 2019-03-29 04:51:47 wingleton
    Plenty of composers, from classical and modern to pop music, step outside of a diatonic scale to play chromatically. Popular music tends to resolve but there are tons of examples of stuff that doesn't necessarily resolve. If what you really mean is why do we restrict ourselves to 12 notes, that's mostly due to the restriction of the piano, a common compositional tool, which isn't able to play microtones. On many string instruments, especially fretless ones, you can play all sorts of microtones and go nuts. Not to mention with voice and so on. But that said, unless you are really clearly creating atonal music, it would just sound like you're out of tune in most cases.

  3830. musictheory 2019-03-29 06:01:28 65TwinReverbRI
    OK, those "Hypo-" modes exist before chords, so forget chords for now. The reason they were identified as separate modes is because the RANGE was different, and because the RECITING TONE (also called the Dominant and a few other names) is different. Also, thinking about MUSIC in terms of Scales is just simply not a good idea. It's like thinking about language in terms of the Alphabet. No one sits down to write something and goes, "I'm going to use this Alphabet" - they just write in the language (of course, excepting any experimental stuff, like you want to specifically write in Klingon or whatever!). Look at this chant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W1ZlJg7P04&list=RDLSAPvTeyfZk&index=29 The 8 at the beginning tells you it's Mode 8, which is Hypomixolydian. G is the Final, and C (sometimes B in this mode) is the Dominant or Reciting Tone. C is on the line with the "C clef", which is the 3rd line from the bottom. Notice how it keeps coming up to, and hanging around that note. It's the highest note in the first phrase. The 2nd phrase starts on it. It's an "important note" throughout the piece. When there are higher phrases, they usually start from it and ascend. The other important note is the G in the first space. Every single stinking phrase ends on it! That's the Final. And that is, if you like, "textbook" Hypomixolydian. In contrast, look at this Mode 7 chant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7F-N-Yd8dE&list=RD81mqje9youA&index=24 Unlike the former one, it only dips below G once in a while (like only 3 times maybe) and doesn't go all the way down to E like the other one commonly does. Also, it hangs on the D (top space) quite a bit. Look especially at the line "perducant te" - a whole string of D notes. In fact, this is typical of the "Reciting Tone" - it's the note the chant is "recited" on, making it more like "speaking" and thus more a single pitch - pieces like this can barely touch the final. But you can see it does get to the Final on "Jerusalem". Requiem (which is the poetic rhyme) also gets the 3 Final notes. _________ Now, modal music was also fluid - just like other music - so these elements are by no means present in every piece and they can even vary within pieces - there could be phrases that seem like they "shift to a new mode" - whether they were thinking that way isn't really clear - but what we do see later is as these things evolve, they do start thinking of them more in terms of "we start in Dorian but move to Lydian" - it's not that cut and dry, but it's that evolution that ultimately leads us to the whole Major and Minor idea, as well as Modulation in Tonal music. But for this stuff, it's mostly about Reciting Tone, Ambitus (range) and Final, and sometimes, musical patterns that are used a lot in a particular mode (notice how the Mode 8 piece kind of just outright avoids the note B! - that's not true specifically of that mode but things like that can also help us describe the mode if other things are ambiguous). HTH

  3831. musictheory 2019-03-29 07:05:54 65TwinReverbRI
    When you hear them "lock in", you are probably hearing what are described as "pure" intervals that are in small, whole number ratios, such as 2:1, 3:2, and so on. This table will show you how much off they are: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eMCQP.png (you can ignore the site it comes from if you like because for the moment, we're assuming it is practical for this purpose!) Some are high, some are low. You can see the 5th is "narrow" and your "smidge" is the 1.96 Hopefully u/Jongtr will come along and post a chart he frequently posts, which describes the difference in a more logical way. If not, PM him. Vocal groups and String groups actually already do this - and some, like Barbershop Quartets really do it. But, if you're playing with a piano, then you have to go with the piano. For some fun, check out what these vocalists do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoEpUcAHL08 !!!

  3832. musictheory 2019-03-29 10:48:04 Scatcycle
    Vocal driven music will often revolve around keys that complement the singer's tessitura. Hip hop keys home in on around F because F1 is a low bass note that can replicable in most cars and systems (lower is better but too low and anyone without subwoofers won't hear your bass). String orchestras react differently to certain keys due to the open strings, so D minor is big for thick and strong pieces, whereas Bb minor utilizes mostly fingered strings and is therefore softer/has more opportunity for vibrato. There's a few! There's countless variables that affect people's choice in key.

  3833. musictheory 2019-03-29 11:21:00 ttd_76
    Learning theory and applying it on guitar is kind of tricky. Two suggestions-- 1) Buy a keyboard. Nothing fancy where you need a computer or it's a synthesizer. Just a $100 or less Casio job. The simpler it is to just turn on and play, the better. The reason is because it's easier to see the melodic movements and intervals between notes on a keyboard. Also because if you are learning crazy chords or odd scales, you can easily play them on a keyboard (even if you have to stick with C major), whereas on guitar you often have to work out how to finger them, and sometimes you can't play the best voicings. 2) Work on understanding the fretboard. You may THINK you know it, but you probably don't. I mean learn all the intervals. Understand the geometry of the fretboard layout. Know all the triad shapes. Know the note name of every fretboard instantly. Be able to play in any key, and not be locked into positions. Most of us start with tabs and we are initially more concerned with simply duplicating someone else's solos. So we work on technique, but not our ears or theory. If you ask most intermediate players to play an E, they think about where they are going to put their fingers. If you tell them to play a scale, they're thinking about a shape or fingering pattern. They're not thinking about the actual notes and the relationships between the notes. Then they hit a brick wall. And pretty much that's the difference between the average intermediate player and the advanced player. It's not so much technique, but what's happening in the brain. You're moving from guitar-by-numbers (Put your fingers here, then move them there like real life Guitar Hero) to being a musician. You might be the exception to the rule where you actually learned the fretboard early, or you pick it up really fast. But for most people, it's a long process and can be quite frustrating. You just have to tackle it bit-by-bit, be patient, and don't forget to still have fun, playing cool licks or whatever so you do not burn out. In the meantime, that is what the keyboard is for. So your lack of fretboard knowledge does not hinder your ability to learn theory or train your ears. And, as a useful comparison tool. When you can see the fretboard the same way you see a piano keyboard, then you'll know you've gotten somewhere. It's just really hard to play complicated stuff without knowing the fretboard. Even like Pat Martino who can play crazy fast and has incredible technique. It's still not just quick reflexes and finger dexterity that let's him play so fast. A lot of it is how he sees the fretboard plus his knowledge of theory. He's fast because he sees and hears those notes mentally before he plays them. If you don't know the fretboard, it's kind of like playing blindfolded. Sure, maybe you can move your fingers really fast, but if you are guessing at notes and stabbing for them, it's gonna slow you down and you won't execute cleanly. You are influenced by some really good players who play some complex stuff. At some point, you just can't memorize 60 scales and 200 chords just relying on shapes. Knowing what the notes actually are and the theory behind them helps you retain the info. It also helps you break down your favorite player's moves so you can understand what is happening and duplicate them or change them but keep what you like. Otherwise you're just all "Oh he did 12-13-15-11-14 on the sixth string." If the numbers have no meaning, it's hard to remember the lick, and to come up with your own variations.

  3834. musictheory 2019-03-29 12:59:47 9388E3
    I don't know what "you know we can hear you, right?" means, but get it from context, I think. There are also a lot of hip hop songs that have microtonal elements, like samples taken from in between string bends on guitars, sax, etc. I made a compilation album of "pop"-ish microtonal music, if you wanna hear how very accessible it can sound. Can listen free on Spotify here: https://open.spotify.com/album/2ojBIQLtipAo6MPJhmNiWP It's got microtonal / xenharmonic Blues, metal, prog, trip-hop, hip-hop, funk, classical, ambient, math, punk, spoken, folk, and solo acoustic guitar.

  3835. musictheory 2019-03-29 14:42:37 deathbyicepants
    This. Djent, for example, uses lower notes than most traditional metal because of the extra guitar string/lower tuning capability. The down-tuned sound is an element of the genre itself--it wouldnt be Djent without it.

  3836. musictheory 2019-03-30 00:46:32 65TwinReverbRI
    Ok, there are a couple of considerations here. Firstly, taking a highly tonal melody and trying to recast it modally may fail miserably. That brings up tons of questions that need to be addressed before you do it - IOW, sometimes you may WANT to do something, but it may not be the best decision. Why do you want to use this particular melody? Why do you want to recast it modally? Why do you want to make it Lydian as opposed to some other mode? If the answers to any of these are "just because I wanted to" or "just because I thought it would be cool", well, I hate to say it like this, but that's not a good enough reason. I don't mean that as bluntly as it sounds, but what I mean is, some melodies just simply aren't going to lend themselves well to recasting modally. It's far better to no "recast" things unless they already lend themselves to it. In Bach's Chorales, some of them are modal melodies that Bach "tonalized" by adding certain accidentals. Others though are actually more Modal (especially the Phrygian ones) as there's less of a way around it. One of the main considerations here is that we are "Tonally Biased" and conditioned - even "brain washed" to hear and conceptualize things from a Tonal perspective. Therefore, if a melody is strongly Tonal, it's virtually impossible to change it - it MIGHT - MIGHT be possible in some cases to change it from Major to Minor more easily than to some other mode, but some other mode is usually far more difficult, especially Lydian, which tends to be the trickiest of them all because of its overwhelming tendency to sound like a Tonal scale (that is, it just sounds more like Major starting on the wrong note, rather than it's own mode). What this all means is that when people work with modal music, they generally tend to avoid all trappings of Tonality at all costs. Thus, functional harmony is gone. Furthermore, since each mode is already close to major or minor, but has 1 (or 2) different note(s), it is that note that is focused on. In Lydian, it is imperative that the #4 appear in the melody or the harmony, or both. Lydian is a really tough one though. Effective chords would be I and Vmaj7. But it has a huge danger of "re-orienting" to the V as the Tonic - so emphasis on the I is important. Other progressions like I - iii - vi - I can work with the Lydian Melody over top - and probably more effectively because by avoiding II and V(maj7) you avoid the risk of that V sounding I or it just sounding like constant V/V progressions - such is the case with the movement of Beethoven's String Quartet subtitled "In the Lydian Mode" - it's not really Lydian, just I - V/V - V essentially (again, we hear it from and he couldn't help but write it in a tonal world). I - vii(7) work well. I - II is often problematic, especially if the V is there, as it will make the V sound like I again. But vamping back and forth can maintain the I chord as the I chord. This is the reason there are so few Lydian pieces now. It's too close to the common modulation to and tonicization of V for us to "unhear" it. Tom Petty's "Here Comes My Girl" is a great example because the intro and verses vamp on A to B and do have a "Lydian-esque" vibe to them, but when it hits that big E chord in the chorus, it's E. Now I realize that's not a Hymn Tune Harmonization but that is the issue - we can't "unhear" or "unthink" our tonal associations so easily, especially with Lydian, and a completely different approach is necessary.

  3837. musictheory 2019-03-30 02:58:41 cubistguitar
    Do you know the notes of the fretboard cold? The way to test that is have someone ask you one of the twelve notes on one of 6 strings, like Bb on the 3rd string. You should instantly be able to play it and sometimes the octave 12 frets higher as well. Do you know the musical intervals cold on your guitar? Learn the intervals and their inversions and have a similar test. Start at one note and get a random direction and interval, like up a minor 6th. Do you know major and minor triads cold on your guitar? Learn all the closed voicings on all the string sets and open voicings for roots on the lower three strings. Should be able to play any progression of triads with minimal movement and good voice leading Do you know all 12 major scales and all the twelve minor scales cold? I usually start a practice session by playing all these in succession in 2 octave fingerings. I do melodic minor up and natural minor down. Once you have this down start sequences within each scale as part of your study, groups of 3,4,5,6 notes and eventually melodic patterns that are less mathematical . Do you know all the 7th chords of each scale in drop 2 voicing and the inversions , as well as the arpeggios of the same? Now we begin to touch harmony and it’s relationship to scales and the intervals, this takes time. Once you begin moving thru these questions, the guitar will reveal itself. Learn songs and examine the songs with these new concepts in mind. Music will reveal itself.

  3838. musictheory 2019-03-30 04:38:47 snerp
    I think a problem with most microtonal music is that they aren't trying to sound good, they're trying to sound different or weird. I was watching a video about equal temperament and the guy mentioned offhand that blue notes in blues aren't actually straight up tritones or minor thirds, they're microtonal string bends that are about a quarter step higher than you'd think. I got out my tuner and tested it, and he was right, the "proper" blue notes are microtonal. This led me to the idea that using microtones more subtly or sparingly is much more powerful than using them everywhere. Applying that idea to my play has opened up a lot of interesting space with bends and vibrato.

  3839. musictheory 2019-03-30 19:03:11 OtherwiseEffective3
    Why use a formula to calculate string length when you can just use trial and error? When they make and tune violins and guitars they don't use a formula, they use trial and error. Same with tuning a piano.

  3840. musictheory 2019-03-31 04:47:14 65TwinReverbRI
    Guitar question not a theory question, but yes, there are moveable shapes for diminished chords (I assume you mean diminished 7th chords, not just diminished triads, but there are shapes for those too). Easy way - take a 7th chord and move the root up one. 4 3 4 2 turns into 4 3 4 3 Standard top 4 string o7 chord. x 5 3 5 3 x turns into x 5 3 5 4 x standard 5th string form. 6th is a bit trickier. You can from them, but most people don't play them that way. Instead, they're more likely to skip the 5th string, like so: x 2 3 2 x 3 Notice this is the same as the first idea with the note on the highest string moved to the lowest string.

  3841. musictheory 2019-03-31 04:53:36 ellblaek
    talking about guitar? x 2 3 2 x 3 this is a good voicing when using the low e string because it's a bit more spread out- you can also move the b5 to the 4th fret on the a string. it's a little hard to get used to because you kind of have to barre the 2nd fret with your index- but as you probably know, you can move a diminished chord up three frets (step and a half) and you get an inversion on thr same chord. another good one (a string) is x 4 2 4 3 x

  3842. musictheory 2019-03-31 05:20:13 65TwinReverbRI
    Strings are high E on top, low E on bottom The first one is strings 1-2-3-4 from the top down. The lowest note - string 4, in that case is a F. It's F^o7 in root position. HOwever, o7 chords can have any note as their root. It could also be B^o7 , D^o7 , or G#^o7 The 4th example I gave is a C#^o7 - assuming that the lowest note, the C#, is the root.

  3843. musictheory 2019-03-31 06:20:03 FwLineberry
    Triads or 7th chords? For triads 5675xx works from the low E string, but you gotta be careful not to hit the B and high E strings on top of the chord. You can turn it into a min7b5 (half diminished 7th) chord by putting your pinky down on the B string - 567585 You can turn it into a full diminished 7th by moving the note on the B string down one fret - 567575 From the A string A diminished triad would look like x5676x Make sure not to hit the high E string. To turn that into half and full diminished 7th chords, you have to use different fingerings min7b5 = x5656x °7 = x5646x

  3844. musictheory 2019-03-31 19:54:30 AD1AD
    My impression is that yes, the effect is most pronounced on an open string. There are likely to be higher harmonics that line up between the strings at fretted lengths too, however. I'm not sure if you'd just call it "sympathetic resonance" because the string lengths are literally attached to each other which makes the transfer of the energy much much much more efficient (I'm 99% sure) from one length to the other than you'd have with two separate strings attached to the same soundboard, but I don't know if you'd call it anything else =P I've often wondered how one might go about building an instrument that takes advantage of extended bridges consistently for all fretted intervals, and it would probably have to involve an electronic mechanism to detect which fret you're hitting on the main section of the string and then fretting the extension accordingly.

  3845. musictheory 2019-03-31 22:46:31 santropedro
    >I'm not sure if you'd just call it "sympathetic resonance" because the string lengths are literally attached to each other which makes the transfer of the energy much much much more efficient (I'm 99% sure) from one length to the other than you'd have with two separate strings attached to the same soundboard, but I don't know if you'd call it anything else =P I thought you were wrong, but now I read on wikipedia (obviously i will check further) this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd\_bridge#/media/File:3rd\_bridge\_bridge\_shape\_comparison.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_bridge#/media/File:3rd_bridge_bridge_shape_comparison.svg) which is on the 3rd bridge article. I will investigate and report later. It seems you are right. It's not just sympathethic resonance "trough the air" as I described. >I've often wondered how one might go about building an instrument that takes advantage of extended bridges consistently for all fretted intervals, A harp with 3rd bridge satisifies that, althought harps are already expensive and rare so one may want something closer to guitar or piano. With piano also I realize now can be done! You would have to add third bridge to every string group of the piano. also in the vein of this post this string sounds by simpathetic resonance: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliquot\_stringing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliquot_stringing) Obviusly this is trivial with electronic instruments, however, with real instruments where practicality matters, I don't know how you would do it. I imagine putting a "third bridge" custom bar pressing the piano strings. Yes, that's not so bad, I would do it with a specially shaped bar, or elongated device, that creates a third bridge on every string (long bar "perpendicular" to strings). The bar fixates to the piano case firmly. the bar It would pinch the strings with movable screw, so with a little of freedom for every string to reach desired dividing proportion. &#x200B; &#x200B;

  3846. musictheory 2019-03-31 23:52:46 Treynity
    Instrumentation partly gives it away. WHY ARE THERE ALWAYS STRING SYNTHS??

  3847. musictheory 2019-04-01 00:33:11 AD1AD
    Yes, any instrument that has one string per pitch would make it much easier to get consistent third bridge results =)

  3848. musictheory 2019-04-01 01:46:16 Jongtr
    As she says in that video, it's similar to a japanese koto, which has individual movable bridges between the two fixed ends of the strings, and is played in a similar way to how she is playing it. As with the koto, it would be played like a harp (not fretted). The fret would no longer work, because they no longer divide the string in the right ways - at least not in the usual octave divisions! You're right about how the 16th fret works, in producing a 5th higher on the bridge side. It would be cool to experiment with different tunings, because effectively you have a 12-string harp! In EADGBE (not allowing for the stretching involved in inserting the bridge!), you'd have G#-C#-F#-B-D#-G# on the bridge side and C#-F#-B-E-G#-C# on the nut side. In pitch order, that's C#-F#-G#-B-C#-E-F#-G#-B-C#-D#-G# - a complete C# minor pentatonic scale in the middle, with that D#-G# on top. That';s going toi make it sound even more "oriental" ;-) You would certainly get sympathetic resonance happening, assuming you're not muting the unplayed strings.

  3849. musictheory 2019-04-01 04:12:24 65TwinReverbRI
    > learn all the notes on the neck Oh absolutely! I think you mentioned first about the E and A strings - this is kind of a common thing among guitarists because we often learn Barre chords and power chords early on, with roots on the 5th and 6th strings - as a result we often know where every note on those strings are, and of course the 1st string too, and we often learn the open position notes as well as those that are duplicated at the 12th fret, but there's sort of this "no man's land" in the middle of the neck where people don't know the notes as well as the other spots. In fact it may help you to drill both your chord tones and spot them on the neck at the same time - they'll help reinforce each other!

  3850. musictheory 2019-04-01 19:31:09 cubistguitar
    Trying to improve your scale work? Couple of ideas, we usually start our major scales with our 1st finger, our 2nd, and our 4th. Learn a 2 octave form for a major scale starting on the 6th string with your 1st, 2nd and 4th fingers. Now repeat for the 5th string. For the 1st finger forms I usually do 3 note per string, for a challenge learn the scale 4 note per string for 2 octaves. You have to stretch or slide, I prefer to slide. The Klose clarinet warmups has a nice exercise where you play all the major minor pairs in succession, I use that a lot as a warm up. That’s fine for straight up and down, but what else can I do with the scales? Well harmony is found within them, harmonize each scale degree as a 7th chord and play as moving chords or related arpeggios. Then move to patterns and sequences. Zentao website has a great resource on melodic patterns. Add these to your practice of your scales as well.

  3851. musictheory 2019-04-01 22:14:06 88melter
    Each time to fret a string, you should know what note is under that finger and fret. This is not as huge a task as it may seem. The place where you begin, and the fingering you use, will make a pre-determined set of pitches. When you know those notes, you'll KNOW them in a subliminal way, and their names will not impede your melodic motion.

  3852. musictheory 2019-04-01 22:30:10 Nudelwalker
    I slide down on the lower e string till i hit the root note

  3853. musictheory 2019-04-01 22:36:39 musical_bear
    At a lot of those jams, there’s usually one genre of focus, and a lot of songs tend to have the same key. I go to a lot of blues jams, and so many of the songs are in a key of an open string of a guitar, and I’ve heard those guitar chords so many times in my life, that I can almost always immediately know the key of a song at any blues jam, despite not having perfect pitch. On top of that, usually the players who play in “irregular” keys for guitar, like Bb, will call it out. But like others have said, outside of that, it’s all relative pitch, and being able to hear the tonic of a song. When I go to jams and am playing something unfamiliar, I sit and listen for a few seconds (usually the person who knows the song will give a courtesy go-around of the progression to give everyone a clue what’s going on). Once I’m able to basically hum the tonic/key in my head, I start plotting out all of the other chords in my head relative to that, so I have kind of a virtual chart in my head, but still couldn’t tell you the name of the key. I focus way more on keeping track of relative chord changes than trying to figure out the note name of a specific key. Usually I’m kind of absent-mindedly hunting for the exact key, playing a soft reference pitch if needed, while 90% of my brain is working on the changes themselves. If I somehow still don’t know the key by right before I’m about to come in, I’ll focus my attention on that, play a single reference pitch on my instrument, and then automatically “know” what the key is because I’ve related it to my reference using relative pitch. I don’t try to watch hands, because a lot of chord shapes look very very similar. Maybe I’ll use hands to tell *when* a chord is changing, or about to change, but not to know what a chord is.

  3854. musictheory 2019-04-01 22:37:06 cristinolda
    My favorite way to figure out the key: Play on one string only to start. Find a group of 3 notes with one or two empty frets in between them that sound correct. From there, you can find the key if you know your 5 pentatonic shapes by matching the shapes to the notes you’ve found that sound correct. It’s super helpful, and lets you find the key veeeery quickly. Once you get more comfortable with it, you can play on more than one string to start and finding the shape / key is even easier!

  3855. musictheory 2019-04-02 00:13:54 treble-n-bass
    They probably don't have perfect pitch. There's a good chance that they have relative pitch, or "cheat" by strumming a string or two while the tune is starting (with the volume at 0) and putting their ear to the actual string to try and figure out the key. OR, ... you can just ask what key it's in. There's no shame in that. Every time I get up to play at a jazz/blues jam, I always establish the key beforehand by telling the folks "Okay, "Bye Bye Blackbird" in F ... 1,2,1,2,3,4..." And if you don't say what key it's in, the other cats will ask "What key?," ... guaranteed. That's how it works at most jam sessions I've been at. There are also set keys for certain tunes. For example, if you're at a jazz jam, the tune "C-Jam Blues" will be in C more than likely. "Take The A Train" will be in C. "All The Things You Are" will be in Ab. If you're at a rock session, a lot of tunes will be in E or A. I can't imagine anybody playing "Stairway To Heaven" in Ab, Eb or Bb. The more sessions you go to, the easier it will be to find the key...

  3856. musictheory 2019-04-02 01:19:05 cashwhoreinc
    i usually play a note, if it sounds off i'll play one just above or just below it, that one will almost always sound right (sometimes it might sound off in the moment if the chord underneath changed, or if you're playing in a scale like the harmonic minor that has big jumps between notes but that's not very likely). from there i'll expand my playing to include a few more notes around the one i know is right, and soon after i can identify the shape of the scale i'm playing around, and the root based on where my licks tend to end up, or from listening to the other musicians. that way if you're playing in a particular mode, you'll be able to recognize that too. it really comes from experience, just learn your scale shapes, where all the intervals are relative to the note you're playing (eg. the fourth is one string above the root on the same fret on guitar, etc). then put your music library on shuffle and start playing. personally, i'm notoriously bad at identifying chords or the root of a chord, my brain automatically zeroes in on the highest note. if there's a bass player it helps but if it's just guitar or piano then i'm a fish out of water. this way within a couple bars i can figure out enough about the song to play along without having to ask for the key or watch anyone else's hands.

  3857. musictheory 2019-04-02 03:58:57 drivebydryhumper
    If I don't have a guitar tuner around to tune my guitar I just hum the lowest note I can, which is pretty close to the low E-string, so it works, unless I have or just had a cold :)

  3858. musictheory 2019-04-02 06:44:26 CatMan_Sad
    I discovered the magic of "half diminished chords" or m7b5 chords a little while back, and it's been so awesome. Sorry to any non-guitar players, because this will almost entirely be from the perspective of guitar. I can take a fingerpicking pattern from C to Am, but put this really weird chord in between. In C, the chord kinda looks like this (from lowest pitch to highest, and starting on the A string): B - F - G - D &#x200B; The other type of chords I like to use for chromatic movement are hard for me to describe because I don't really know the name for them, and they don't really fit into what I understand for harmony on guitar except as passing chords. For example, if I'm trying to get from G to Am, then I will typically play a G barre chord, then barre the third fret with my index finger, and fret a G# in the bass, as well as the major 11 of G, so a B (on the G string). From lowest pitch to highest: G# - F - B - D . (skip the A string) Then from here, I slide up and play an Am barre, or just an open chord. &#x200B; Obviously these ideas can be shifted up or down, with or without a capo in some cases. It was something I was inspired to learn about as a bass player learning guitar. I knew that there must be a way to play whatever root note I want (with varying degrees of success) as long as I went into it with proper voicings and maintaining some number of a diatonic chord tones. I still have a long way to go, in terms of practicing and learning, but these chords are really something special to me. I also tend to abuse them, but maybe someday I'll be a mature player.

  3859. musictheory 2019-04-02 13:39:54 south87
    No, SATB guidelines are for training a musician into dividing the musical space apropiately at all times. You should keep them until you have no more problem with the "rules". They will always be important. You can see it clearly in string quartets or choral works.

  3860. musictheory 2019-04-02 14:56:48 markjohnstonmusic
    I'm not really clear on your link between putatively hating dancing and putatively being bad at rhythm. My point was that "rhythm" consists of a lot of different components, and an orchestral string section is good at different aspects of rhythm than, for instance, a jazz band saxophone section. Undoubtedly some string players hate dancing, just as some jazz band sax players do. I don't see what that has to do with their professional qualifications, though. I think you see a lot of the things classical players aren't doing which non-classical players do do as deficiencies due to inability, but that to me seems comparable to criticising French people for not being able to pronounce "th": why should they? And I don't follow your last comment. Strings having developed as "indoor" instruments influences their role in an orchestra, the way they're played, the way they're written for, but their being "indoor" instruments in the first place is the result of physics: they put out a lot less sound than brass and wind instruments. So playing them outside is bad not because it violates the Margrave of Brandenburg's 1673 edict but because it sounds shitty. Also cellists and (often) bassists sit to play. You going to complain about the pianist not walking while he plays? (And by the way, walking maked playing the violin or viola harder, so I don't see a need to prove myself doing that.) So going to the root of this debate: "original purpose" isn't unnecessary packaging; it's fundamental to the structure and technique of these instruments. That's the point I'm making with an oboe, which you seem to have missed. You're significantly underestimating the nuance, expertise, and difficulty required to make a tabla, by the way. I don't really follow your point on Italian. Can you elaborate? In any case, there are operas in English and German which have far less thankful words than "husk" or "toothlessness"—look at Doctor Atomic for an English example. You couldn't be more wrong on sight-reading. I sight-read every day in my job, including some of the most complex music ever written. It literally isn't possible to do my job without sight-reading, and being a good sight-reader saves me hundreds of hours a year. It is also deeply impressive when it is done very well. Maybe you haven't seen that. The sheet music I posted there doesn't have a time signature or regular bars or beats, so there's no need to group the sixteenths into quarter-notes. What similarity in the lyrics are you seeing?

  3861. musictheory 2019-04-02 17:23:51 Jongtr
    If your goal is to "easily transpose songs on demand", then roman numerals, or the similar Nashville system, should be where you start. It's easy enough to talk about "one, four, five", etc in terms of note counts (not fret counts) - although you might need to make sure that when they play in F they don't call the IV chord "A#". If they do, then you have a little more education to do. Even so, if they're guitarists (what makes me think that? ;-)) they may well be transposing perfectly well already using fret distance and patterns. E.g., transposing from F to G means moving 2 frets up. Transposing from F to C means 5 frets down, or the same fret on the next lower string (lower in pitch that is). Again, I'm assuming they know how to find their root notes, and are not limited to open position. For guitarists, transposing from F to E is easy - everything can come down a fret. Transposing from F to Eb (or lower) is tougher because all the shapes have to change. Even so, guitarists (and I'm one who knows his theory) are quite happy working from fret pattern relationships, once they can find a keynote. "OK, there's Eb, so the IV chord is 5 frets up, or root on the same fret on the next string; and the V is 2 frets above that." I.e., knowing the note names is not necessarily helpful - knowing the positions of the root notes relative to each other is what counts. So (in your position as "educator") it would be about naming those root positions in roman numerals with reference to keys they already know. In short: start from what they know already, and provide theory terms (new names) for what they know. E.g., "if the key is F, then that A# chord is really a Bb - because it's "four" \[IV\], and FGAB is 4." "When you change from F to C, that's a one-five change." And so on. Obviously they have to be ready for this and understand why it's useful!

  3862. musictheory 2019-04-03 01:18:59 ttd_76
    Do you have Neck Diagrams ([http://neckdiagrams.com](http://neckdiagrams.com))? It's a tool for drawing neck diagrams and printing them out for when you practice. Which is pretty handy. But actually, the single greatest use for this is not being able to print the diagrams, but drawing them in the first place. It's like a fretboard Etch-a-sketch. I will take a random fret and mark it and say "Okay, let's say this is the major third. Can I draw out the entire major pentatonic from this mark?" Or in this instance you can pick a random fret and say "What's the nearest G chord tone to this fret, and can I draw out the chord or scale from there?" And then I'll draw it in different ways, like fill in all the roots first, or draw it all out one one string, or whatever. You just make up whatever game or exercise seems applicable to what you are trying to learn. Draw it all out (and you can turn on scale degree markings or note names to see if you are right). Then just erase the whole thing and do it all over again. If you draw out all your triads, scales, notes, arpeggios over and over and over in different ways, you'll get good at them really fast. It would be awesome if it was a phone app, but unfortunately it isn't. But it's still a great way to practice when you don't have your guitar. I used to just have my laptop when watching TV and during a commercial I'd just sketch out scales. Or spend five minutes before I went to bed every night. IMO, it's the best tool by far for when you are at the stage where you have all the foundational knowledge that you need (like where you are at) but you need to move from just knowing stuff to getting it to be second nature to your fingers on the fretboard.

  3863. musictheory 2019-04-03 18:28:06 SixtyMetreMud
    From a theory perspective, piano is much much easier. The guitar is pretty fucked theory wise because of the one major 3rd string interval, so there's no consistent horizontal "pattern", if that makes sense. It's not logical like the piano. If you just want to learn more theory with it, pick piank for sure, but if its something you actually want to play than just choose whichever you like best. Its not impossible to gain a solid grasp of theory on guitar, its just more mental gymnastics.

  3864. musictheory 2019-04-03 20:39:12 tchaffee
    Lots of guitarists think theory is easier on piano because their guitar teacher never taught them how to use the guitar fretboard for theory. The guitar has the circle of fifths built right into the tuning and you can visually see it horizontally going from string to string across one fret. That's hugely useful. If you know every note on the fretboard, guitar is easier to figure out the notes in a chord for any given key. Chord shapes stay exactly the same so you just move your Major 7 chord shape to the key you want and you know all the notes instantly. With piano the chord shapes are different in every key and you have to memorize all those shapes. Pros and cons to each instrument when it comes to theory. Learn the pros of the fretboard and you'll stop thinking of the guitar as inferior from a theory perspective. It's simply different.

  3865. musictheory 2019-04-03 21:20:16 tchaffee
    >I agree that if you tuned your guitar to all fourths, itd be a great theory instrument You don't need to tune your guitar in all fourths. In fact the B string *helps* continue the circle of fourths / fifths by making you jump up a string. It's brilliant once you understand how it works. Let's do the circle of fourths, note by note. We will use only 5 strings and leave off the high E string. Start on the 7th fret of the low E string for B. Now move across the seventh fret to get E A D. Jump up a fret for the B string to get G. Now you've run out of strings. Starting on the same now one half step higher fret, return to the low E string for C, F, Bb, Eb, jump up a fret on the B string for Ab. Continue until you run out of fret. I use this ALL the time for visualizing the circle of fifths when doing music theory. >The piano keyboard is theory layed out flat, it was built for theory It wasn't built for theory. It's built to favor the key of C. Playing something in the key of C is far easier physically on the piano than playing the same thing in a key that uses a lot of the black keys. Favoring the key of C visually and physically has some pros when it comes to theory. It also has cons. I can instantly tell you what note the fifth interval of any root note is by using my guitar. Same exact shape. I had to memorize the fretboard though. On piano it's the opposite. You have to memorize all the shapes for each key, or count it out. The notes on piano however are easier to memorize than the fretboard. Pros and cons. &#x200B;

  3866. musictheory 2019-04-03 22:09:33 south87
    There are various techniques that have to do with orchestration. Just some occur to me right now. - First, you have to be able to read in a variety of clefs. Some instruments have to be read differently because they dont play the notes that are written. That means learning the C Clefs - Secondly you have to be comfortable with reading a whole section at the same time, that means expanding your eyesight to cover 4 or 5 staves - If you mark all the sections of a piece you will see how orchestration interacts with form At first you can keep track of the string section because its fairly constant if you should get lost.

  3867. musictheory 2019-04-03 22:46:41 Fork__
    You’re asking the right questions, which is good, but I really disagree with metal musicians free-timing it! They’re definitely locking in with the drums and playing the rhythms precisely. I think the reason you don’t think they sound robotic isn’t because of the timing, but because they’re emphasising certain notes more (by picking harder) and playing well, holding notes when appropriate and playing staccato when appropriate, all while definitely staying in time. Some exercises to think about: - Set your metronome somewhere between 60 and 180 bmp and practice playing on a single string... try 1 note per click for a while, then 2 notes per click for a while, then 3, then 4. You can adjust the tempo if you want. - If you play two notes per click at 100bmp then that’s the same as playing 1 note per click at 200bmp. The advantage of trying two notes per click at 100bmp is that you become more responsible for the timing. You don’t have the metronome slightly correcting you every beat, and you’re relying more on internal rhythm. You could even try 4 notes at 50bmp, or 8 notes at 25bmp, but that gets reaaaally hard. You can try the same with power-chords, or changing notes, whatever you like. I found I really improved my metal rhythm just playing songs at 4 notes per click at quite a slow tempo. As for how to figure out how songs are played, try counting along with the drums (and tapping your leg or something). Focus on the kick and snare drums. Often you’ll find a kick drum on the strong beats (1 and 3), and a snare on the weak beats (2 and 4). As for those songs you mentioned, in the main rhythm riff of Tornado of Souls, the first chord isn’t actually played on the beat “1” (I think it’s played on the ‘&’ after 4), so you really need to listen to the drums to get where it is. Hope that helps a bit.

  3868. musictheory 2019-04-03 22:55:11 65TwinReverbRI
    It sounds like you're "jumping" to Orchestral works. Have you tried this in String Quartets, Woodwind Quintets, Piano Trios? You need to start with something like Beethoven's "Spring" Sonata for Violin and Piano, and see if you can mentally and visually jump between the instruments - who has the important part at any given time, and so on. Forget large orchestral scores until you have a handle on duets, trios, quartets, and quintets. There are sextets and septets and so on but once you get good at 4-5 parts then you should be able to go to Divirtimenti of like 13 instruments, and then you can move to earlier Hadyn or Mozart symphonies that just have Strings and Oboes and Horns or something like that.

  3869. musictheory 2019-04-03 23:04:45 Scott_Shogun69
    I've actually just remembered that they play half a step down so its actually in D# / Eb harmonic minor, but I just refer to everything as if it were in standard tuning, hah! My bad. But in regards to shifting keys it's a little different to that, as the riff under neath is like chugging chromatic arpeggios from B, C, then going into C#. The roots on the fretboard of the low 7th string are 0,1 then 2nd fret. It's when he goes to that C# arpeggio he's changing key where he's doing like a melodic minor thing I THINK. Can't remember too well sorry haha! In regards to lessons I actually took a couple via Skype as I live in the UK :-)

  3870. musictheory 2019-04-04 01:17:38 SixtyMetreMud
    Well fuck, that's a fair point. I'll definitely have to give that a try. Here's another perspective though - the intervals across the fretboard go as follows: 6th string root - 1 4 b7 b3 5 1 5th string root - 5 1 4 b7 2 5 4th string root - 2 5 1 4 6 2 3rd string root - 6 2 5 1 3 6 2nd string root - 4 b7 b3 6 1 4 1st string root - 1 4 b7 b3 5 1 My memory might be slightly off, but my point is that that's just chaotic.

  3871. musictheory 2019-04-04 09:46:54 Superpickle456
    I forgot to mention im playing guitar. Those are the frets im playing, in order from lowest string to highest string

  3872. musictheory 2019-04-04 11:18:11 theredwoodcurtain
    It’s partially low tunings / extended range guitars. The lowest note in the riff in the first song is the B below the low E in standard guitar tuning. It’s possible these guys are playing 7 string guitars with a low B, but equally if not more likely that they’ve got six strings tuned to Drop B tuning. Guitar tones get really funny when you tune even real heavy strings down a third or fourth.

  3873. musictheory 2019-04-04 11:45:02 agromono
    "Slightly"? Seriously?! - Angry String Player/Barbershopper

  3874. musictheory 2019-04-04 11:50:39 Serene_Calamity
    I'm a guitar primary who taught myself theory through guitar and later received formal academic training. Lemme try to help you out with this exercise: Next time you play your basic chord progressions, play them one at a time and pay attention to each string individually, and watch what notes it goes to throughout the progression. If you play the one string by itself, it has its own little melody. The entire chord progression is 4-6 tiny melodies happening at the same time. That's what voice leading is, from a ELI5 guitarist point of view. You're finding the most efficient and cool sounding ways to move each voice in the way that it wants to go. A study of classic counterpoint would help to understand a lot of the "rules" for which way notes want to go in a progression, but I think you can figure a lot of it out with experimentation. Point is: next time you're on your guitar or ukelele, pay very close attention to each individual tiny melody happening in your chord progression.

  3875. musictheory 2019-04-04 12:57:30 ttd_76
    Hard to say without knowing what your D chord is. But it’s probably not the inversion so much as it is some combination of very spread voicing in your A chord, and poor voice leading to the D. Don’t play the sixth string and you take away the inversion as well as taking away the one crazy way lower note that also can’t voice lead well (because you run out of neck trying to get to the D). Does that sound more like a V-I cadence to you?

  3876. musictheory 2019-04-04 16:24:13 Jongtr
    As you already have some experience with guitar, you'll probably find that easier. But "easy" is not really an easy (sorry) question to answer. Both have some easy aspects and some tough aspects. **Piano**: As mentioned already, piano is the ideal workbench for studying theory, and also for arranging other instruments, and for maximum flexibility when composing. It's the natural interface for DAWs. That's because its range covers the entire ranges of all other instruments (with the exception of some massive church organs, AFAIK). Also - for theory, arranging etc - you little or no playing technique; you just need to know the notes and place your fingers on them. (One aspect of theory that piano obscures to some degree is how scales are arrived at. The keyboard makes it look as if the notes of the C major scale are all equally spaced, Wrong! However, that does match staff notation, which is handy.) *Piano disadvantages*: (1) they're big! Have you got room? OK, keyboards, midi etc, largely disposes of that issue, unless you have your heart set on the powerful resonances of an acoustic grand. Likewise, acoustic pianos are *expensive*. (2) Piano is not very expressive. Its tuning is fixed. All you have is dynamics: "piano-forte", right? It's technically a "percussion" instrument, not a string instrument. It's a machine, with complicated levers between you and the strings. (Yes I'm still talking acoustic pianos here... but then digital keys are even more impersonal, despite things like pitch wheels.) (3) Playing technique - while simple to begin with - requires you to get used to feeling where your hands are; you can't watch both at the same time! (OK there's a similar issue with guitar, but only one hand needs to move great distances.) (4) Piano is not very portable. If you decide the acoustic is your thing, you have to hope the places you want to play at already have one - and that it's in tune. Even a digital keyboard is sizable, plus the necessary amp and/r modules. You won't be taking a keyboard round the campfire.... (5) Piano tuners are expensive: skilled professional human beings, paid for their labour. Guitar tuners are small devices costing from $5 (OK you have to tune the guitar yourself, but that's easy.) **Guitar**: Guitar is *cool*, no question. Acoustic or electric. You can't strum a piano. You can *pose* with a guitar in a way you can't with a piano. Piano showmen have to get up and stand on the thing, basically. (Unless you want one of those ridiculous keytars you wear round your neck.) You can take it anywhere - I mean acoustic in this case. It makes a perfect accompaniment for vocals. (Its range exactly covers all the classical vocal ranges.) It's *expressive*: because your hands are on the strings, you can manipulate them many ways, vibrato, microtonal bending, more subtle dynamics and articulation than piano, etc. You can tune the guitar differently to produce different resonances and harmonies. You can play it with a slide. Good acoustic guitars are way cheaper than good acoustic pianos. (Even cheap acoustics are pretty good these days.) For theory, guitar has *one* advantage over piano, in that you can see (and understand) scale formulas and octave divisions by looking at one string. (Interval ratios can be understood by dividing up the string, not the octave.) Otherwise... *Guitar disadvantages*: (1) It's much more limited harmonically than piano. With only six strings and limited finger stretches, there are fewer chord types you can play. (You can make up for that somewhat with timbral variety of the same voicing.) (2) Learning - and following - notation is harder on guitar, simply because of that kind of flexibility (middle C is available in 5 different places, each one with a different timbre - which one do you choose?). (3) Guitar involves physical pain, right from the start, because you need to fret strings to play most notes. That's especially the case with the steel-string acoustic, the most adaptable kind but the one requiring most effort. (This does diminish with practice, as your skin toughens and you learn the optimal pressure required) (4) For different styles of music you may need different kinds of guitar: nylon-string for classical, electric for rock, etc. (5) For electric guitar, you obviously need an amp, which is something else you need to learn how to operate (although that only brings it in line with the digital keyboard). **Solution**: Learn both! :-D I'm mainly a guitar player, but I also know my way around a keyboard. The choice would depend on how much you either (a) want to perform, or to sing, in a band (rock, folk, blues, country, etc), or (b) want to study theory (or produce digital music). I'd say if you have either of those priorities, that would determine which - if you can't afford to do both.

  3877. musictheory 2019-04-04 16:50:13 Jongtr
    How are you playing the D? The voice-leading between the two chords is probably the issue. You need to think about how each note is moving to the nearest note on the next chord (I mean nearest in pitch, not necessarily on the fretboard). Your A7 is voiced like this (pitches low to high): * A * E * C# * A * G (yes the 3rd string G is below the A on 5th string) * E To move in the smoothest way to a D chord, the D would need to be voiced as follows: * A = shared tone * D or F# = down or up a whole step * D = up a half-step * A = shared tone * F# = down a half-step * D = down a whole step (yes below your bottom E!) You can get close to that (losing the low D) with this voicing: F#-A-D-A, playable three ways: x-9-7-7-10-x, 14-12-12-14-x-x, or x-x-4-2-3-5. Your low G then goes down to the bottom F#, while the C# goes up to D. The two A's are shared tones in the same octaves. But you need to lose that open 6th string on the A7. And of course you end up on an inverted D chord, which may not be what you want. NB: chord changes don't *have* to be smooth in this way, with classically "correct" voice-leading. But your question suggests you want a smooth change. Naturally, other options would involve not using that voicing of A7!

  3878. musictheory 2019-04-04 20:12:38 CustomSawdust
    There is a recent genre called “Djent” that seems emphasize the ultralow range on basses and gtrs. I used to have a 9 string electric gtr, and it was so low the intervals were lost. I had hoped it would have a broad range clear enough to make sense. Look for djent on youtube.

  3879. musictheory 2019-04-04 21:14:34 HeavyAndExpensive
    I know its more of a gear thing than a theory thing but overdrive pedal into a high gain amp like a Peavy 6505 or a Mesa Mark V is a great base for the death metal sound. Lots of chromatics. A lot of the heaviness from old school death metal comes from the amps, not extended range guitars. I'm actually not really sure how many of those bands actually even used extended range guitars. The guitarist from Obituary uses a suped up Strat into a Rat into a Marshall. I could be wrong, but the 7/8 string guitars are a relatively new thing.

  3880. musictheory 2019-04-05 11:49:16 inchesinmetric
    I’m not totally sure how it works, but I notice you have “capo 11” on there. I think, from a music ed standpoint, that you could pick a different string for open chords and keep the capo in a more reasonable area, like maybe 7th fret and lower. It would add extra challenge for guitar players, who need it when they’re working with this level of music theory. Just a suggestion, what you have works. Thanks for sharing.

  3881. musictheory 2019-04-05 16:35:26 DethRegh
    Bending down (bending in general) isn't necessarily hard for string instruments, except maybe the harp (I imagine its like piano and requires technical expertise to tune) All that requires is loosening the string tension, which can be achieved by either turning a tuning peg, bending the neck, or a good old fashioned whammy bar. But I image it'd be harder to bend with breath controlled intruments.

  3882. musictheory 2019-04-05 20:29:05 Lifetime_Curve
    You might put this out over at r/transribe to see if anyone will help you. Do you have software to slow down audio? I've used Transcribe! by Seventh String for many purposes over the years. It's not free, but that's because it's good! &#x200B; This is a very rhythmically layered piece. I hear what you're saying about dotted crochet->quaver, but I don't hear any triplets in this whole thing. I hear lots of syncopation, but everything sounds like it fits within the simple subdivision of the beat.

  3883. musictheory 2019-04-05 21:14:07 NovaXI
    On harp and piano sure, but why are you using tuners to slide on string instruments? It’s not called bending for a reason- you can actually easily just slide your hand, to make a glissando.

  3884. musictheory 2019-04-05 21:23:26 DethRegh
    You can use it to bend open strings with the tuners. This technique mostly gets user to detune the lowest string for brief period and then retune it back, Phil X does it a lot, but its basically a whammy bar hack.

  3885. musictheory 2019-04-05 21:29:09 NovaXI
    Yea but the only real use I could think of is to go below your lowest strings limit. Otherwise you just move a string down and slide. Detuning in the middle of a piece is a recipe for disaster.

  3886. musictheory 2019-04-05 22:14:29 vornska
    Your best bet is to ask violinists. Maybe r/violin? I'm a cellist, not a violinist, so maybe I'm wrong. But I wouldn't ask a violin to do this. It's technically possible, but it probably won't sound very good. You need to consider that each note will be played on a different string, so you should think about which string will play which note. The lowest note of those triple stops has to be played on the D string (D4), which means that the violinist has to be playing about an octave up the neck. It's probably somewhat easier on violin, but doing that on a cello would be dreadful. Also, playing multiple notes at once is something that works best for short chord stabs, not long sustained tones. You're not going to be able to get as beautiful of a sound on those triple stops as you could with single notes. If you're writing this for an orchestra, just as the violins to do it divisi.

  3887. musictheory 2019-04-05 22:41:44 TrebleStrings
    I play violin. We call chords "stops" with a tuple to indicate the number of strings: double stop, triple stop, quadruple stop. It is a "stop" because a string is stopped with a finger. That being said, these particular chords are barely playable. The violinist would have to be advanced and not have small hands. The average violinist can play a range of up to a tenth across two strings in first position, but some can't do more than an octave. Those who cannot play more than an octave are going to have trouble playing a fifth in higher positions because the strings are further apart and harder to span with a single finger. Maybe it's ok with you that only some violinists can play your music. It depends on your market. Also, in my opinion, this won't sound pleasant on a real violin. I don't like the sound of triple and quadruple stops in higher positions. I think they need the resonance of a lower string, and lower strings don't sound very strong when you shorten the vibrating length so much.

  3888. musictheory 2019-04-05 22:56:58 TrebleStrings
    It's very common, no bridge manipulation except among some folk musicians, and it's not harsh. You can easily catch three strings closer to or over the fingerboard where the strings are closer together, but since the E string tends to squeak at certain weights and sounding points, that's not how we do it. Instead, we split the chord into two connected bow strokes or roll the bow over them. "Three notes at once" doesn't mean to violinists as it does to those who don't play an instrument with a bow. Guitarists don't pluck all six of their strings at the exact same moment, either.

  3889. musictheory 2019-04-05 23:12:16 DethRegh
    Fretless guitars are rare, but they are out there. Andrian Belew plays fretless occasionally. But id rather take subtle intonation differences without frets than have to deal with fret buzz. My old guitar had a dead spot at the first fret on the D string and in made the open string practically unsuable.

  3890. musictheory 2019-04-06 01:51:12 nine91tyone
    Three notes are possible to play at once on orchestral string instruments, but the amount of pressure the violinist would have to apply in order to get the bow to rub three strings at once would cause a nasty sound similar to the sounds beginner violinists make. It also presents a risk of damaging the bow, bridge, strings, face, soundpost, etc. It would be better to write in an arpeggio across those three notes, or divisi the part between two violins. &#x200B; Each instrument has their own nuances when it comes to notation, so an arpeggio might actually be how a violinist would interpret that notation. It would be better to ask this question on r/violin

  3891. musictheory 2019-04-06 02:38:37 craigfwynne
    This is the best answer IMO. While many things can be technically done on many different instruments, unless you are trying to produce that very specific sound, there's no reason to force it when many string pieces are written for ensembles. By structural design the instrument is not a chordal instrument (the arched bridge and neck mentioned previously.) Even double stops tend to produce a particular sound that is not the same as two violins each playing individual notes.

  3892. musictheory 2019-04-06 11:13:15 65TwinReverbRI
    None. You're right, most males sing in a range that is clearly within the range of, for example, guitar. The highest E string on Guitar is high for a lot of males. The higher notes that people who sing really high are like B, that Steve Perry of Journey would sing. That means most of what most men sing is well within the range of the typical open chords played on guitar.

  3893. musictheory 2019-04-06 20:01:13 kravvall
    I think that's an (irish) flute with a string (probably violin) on top. But I am really not sure. At first I thought it might be a bagpipe, but if then it's eq'ed and quite silenced.

  3894. musictheory 2019-04-06 21:49:25 notreallyme42069
    I really think you're asking a flawed question. You don't learn theory "on an instrument" you learn it from books, from analyzing music, from thinking about music, etc. You apply that knowledge to every instrument you play so if you play both piano and guitar, you'll apply it to both instruments. It is not as if one might say "I play piano and guitar but I only know theory on the piano." The two instruments offer different perspectives which will be advantageous in learning different aspects of theory. Knowledge of piano will help you understand key signatures, for example, since the instrument as the notes from the key of C as white notes, just as the staff as the notes from the key of C as "natural". Knowledge of the guitar on the other hand will help you understand intervals, since it is a chromatic instrument and therefore easy to see the intervals as shapes on the fretboard (major 3rd for example is one fret down on the next highest string). If you wanted to learn only one instrument and were asking which of the two is better suited for developing an understanding of theory, the answer would probably be piano. But that isn't what you seem to be asking - you seem to be asking which of the two instruments you know how to play, and presumably want to keep playing, you should use to learn theory, and that question doesn't have an answer because if you learn theory you would apply it to both instruments. I should warn you though - this subreddit tends to be very pro-piano and sometimes even anti-guitar, an idiotic stance IMO but nonetheless an attitude that unfortunately exists. I once brought up how guitar has the advantage of visualizing intervals as shapes and got down-voted into oblivion by people who incorrectly assumed I was trying to say guitar was "better" than piano. Even here on this thread the top response is a one-word answer that simply implies that the piano is "better," while the other response that correctly notes that theory is not instrument-specific had a single point before I gave it an upvote.

  3895. musictheory 2019-04-07 05:41:02 klokbok
    [https://www.justinguitar.com/guitar-lessons/the-mixolydian-mode-sc-515](https://www.justinguitar.com/guitar-lessons/the-mixolydian-mode-sc-515) Here, from a guitar site, which tend to be really bad. &#x200B; "The Mixolydian Mode is type of major scale (it has a natural 3rd) and is in fact only one note different to the major scale - it has a b7 scale degree. Some people even call it the Dominant scale because it fits dominant chords so perfectly!" &#x200B; It says the scale has a b7 degree. This means that if we take our tonic, 1 3 5 and extend it to have the seventh (b7), our tonic chord will be a dominant chord. It will not necessarily function as a dominant, but that is the inherent sound of the tonic chord of mixolydian. &#x200B; &#x200B; "The b7 is the note that gives this mode it's flavour - otherwise it's the same as the major scale!! It's amazing the difference that changing this one note makes to it's flavour." &#x200B; This says it's not the major scale. It's a different scale degree, giving the available diatonic chords and melodies different feels. &#x200B; "The PMS is found **a Perfect 4th above the tonal centre** (or down a Perfect 5th)**.** The easiest way to do this is on the neck. Put your first finger on the TONAL CENTRE on the 6th string and in the same fret on the next string is the root of the Parent Major Scale." &#x200B; A p4 above the tonal centre. C is our tonal centre. A fourth above C is F. That is the "parent major scale". Parent major scale is not the tonal centre. It mentions two time in bold and capital that the PMS and tonal centre are two different things. &#x200B; I'm not a guitar player so much of the jargon used in the practice segment flew over my head. &#x200B; " A blues in the key of A will mean you three chords, A7, D7 and E7 - and it's VERY important to realise that you have to change mode each time the chords change, so over A7 play A Mixolydian and over D7 play D Mixolydian etc." &#x200B; A7, the root chord, uses A mixolydian. D7 uses D mixolydian. E7 is the dominant, so it can be crisped up beyond being E mixolydian. &#x200B; &#x200B; &#x200B; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixolydian\_mode](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixolydian_mode) &#x200B; "**Mixolydian mode** is a musical mode. In the modern sense, it is the scale on the white piano keys that starts with G. Its ascending sequence consists of a root note, whole step, whole step, half step , whole step, whole step, half step, whole step (to octave)." &#x200B; Using only white keys, mixolydian starts with G. G is the tonal centre. Aforementioned interval sequence results in the mixolydan scale. &#x200B; "The modern Mixolydian scale is the fifth mode of the major scale (Ionian mode). That is, it can be constructed by starting on the fifth scale degree (the dominant) of the major scale. Because of this, the Mixolydian mode is sometimes called the *dominant scale*," &#x200B; Convoluted explanation, but it gives G mixolydian. Your tonic is a dominant chord. &#x200B; &#x200B; In the Mixolydian mode, the tonic, subdominant, and subtonic triads are all major, the mediant is diminished, and the remaining triads are minor. &#x200B; The mediant is diminished, that means the diatonic triad chord built from the third step of the scale is a diminished chord. Let us look at our scale. &#x200B; 1 2 3 4 5 6 b7. &#x200B; Which pitches does the third triad consist of? &#x200B; 3 5 b7. &#x200B; This is a diminished triad. It it not a minor triad, like it would be in ionian. &#x200B; &#x200B; I answered your question, can you answer mine? &#x200B; Can you tell me the scale degrees of all the diatonic modes with C as the tonal centre? &#x200B; Locrian, phrygian, aeolian, dorian, mixolydian, ionian and lydian. &#x200B; Again, C is home.

  3896. musictheory 2019-04-07 10:15:01 cowsaysmoo51
    Actually Drop D is D A D G B e. What you're describing is D Standard (like E standard but every string tuned down a whole step). On a 7-string this would be called A standard (usually I would say "A standard 7 string" to specify I'm talking about a 7 string tuning). Usually I reference the lowest string on the instrument when naming the tuning. So a standard-tuned 7 string would be B standard.

  3897. musictheory 2019-04-07 13:13:58 4h4usheer
    My entire premise is based on harmonics/overtones, not octaves. I never implied 330 or 660 was A. I implied 330 and 660 are harmonic frequencies that occur when you pluck a string tuned to 110hz. See this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPbLYD9KFAo&t=255s Also, I divide the harmonics by 2 (or 4 or 8) because that way you get the same note as the harmonic, just in an octave that fits between A-110Hz and A-220hz. That's how I constructed the scale. So my question is why dont we play the subtonic AND leading tone in any given major Key? Why have we chosen to not use the subdominant?

  3898. musictheory 2019-04-07 15:58:52 Veraldmore
    No. I know this is not the way to start an answer if you want to get a flood of upvotes. Nevertheless, here goes. First guys, check out my app [ScanScore](https://scan-score.com/en/) John Williams is a wonderful movie composer. He remained loyal to the orchestra when numerous other composers were turning to synthesizers and small ensembles, and that’s one of the reasons why some of the movies he’s scored still sound fresh today. He has a genius for coming up with memorable themes and motifs: * the leaping *Stars Wars* theme; * the ‘Imperial March’ theme, from *Empire, Strikes Back;* * the five-note motif from *Close Encounters*; * the two-note (!) motif from *Jaws—*all you have to do is sit on the beach with someone who’s seen that movie, and stare at the sea, and hum that, and you can put the wind up them; * the ‘Raiders March’, from *Raiders of the Lost Ark*, which instantly summons up Indiana Jones and his hat and his smirk; * ‘Hedwig’s Theme’, from the *Harry Potter* films, which beautifully underscored the films’ themes of innocence and supernatural menace; * the ‘Prelude and Main Title March’ from *Superman* (*dum da dum-dum da-dum! Da dum-dum da dum-dum da dum-dum da-dum!*) which thrilled the bejesus out of me as a little boy and after which the actual movie was, frankly, a bit of a drag. These are just some of the ways in which he’s given the films he’s worked on a unique musical signature, so that you only have to hear a few notes and you think of those movies. I can’t think of any other movie director of our time of whom this is more true, with the *possible* exception of some of Howard Shore’s scores, or Elmer Bernstein’s theme from *The Great Escape*. And I’m sure that the reader can think of others. That said, Williams relies heavily on sounding like existing music—not to the extent of that incorrigible plagiarist James Horner, but he evokes the styles and moods of existing orchestral music, and composes new music in those same styles. Rick Beato has demonstrated that the *Star Wars* music is heavily stylistically indebted to Gustav Holst: The ‘Imperial March’ is a close cousin to the ‘Montagues and Capulets’ from Prokofiev’s *Romeo and Juliet.* The *Jaws* music couldn’t have been written without Stravinsky. The *Raiders* music couldn’t have been written without Korngold, and other Golden Age Hollywood composers. But the real reason John Williams shouldn’t be put on a par with the great composers of the past is that *he’s not trying to do the same thing.* *—Yes, but in terms of popularity, aren’t movie scores comparable to classical works of the past? Didn’t Beethoven have lots of fans too?* Yes, he did, but no, they aren’t comparable. Beethoven was a game-changer. His music was written for its own sake, and people listened to it as music, not as music accompanying a drama. (**Edit:** Please see my response to Karen Sieradski’s comment for clarification of what I meant by calling Beethoven a ‘game-changer’.) John Williams’s music takes the form of cues for films; he isn’t linking them together into a new form which other composers feel compelled to emulate. In his film scores, he isn’t constructing large-scale works and developing a theme over an entire long movement. That isn’t how film scores work. (Not that he *can’t* develop a theme: he actually does do it in ‘Wild Signals’, from the *Close Encounters* soundtrack. But ‘Wild Signals’ is a piece that only close listeners to Williams would pay attention to, plus it’s barely over four minutes long—because it’s a movie cue, not a 15-minute symphonic movement.) He does write some music that isn’t for films. But have you listened to *Heartwood: Lyric Sketches* for cello and orchestra, or *Three Pieces* for solo cello, to name just two? Well, I have. And they’re not the kind of music that the popular music audience would actively embrace. *Heartwood* is written in a brooding, mid-20th-century style that (to me) shows the influence of Britten and Shostakovich, while *Three Pieces* is an interesting work intended to evoke the experience of African-American slaves. (I wonder what some fans of Williams’s movie scores would make of that.) They’re fine works, well-crafted and effective. But they sound like a lot of people, and they don’t have the freshness or truly contemporary quality of music by composers such as Anna Meredith, Nico Muhly or John Luther Adams—all of whom, to be fair, are a lot younger than Williams. He is best known, and best-loved, for writing music for films. That’s not a lowly trade, by any stretch. He writes *great* music for films. But *that’s* the context in which his music needs to be discussed and understood. Not the context of radically new and epoch-making works like Beethoven’s Third, or Mahler’s Second, or even Schoenberg’s String Quartet No. 2. He is a good but minor composer of contemporary concert music, but he’s also one of the great movie composers of our era. I think that that says something about both him, and about our times. Uhmm finally again, [ScanScore](https://scan-score.com/en/)

  3899. musictheory 2019-04-07 18:24:42 Jongtr
    Personally, with any unusual tuning - especially on a 7-string - I would just spell it out, for maximum clarity. It takes a bit longer to say, but is quicker to write: ADGCFAD (or ADGCFad if you want to express the higher octaves, but that's not essential - it would be assumed). "D standard" is OK for DGCFAD, but would be confusing if referring to a 7-string with an extra bass note.

  3900. musictheory 2019-04-07 20:04:01 PILLARSt
    >But the real reason John Williams shouldn’t be put on a par with the great composers of the past is that he’s not trying to do the same thing. This is too bold and not quite fair. Beethoven was not trying to do the same thing as Wagner who wasn't trying to do the same thing as Bach or Liszt or Chopin or Tchaikovsky or Rossini. All of these and more were trying to do different things. Can you really say that what Williams is trying to do is so categorically different that he must not be on par with these composers? On what grounds? > That said, Williams relies heavily on sounding like existing music So did Beethoven and every other composer in history, of course. That certainly doesn't detract from the comparison. >Beethoven was a game-changer. I guess your distinction hangs on what you mean by game-changer (I don't know what "my response to Karen Sieradski’s comment" refers to, there's no user by that name on this thread). In many ways, John Williams is a game-changer; like any composer with influence and an idiosyncratic voice, he has affected the musical landscape, and he played an important part in the return of the symphonic orchestral soundtrack. He really has no equal in his eclecticism, and yet despite encyclopedic resources of influence, his music is always distinctively his own. He's never spread thin in his stylistic diversity, it always adds to his music, never takes away. I know of no one else who is able to compose so convincingly in such a wide variety of idioms. He is also one of the most widely imitated composers alive, and perhaps the single most respected composer in Hollywood history (he is one of the most respected *creative professionals* in *film* history). > In his film scores, he isn’t constructing large-scale works and developing a theme over an entire long movement. That isn’t how film scores work. This is debatable. He definitely does develop themes over the course of entire soundtracks. That's one of the main reasons his music feels so inevitable and memorable; he's a master of storytelling in the tangential logic of music that accompanies the sorts of operatic -gesamtkunstwerk films that he works with. He so good at this that one can generally approach his soundtracks as viable long form narratives in the programmatic abstract. Many of his soundtracks are considerably better than the movies they support. The score for Stepmom tells a beautiful story; the movie, not so much. >because it’s a movie cue, not a 15-minute symphonic movement. Schumann is best known for his short works - as people often say, when it comes to longer works, better stick with Brahms. We generally allow that there is greatness in his Waldscenen, even though it's made up of miniatures. But for that matter, E.T. has a 15 minute cue, and it's as well crafted and loaded with as much musical value as any symphonic movement I've ever heard, from Mahler or Beethoven or otherwise. >But they sound like a lot of people, and they don’t have the freshness or truly contemporary quality of music by composers such as Anna Meredith, Nico Muhly or John Luther Adams This is a fair critique. His concert works are best thought of as belonging to the neoromantic tradition of people like Unsuk Chin, Christopher Rouse, Christopher Theofanidis, Walter Piston, Howard Hanson, etc. Williams sits comfortably within this tradition. It's too soon to say whether he will end up as minor composer within this context - some of his concertos seem to have already entered the repertoire, such the bassoon and clarinet concerto, and having heard most of his concert works, they are all potentially worthwhile additions to the classical orchestral literature. >But that’s the context in which his music needs to be discussed and understood. I think ultimately I have to agree with you. He's not Beethoven. He's *John Williams*. He's his own thing, but that's not to say he's necessarily any less great than any other great composer; who's to say what people in the future will think of him. I think it's likely the artistic stature of music in narrative media will grow dramatically in the coming century, just as it happened with opera, or the chorale, the symphony, the string quartet, the nocturne, ballet (in the twentieth century). If it does so experience a change of fortune, John Williams may well be regarded as on the of great composers of history, one who ushered in an new era of high artistic appreciation for film music, in much the same way Monteverdi did with opera, Haydn with symphonies (which he actually invented), Beethoven with string quartets (and symphonies), Tchaikovsky with ballets.

  3901. musictheory 2019-04-09 23:40:13 Tottery
    I practice the scale on 1 string and its moveable shapes all over the fretboard. I call out the notes as I play them. Then, I play all the diatonic chords within the key.

  3902. musictheory 2019-04-10 10:41:54 vornska
    (There are different ways that musicians use the word "note." I'm assuming that you mean "specific pitch," for example A440.) If you take a taut string & pluck it, you hear a sound. You can try to match that sound by singing with your own voice. Your singing won't sound exactly like the plucked string, but the "note" is the sonic quality that they share.

  3903. musictheory 2019-04-10 20:45:45 dfan
    People are giving suggestions about how to do it artfully, but honestly, as long as you know how to play more than three or four chords, just take a bunch of the chords you know and string them together. It'll probably sound pretty weird, but 1) Music is pretty resilient - it's pretty likely that there's some way to make it work by adding an appropriate melody, looping it enough that the listener gets used to it, etc. 2) It's just a starting point! If you think it didn't work, try switching a couple chords around. Or add a new one in the middle that you're pretty sure will fit well (e.g., adding a D7 before a G). Keep playing around. Just because a lot of us are obsessed with rules doesn't mean that you have to be.

  3904. musictheory 2019-04-11 04:50:26 DinoDonkeyDoodle
    I am going to assume you are talking about theory-related learning as that point where you go from studying to the theory, to its various aspects becoming second nature. In such cases, *barrier**s* is more like it. Music is a culmination of so many things that can go wrong *in theory* that it's hard to learn in any truly meaningful fashion until you have the ability to form a conversation with your voice as a musician. So I'd say the biggest barriers, at least for me and others I know, is: * Lack of developed technique (ie, poor picking, undeveloped syncopation of applied limbs, etc.) * Lack of musical vocabulary (ie, zero knowledge of how each note sounds and what it is called, no knowledge of how to make general types of sounds, not knowing how to play some basic songs to grow from) * Lack of spirit (ie, poor relationship to 'feeling' music as one plays) Each of these are pretty freaking critical respects to making theory second nature. How can you truly appreciate the variety of possibilities from a 6 string arpeggio sweep if your picking is shit and you press the frets a fraction of a second too late or in the wrong position? How can you even begin to understand how scale degrees relate to one another if you cannot name the basic note? How can you understand why chord changes are the way they are if you have no songs to expand your ability to produce those notes in different combinations? If you do not feel what you are playing, why will any of this matter enough to get to the truly juicy stuff that theory has to offer? A lot of folks simply have a lot of trouble letting go and feeling their instrument speak through them when first learning music and that is a skill to be learned as the rest of the aspects develop. Yeah, lots of stuff. I can easily see lacking any combination of the above held me back at various points in my musical journey. It really takes a firm commitment to all aspects of learning to be a musician to truly get to where theory has any meaningful application in your life.

  3905. musictheory 2019-04-11 05:28:37 CustomSawdust
    For string players: Not realising that keys, modes, and chords are all movable. They ascend and descend based on a single frequency, fret, or position. Once you learn one, you learn them all.

  3906. musictheory 2019-04-11 16:47:59 mrclay
    Something that shouldn’t be missed: Our ears don’t require at all “beautiful” simplified fractions of some fundamental pitch. If you’re near a pitch our ears are pretty forgiving and that’s why A) practically every musician will accept the compromises of 12TET to get the huge benefits, and B) singers and string players can use perfect Pythagoras-approved harmony over top of 12TET instruments and it sounds fine.

  3907. musictheory 2019-04-11 21:36:36 HuecoTanks
    I’d add that, at least on piano, different keys have *slightly* different sounds or timbres, because some hammers hit one string, where some hit two or three. Someone else commented on this for the Fender Rhodes, but I would contend that there is a similar, albeit more subtle, change on piano as one ranges through the keys. That said, if you are able to access your full range of creativity with this restriction, then go for it. Different strokes for different folks :-)

  3908. musictheory 2019-04-11 22:14:57 WoeBoeT
    while /u/ssbtonic talks about timbre, you should also take into account how many overtones a certain note has. For example each string vibration, or note played on an instrument has certain overtones. [take a look at this wikipedia page for a more in depth explanation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_\(music\)) Short story an A storng on guitar has frequency 110 Hz, The first overtone is the 220 Hz. (This 220 Hz tone can be isolated on a guitar if your hold your finger on the halfway point of the string. This stops most of the higher overtones from resonating.) The second overtone is the (bear with me here I dont remember everything correctly) Fifht of the root (E, which is 164 Hz). Anyway, I digress: These overtones basically fetermine why some note sound **yay** together, while some sound **yuck**. This is why the fifth sounds so close to the root note by the way. Getting to the point: the higher the note is that you pick, the substantially higher the frequency of the overtones becomes. A2 = 110 Hz first overtone is ... A3 = 220 Hz first overtone is ... A4 = 440 Hz first overtone is ... A5 = 880 Hz, first overtone is A6 = 1760 Hz The human ear can only register a certain frequency range (as you probably know) so the higher you go on your specific instrument, the less "personality" your tones have. This is why the bass usually plays long low notes, while the solo intruments play faster high notes. The way these overtones play out in different tunings have a certain impact on your way of writing music, which is why i reccomend writing in all keys

  3909. musictheory 2019-04-11 22:50:30 RadioUnfriendly
    One thing to start learning about is called chord substitution. Working with the key of C for ease, you have 7 chords: C, Dm, Em, F, G, Am, B dim You also have their 7s: Cmaj7, Dm7, Em7, Fmaj7, G7, Am7, B half dim (add a minor 7 to the diminished chord) That'd get pretty boring if you were limited to only those chords and a few more complex variations of them and suspended chords (suspended means remove the 3 and generally add a 2 or 4 instead). The first thing to note on chord substitutions is that the 1, 4, and 5 positions are often times very open to being a major chord or a minor chord whether you're in a major key or a minor key. Some common examples are playing a minor 4 while in the major key, sometimes going directly from the major 4 to the minor. In the minor key the 1 can be a major chord while the bass and melody are minor key, creating what is generally a very bluesy sound. Actually, the 4 and 5 can be major chords too like [in this F# minor song.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6hQ9HSKlIE). Another common substitution in the minor key is switching only the 5 to a major chord or even a dominant chord (G7 in the key of C minor), and this is often followed by a return to the one for a strong cadence effect. Another thing that commonly works for chord substitutions is taking a chord from minor if you're in the major or vice versa. One example of this is taking the minor keys 6 and 7 or just the 7 (both major chords) and returning back to the major 1. In C that would be like: C, A♭, B♭, C. There are a lot of songs in a major key that use a major chord or even dominant chord in the third position. At first this was baffling to me, and I just accepted that it works. Later I found out that the 3 in the major key is the same note as the 5 in the relative minor key. So in C an E is in 3rd position but in A minor the E is in the 5th position. This seems to be the reason why this works. In my opinion I find major chords are much more cooperative when out of place, and you can sort of shoehorn them into your songs. It's those darn minor chords that are less willing to cooperate. I have a book that has an interesting chord progression in G major with lots of substitutions in it. I'm still trying to figure out how some of them work. All chords are measure unless two chords a put together like C, F then they are a half measure. Gmaj7 C7 (should be C maj 7 in key) Gmaj7 Dm7, G7 (should be D7 and Gmaj7) C7 Cm7, F7 (going from a major chord to minor chord in the 4 position and this enables a move to the F7 which is the dominant chord in G minor) Bm9, Bm7 (Bm7 fits but the 9 should be a flat 9 in G major) E7 (should be Em7 and I find this one impressive) Am9, Am7 (back in key for awhile now) D7 Gmaj7 Em7 Am9 A♭7 add13 (after mostly finishing up in key, this chord is insanely out of place but sounds wonderful) Gmaj7 If you're playing a on a guitar, I recommend avoid the open string G maj7 with F# on the bottom string. You can play it as a barre chord in 3rd position or in the jazz style 3x443x.

  3910. musictheory 2019-04-12 02:09:03 Sean_man_87
    We call them artificial harmonics (I had to look up 'pinch harmonics') they're simply changing the length of the string, then playing a harmonic off using another finger.

  3911. musictheory 2019-04-12 02:13:42 ILoveKombucha
    A pinch harmonic is just a harmonic. The "pinch" part is just the technique you use to get the harmonic. It seems to me that harmonics generally "work" as well as they do because the harmonic suggests the fundamental. So even though the fundamental isn't there... in a way it's "ghosted." A test you can do is to play a free synthesizer on your computer, and set the filter to high-pass mode, and make sure the filter is set in such a way that the fundamental is missing from any notes you play. You can play melodies and chords, and it still sounds relatively normal... just kind of thin sounding. You can still tell what chords or notes you are playing, and the music still "makes sense." This is so in spite of the fact that all you are hearing is harmonics... no fundamental. (If you want to do this test, you can download Helm, a free synth, and you can play it - primitively - using your regular computer keyboard). Harmonics work fine in 12TET because they suggest the fundamental note. (Like... they refer back to their own fundamental). Since the fundamentals are in 12TET, the harmonics work in 12TET. Where you will go astray is if you compare a high harmonic (say beyond the 4th harmonic, and not counting ones that double harmonics 1-4) to the 12TET tone. This is why you can't reliably tune a guitar, for example, using a harmonic past #4. Also, most instruments (including those in 12TET) automatically have harmonics as part of their sound. Like, when you play a note on the piano, it is typically going to have other harmonics present, sometimes a LOT of harmonics. And the instrument still sounds good. So, long story short, to the extent that this is working for you, it's because the harmonics still, in some way, suggest the fundamental that they are derived from. Another thing is that timbre plays a much bigger part in music than most people give it credit for... and a lot of folks like the timbre of harmonics on string instruments.

  3912. musictheory 2019-04-12 02:45:45 reckless150681
    To be pedantic, a pinch harmonic/squealy is a specific *type* of artificial harmonic, where the deadening of the string happens at the excitation hand instead of the fingering hand. The reason it tends to be so much higher than a "normal" artificial harmonic is because the node that you create shortens the minimum wavelength much more than other techniques.

  3913. musictheory 2019-04-12 03:49:57 Yesten
    I do it upside down, finger picking. I touch the string with my thumb and pinch with my finger. I can do it the other way but it is less comfortable and not as loud for me. I also struggle to instinctively know where I am with the index finger in front. I haven't tried it with a pick. I'd never noticed or thought about it. I'll have to give it a go. Thanks for sharing.

  3914. musictheory 2019-04-12 04:28:58 MyDadsUsername
    Assuming you're on guitar (which seems fair, since you're talking about pinch harmonics), artificial harmonics usually refers to something different than pinch harmonics. A pinch harmonic is typically where your picking hand partially deadens the string and creates a harmonic. An artificial harmonic is usually done by playing a normal note and creating a harmonic by tapping elsewhere on the fretboard. For example, you could play the 2nd fret on A, then tap over the fret on 14 and it will ring out as an artificial harmonic.

  3915. musictheory 2019-04-12 06:40:49 dresdnhope
    If you don't have perfect pitch, and most people don't, you won't notice if a song is being played a half-step up or down on a piano unless you just heard the song in the previous key, so for all practical purposes it sounds the same. For other instruments, you might be able to tell individual notes because they actually have a different timbre. For instance, the open strings on a guitar all have an open string sound to them. But even then, if someone tuned down all the strings on my guitar a half-step while I stepped away for a few minutes, I wouldn't be able to tell that I was playing in Ab instead of A.

  3916. musictheory 2019-04-12 09:30:50 Cello789
    Consider the violin family is only "tuned" at 4 notes (and even then, you can play a D that's a little sharp or flat by playing the string below). Fretless instruments are by nature non-tempered, so you can squeeze diminished fifths or stretch major 6ths by tilting your fingers. This is more of a nod to non-equal temperament, and as a student of Bach (and baroque music) it often feels more correct (in solo and chamber music) to sweeten intervals instead of playing them "perfectly" (or equally). So if I'm in D major, I play a C# higher than if I was in E major or A major. If I'm in D minor, I'll probably play the C# even higher than that. This is because I have an open A and D string. I won't play my A sharper in Bb though, for the most part, because I don't want it to sound out of tune with the open version of the same note!

  3917. musictheory 2019-04-12 13:54:50 algorithmoose
    Piano actually has a few things which could be affected by register and key. (People already covered the main question and piano technique stuff like black keys being easier to reach, so I won't go over all that again.) Pianos are tuned to the [Railsbach curve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_acoustics#The_Railsback_curve) so the width of intervals changes across the range. This affects melodic and harmonic stuff. Things in the middle where the curve is pretty much flat will be pretty much 12-TET while the intervals farther from the center get stretched. The degree to which a melody starts deviating from the 12-TET section affects the feel of it. Slightly wide intervals tend to imply more emotion, to simplify things a lot. Also this curve is different for each piano but generally the idea applies. Also, the number of strings per note changes across the range which changes the timbre. Open up your piano and look which strings get hit and you should be able to hear the difference between a 1- 2- and 3-string note. Where a melody or bass line crosses these thresholds will affect how it sounds. Lastly, the envelope of the notes changes across the range. Lower notes have more sustain, for example. At the higher end, they stop putting dampers so releasing a key doesn't stop the note. I think this has something to do with the already very short sustain of the higher notes but I don't actually know why they do this. But portions of melody that cross into this range will sound different rhythmically and you can get some weird dissonances when notes don't end cleanly. Also I'd like to reiterate that people do have some sense of absolute pitch even though most people don't have perfect pitch. And key changes within and between songs make things more interesting to listen to. Even if you don't care about piano construction there are reasons not to only play in C.

  3918. musictheory 2019-04-12 18:42:11 KingSharkIsBae
    Adam Neely has a video on a prospective reason for this discrepancy between classically trained (orchestra, band and somewhat choir) musicians and jazz/rock musicians. https://youtu.be/rEbUNDW9bDA While this lumps you and your rhythmically superior classmates together, the difference you noticed could have been due to the attack of especially brass instruments being much quicker than the attack of string instruments.

  3919. musictheory 2019-04-12 21:32:24 OP_IS_A_BASSOON
    Concert snare drum method books, and solo snare drum literature. By the time you are getting into Delécluse etudes, you’re seeing rhythms that a lot of wind/brass/string instrumentalists haven’t had to deal with.

  3920. musictheory 2019-04-12 21:49:56 moonymuckeroony
    The attack transience bit was definitely interesting, but his explanation about classical musicians reacting to the beat rather than feeling/internalizing it was, at least in my experience as a string player, very off and sounded more like a guess than anything. And as for phase locking just not being as important in large orchestral ensembles... I mean, to a very small degree, perhaps, but this has nothing to do with why classical musicians are more likely to have a hard time with syncopated rhythms in particular. I agree with /u/Larson_McMurphy that the repertoire you spend the most time with makes a big difference, in my opinion probably the biggest difference. That bass professor at the beginning, though... I think that would have sent my violin professor into an unstoppable rage.

  3921. musictheory 2019-04-12 23:34:06 DJBigDude
    Tremolo can mean two things, and it can mean both of these things in both classical music and popular music. On string and percussion instruments, tremolo generally means to rapidly hit reiterate a note. It usually doesn't have specific rhythms notated, but I think you might be confusing the guitar technique of tremolo picking, where specific rhythms would be written as part of an *epic* riff, with the concept of tremolo as a whole, which is more for effect. For a singer, tremolo would refer to a fluctuation in tone. I think your balloon situation lies somewhere in the middle, since reiterating squeaks on the balloon involves a fluctuation in tone. &#x200B; To answer your main question directly, it's really not all that different across classical and popular styles. Tremolo picking is related to tremolo insofar as playing a note a bunch of times really fast, but if you're focusing on playing a specific rhythm, it's not really tremolo.

  3922. musictheory 2019-04-13 01:41:03 Jongtr
    I have a vague sense of how high or low notes are, but not specific positions. Imagine looking at a high brick wall. For me, your skill would be like knowing the exact distance each line of bricks is from the ground (to the millimetre). I can just tell the relative positions, provided I see the wall all at once. Obviously that 6th line is above the 5th and below the 7th. And I can tell - equally obviously - that it's one brick thickness. I don't need to know their exact positions - or exactly how thick each brick is - unless I'm going to build a wall the same. Then I'll get out my measuring tape or laser. The musical equivalent is picking up an instrument to check the exact pitches (playing along, using relative pitch). I.e., I need a *reference*, and then it's easy. Until then, the exact note identities are of no account. Why would I need to know the note names if I didn't have an instrument with me? However, like a lot of people - musicians or not - I have a degree of *pitch memory.* As a guitar player for over 50 years, I know the sound of my low E string to within a semitone. I can tune a newly-strung guitar to within a semitone of concert pitch with no reference other than my memory of how low E sounds. I can always tell if another guitar is lower or higher than concert pitch (without any reference), although I can't tell by exactly how much. I'm helped by vocal range: the lowest note I can comfortably sing is Eb2. So when tuning my guitar I hum that note and know the guitar's low E needs to be a little higher. It's as if my pitch sensitivity is "out of focus" - yours would be 20/20, of course,, while mine is mostly blurred; except for that low E, which is fairly clear. Other pitches would be like looking at a red colour and not being quite sure what kind of red it is: is it orange, or vermilion? More scarlet? How far beyond scarlet does it need to go before it becomes violet? How far beyond orange does it need to go before it becomes yellow? I guess a better analogy might be colour-blindness, where one could only tell shades of grey - or where there are very faint hints of colour in each shade, but not enough to be really sure what colours they are; maybe the light shifts around and the colours seem to change? But given a fixed *reference* colour, then it's easy, and very fine differences can be perceived. For example, I can tell the difference between two close pitches to within a few cents - but I have to hear them both together. (This *relative pitch* skill is the one that all musicians develop through ear training. Relative pitch matters because it's how music *works*. One pitch on its own means nothing,) Other people often have pitch memory for a well-known song - one that they've heard many times on the same recording so it's always in the same key. They will be able to sing that song in the right key (or near enough) from memory, with no immediate reference. I.e, everyone seems to have the ability to memorise *certain* pitches, if they get habitually used to hearing them, especially associated with a particular context. That's like an extremely "imperfect pitch" - like the faint remnant of the capacity that all (or most) of us probably have at birth, but is only "switched on" in those that develop perfect pitch.

  3923. musictheory 2019-04-13 01:49:13 dakorpg
    I think it's E minor and then you flat the E in the 4th string to do a D#, kinda like While My Guitar Gently Weeps

  3924. musictheory 2019-04-13 03:24:06 kamomil
    I think this is more for wind and string instruments than piano I studied violin and the teacher was big on posture and hand position. I feel like it's important for things like violin and flute where you are holding your arm up for a long period of time while playing

  3925. musictheory 2019-04-13 04:46:08 ok_reset
    My bad dude, pesky laptop speakers were only playing the top line. Your chords sound right. The drone is the string pad that comes in around 2:00. ---- But you're right, if you want to compare it to another musical culture, harmony is the last thing you want to use, since Western music is a big outlier when it comes to the importance of harmony. Anything having to do with drones or an ostinato pattern is a better point of comparison.

  3926. musictheory 2019-04-13 22:38:45 stanley_bobanley
    > Also - how do you voice that last chord on guitar WOOF my hands will not do that. I can't imagine how to play that. 4-3-4-3-x is easy enough, but with that 4-3-4-3-1 my god. how It takes some practice, but your middle finger barres the 3rd fret from the 4th - 2nd strings (you can touch the 5th if you have to) at such an angle that your index can ring out the F on the 1st string. > I'm confused as to what you meant by that comment. I'm specifically talking about the way the notes are arranged. How the highest voice in the accompaniment is the 9th of the chord. That is a conscious decision. The fact that the 7th is the 2nd highest voicing, also not to be taken for granted since these voices could be arranged in a number of ways. The decision to voice the chords with so much colour is noteworthy (as opposed to say putting the 5th in the soprano voice over the F#m, which is a more transparent / open feeling harmony). Btw, when I say "voice" I don't mean a literal voice, though in this case it is that. I–and I'm sure many here–use voice to refer to the distinct pitches in a given harmony. On the subject of V6/4 - V7 that's just a force of habit. I realize there's no VI in the V chord, I'm just very used to writing any dominant suspension that way. It's a habit I should break for the sake of clarity =)

  3927. musictheory 2019-04-14 03:40:55 ma3strostudios
    Back in grad school I used the Look-and-say Sequence for a violin solo. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look-and-say\_sequence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look-and-say_sequence) I used the sequence over four iterations of itself: the first iteration determining string, the second determining rhythm, the third determining dynamic, and the fourth determining transposition.

  3928. musictheory 2019-04-14 06:26:24 ma3strostudios
    I had a whole notebook on how each pair of numbers that occur would relate to a compositional choice. If a number in the sequence began with 1, the violinist would play the first string, if it starts with a 2 then the second string, and so on. For the other three iterations I wrote a bunch of notes on how certain paris of numbers that existed in the sequence would relate to note length, dynamics, and positions on the strings. Here are all the notes I took on the sequence: 1 (0) 11 (1) 21 (1) 12 11 (2) 11 12 21 (3) 31 22 11 (3) 13 11 22 21 (4) 11 13 21 32 11 (5) 31 13 12 11 13 12 21 (7) 13 21 13 11 12 31 13 11 22 11 (10) 11 13 12 21 13 31 12 13 21 13 21 22 21 (13) 31 13 11 22 21 23 21 12 11 13 12 21 13 12 11 32 11 (17) 13 21 13 21 32 11 12 13 12 21 12 31 13 11 22 21 13 11 12 21 13 12 21 (23) 13 12 21 13 12 11 13 12 31 12 11 13 11 22 21 12 13 21 13 21 32 21 13 31 22 21 13 11 22 11 (30) 11 13 11 22 21 13 11 12 31 13 11 12 13 21 12 31 13 21 32 21 12 11 13 12 21 13 12 11 13 22 21 23 11 32 21 13 21 22 21 (39) (The numbers in the sequence converted into pairs of numbers and how many pairs are in the number) &#x200B; 11(1) 21(2) 12(3) 31(4) 22(5) 13(6) 32(7) 23(1\*) REST PP P MP MF F FF > OPEN M2 M3 P4 P5 M6 M7 P8 (How pairs could be translated into note lengths, dynamics, and string positions) &#x200B; 11 21 31 12 22 32 13 23 11 x x x 11 12 11 22 11 32 11 13 x 21 x x x 21 12 21 22 21 32 21 13 21 23 31 x x x 31 12 31 22 x 31 13 x 12 12 11 12 21 12 31 x x x 12 13 x 22 22 11 22 21 x x x x x x 32 32 11 32 21 x x x x x x 13 13 11 13 21 13 31 13 12 13 22 x x x 23 23 11 23 21 x 23 12 x x x x (All the pairs that do or do not occur in the sequence) &#x200B; 11 12 = 31 12 11 22 = 21 22 11 32 = 21 13 12 11 13 = 31 13 21 12 = 12 21 12 21 22 = 12 11 22 21 32 = 12 11 13 12 21 13 = 12 21 13 21 23 = 12 11 12 13 12 11 = 11 12 21 12 21 = 11 22 11 12 31 = 11 12 13 11 12 13 = 11 12 11 13 31 12 = 13 21 12 31 22 = 13 11 22 31 13 = 13 21 13 22 11 = 22 21 22 21 = 32 11 32 11 = 13 12 21 32 21 = 13 22 11 13 11 = 11 13 21 13 21 = 11 13 12 11 13 31 = 11 23 11 13 12 = 11 13 11 12 13 22 = 11 13 22 23 11 = 12 13 21 23 21 = 12 13 12 11 23 12 = 12 13 11 12 (What sets of 2 pairs would lead to in the following number in the sequence)

  3929. musictheory 2019-04-14 09:00:10 TheShoosh
    (Disclaimer: I could be hella wrong here) It took me ages to understand what the "6/4" thing meant. All the answers provided below are great but I never understood what they meant. So just in case you're in the same boat I was, I'm going to explain how it finally made sense for me... ------ ------ --4--- --6--- --7--- ------ Regular E chord, with the 1st (7th fret), 3rd (6th fret) and 5th (4th fret) played in the standard shape with the root at the bottom. If we were to do a 2nd inversion, it would mean the 5th now has to be in the bass. So we would change the shape to: ------ ------ ------ ---6-- ---7-- ---7-- So now the 5th (in our case, B) is in the bass. To skip all the history about where the notation came from - if you were to play the B major scale starting on that 7th fret E string, you would notice that the E (7th fret A string) would be the "4" in the B major scale. Likewise, the G# (6th fret D string) would be the "6" of the B major scale. The history has something to do with giving the bass sections a heads-up on where the rest of the melody was, so if their sheet music read "B" but also had the 6/4 they'd know what was going on. Or something. I don't know.

  3930. musictheory 2019-04-14 13:25:03 xiipaoc
    They're cautionary accidentals, and they're not required but boy are they useful. Let's say you're sightreading, and there aren't any courtesy accidentals. Will you remember to play the right note? If the composer doesn't give a shit about you, he or she will let you figure it out yourself. You know the rules. But if the composer likes you, he or she will gently remind you what the right note is in cases when you might otherwise forget. I don't think all of the cautionary accidentals in this piece are actually that useful, especially when they show up several measures later, though I did actually have one of my pieces played by a professional string quartet (as part of a composition class in college) and the second violinist missed the F# in the key signature because it was next to an Eb and perhaps he figured the augmented second was a mistake. IT WASN'T A MISTAKE, YOU SECOND-FIDDLE ROSINHEAD! Interestingly enough, that C is probably the one spot where the cautionary is most needed. Someone probably just forgot to write it in.

  3931. musictheory 2019-04-14 13:46:05 abhishekneer
    This is some dope shit bro! really fascinating, can you explain more how have you used this pairs to write a full structured composition, I have understood how you have defined the note length string position and dynamics, but I am not properly able to understand how are you writing music with it!

  3932. musictheory 2019-04-14 18:58:30 iccir
    First, I'm self-taught in DSP, so if anybody wants to correct me, please do! I also tend to "cheat" and go with a small convolution kernel for my reverb needs (although I played around with my own a few years ago). A great resource is the [Artificial Reverberation](https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp/Artificial_Reverberation.html) section from Physical Audio Signal Processing. > Do you get to decide which frequencies get shifted how much by an all-pass filter? To an extent. It's a matter of trade-offs - how computationally expensive do I want to make this filter? > How is it different to a delay? Typically, I think of a delay as moving all frequencies together in time, and an all-pass moving each frequency by a different amount. But you can also use an [all-pass filters as a delay](https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp/First_Order_Allpass_Interpolation.html) (I'm doing this currently for plucked string synthesis). A lot of reverb algorithms don't use an "actual" delay at all, but rather chain allpass filters together in series for the delay. > How do you decide how many delays to do and how much to delay by? Until it sounds good? :) Honestly, I'm sure there's all kinds of formulas for creating the perfect reverb, but the last time I played with it, I used somewhere around 5-6 delay lines, a few allpass filters, and some EQ. The example reverbs on the site I linked to above use 3-4 allpass filters and 4-8 comb filters (which you can view as a tiny delay). > Do you use feedback on the delays or modulate them or are they fixed? Usually the delays are for a fixed number of samples (although you might be able to get a cool effect if you modulate!).

  3933. musictheory 2019-04-14 20:33:48 flacarrara
    This person had it all! I'm happy to know it's from dance/d&b background; however, same concepts apply vastly over very complex contemporary classical music. Regarding Reverb, think for example of the string section of an orchestra: the more violinists, the fullest, distant and echoed it sound. What's happening is that the phase divergences of vibrances and vibratos, the sound of each individual coming from a slightly different spot, and the tiny frequency distinctions creates exactly a reverb effect. A solo violin sounds very close to the listener and next to the ears.

  3934. musictheory 2019-04-14 21:59:50 ma3strostudios
    It just kind of started out with an experiment of just what I could apply the sequence to musically and see what would work. Once I established all the factors that the sequence would be affecting, it was really just kind of filling in the blank as everything has already been determined. For example, for the 6th number in the sequence (312211), strings the for this section will be strings 3, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1 (or A, G, D, D, A, A). For rhythm, it'd be an eighth note (3), followed by a half note (1), two quarter notes (22), and finally two half notes (11). For the dynamics, the first two would be mp (31), the next two mf (22) and the last two would actually be rests (11). Finally, the first two notes would be played a P4 up (so D, C), the next two a P5 (E, D) and the last two would be two As (11, no change off of the open string) but the rhythm had already been established as rests. So the resulting melody would be DC———E—D—R———R——— (R meaning rest and each "—" representing an eighth note beat). Given I staggered the four iterations of the sequence to make things more interesting so the above example never happened in the piece. Also, in doing this I refreshed my memory and how exactly the sequence worked musically so I had to edit the original comment to more accurately reflect how I used it back in 2014.

  3935. musictheory 2019-04-14 22:17:11 0405017
    Literally what I'm doing at the moment! I'm putting together a book/journal for a full orchestral arrangement I'm doing of a piano work! A big focus is about what combinations can help produce different overall sounds, such as the combination of a full Viola sound with a nazal sound from the Cor Anglais. I'm also doing them in reference to the piece and how they reflect the same idea the composer had but in an orchestral sense. We've reached the point where almost anything can be playable in some sort of way, with possible substitutes, and so we're allowed to focus on what sounds we can produce instead, and how different textures can cause some grit against something more smooth. When looking at individual instruments, you are again allowed to be more relaxed nowadays in how things are or aren't playable. We can dive deep into how the sound itself travels. e.g. a simple sustained note on a string, whether its with or without vibrato, differs to any other instrument, as it cycles throughout phases of itself like a wave and constantly has motion. On an oboe or a horn however, the note recycles the same sound endlessly until decay, without there being as much of a feeling of the note 'breathing'. Nice examples of orchestration are in some of Elgar's works. I think the opening of his 1st Symphony has this brilliant bit in the first few bars where he uses Violas in octaves instead of the Violas and Violins, and it makes the notes fuller and more supportive when they resonate together. Examples like these are some things I would probably write about, sort of like why you'd write for a Bassoon in the upper range for a more vocal sound instead of an Oboe. Despite them both being double reeds, the voice comes out more fluid albeit tense upon itself and then sings more. I'd talk about that type of stuff, sorry for rambling, you can blame my orchestration teacher :)

  3936. musictheory 2019-04-15 07:15:07 yshams5
    From what I understand, you have stuff in your head that you can translate through the guitar but not through other ways, which is normal. Think about it like the guitar is your native language. You aren't thinking about the "words" you're "saying" but you're just playing them. On other instruments you have to be thinking about the notes in order to play them, the same way u would with a foreign language. (1.) The obvious solution is to start getting acquainted with the keyboard more and more so u can start using it as a tool for production. This will also benefit your guitar playing btw because playing a different instrument will give you different musical habits because of the physical differences between instruments like for example: a guitarist bending the g string and play a minor third above the bent note with his pinky. (2.) Another approach which will also be very useful is ear training, start by identifying intervals and then work your way up to drastically improve your "relative pitch". Why this will work is because especially in guitar our brains think about intervals and chords as shapes or places to put your fingers. It's important to make sure that as you're playing a certain pattern or shape, your brain is aware of what this is in terms of music theory. This will help you a lot in translating you thoughts on to a DAW or a keyboard. (3.) There's this cool app I tried. I thought it would be a gimmick at first and it worked really well. It's called "midi guitar" (I think you'll find it if you google it). Basically it takes the audio signal from your guitar, processes it and converts it to midi notes, so it's like your guitar becomes a midi controller. It's also polyphonic and surprisingly accurate enough to play what you want and then fine-tune it on your DAW later. As far as I remember I gurss there was a free/trial version so I'd say try it out. I hope this was as useful as it was long. Cheers!

  3937. musictheory 2019-04-15 19:37:50 ferniecanto
    I suspect it has to do with the string sound from the recordings. "Home" has a (most likely synthesized) nylon guitar recorded as if it's very close to the mic, with little reverb, so it sounds "intimate". The added 9th are very stereotypically "emotional" too, especially for game soundtracks. The Stardew Valley theme has that very weird sound of the bottom register of a harp (it feels like the musician wanted a sound similar to a banjo), and the pan flute also helps make it sound humble; the harmony and melody are absolutely dead simple, so I don't think they add much (I must admit I played that game with the music turned off, and listened to stuff from my own collection instead). Neither example sounds homely or nostalgic to me, and I feel the things that sound nostalgic to me wouldn't sound like that to others, because we have our own emotional associations and connections with things. But I feel timbre plays a much more significant role in this than we give credit for. Timbres are like scents, or textures, and hearing a "nostalgic timbre" has an effect akin to sensing the smell of something that brings you back to your childhood.

  3938. musictheory 2019-04-16 01:16:48 Jongtr
    Indeed. On guitar, you can usually "see" the voices on each string: Dm7 G7 Cmaj7 \--------------- \-6---6---5----- \-5---4---4----- \-7---5---5----- \-5---5---3----- \--------------- That also lets you see the options for chromatic moves to break up those whole step moves....

  3939. musictheory 2019-04-16 04:29:03 65TwinReverbRI
    Yes, but because you can "extract" the rhythm from one melody an apply it to another (Isorhythm) they can be *treated as* independent elements. Some people would also argue that start and stop times do not necessarily constitute "rhythm" in the way we usually mean it - for example, a "Prelude sans Mesure" of course "has rhythm" in that the notes appear in succession, in time, but they are not "in a meter". To take that to an extreme, does "Music on a Long Thin Wire" have Rhythm? (or Harmony, or Melody for that matter - then we can argue if it's even music or not though of course). To put this in perspective, Solo works for unpitched percussion doesn't have "melody" or "harmony" in any traditional sense - but from an extreme standpoint, there is "highness and lowness" to various drums which you could argue is "pitch" and thus capable of producing melody and harmony. But do we go to that extreme? Likewise, most Gregorian Chant "has rhythm" but in essence, a string of "non metered" durations would be considered an extreme view of rhythm or at least not what most people mean when talking about the original "basic" definition in the OP.

  3940. musictheory 2019-04-16 04:39:57 gtmilsk
    The arrangement to that song and others of Ray Charles' around that time were thanks to ABC-Paramount Records arranger Sid Feller. Charles and Feller were listening to and taking inspiration from the so-called Nashville Sound that producers Chet Atkins, engineer Bill Porter, and Owen Bradley developed in the '50s in Nashville's RCA Studio B and Quonset Hut Studio. &#x200B; The strings were likely recorded with ribbon microphones—through tube-powered mic preamps, EQs, and compressors—so there won't be a whole lot of bite or high-end treble in the mix. If you're hearing them as too sweet, that's probably some combination of that recording equipment, the harmonies being pretty straight-forward, and the precision of the string players. Think of how harsh a violin/fiddle *could* sound. "Georgia On My Mind" is much smoother than that, and it's the recording equipment, playing, and composition that make it that way. &#x200B; Once you get into '70s music though, much of the equipment used on 1960's "Georgia On My Mind" wouldn't be as popular to use. &#x200B; The ghostly choir sound is almost certainly the result of using an echo chamber. They'd playback the recorded vocals into a small, empty room, with bare floors and walls. They'd play the vocals through a speaker on one end of the room and then capture the vocals and natural echo from the room with a microphone at the other end. You can read more about echo chambers here: [https://reverb.com/news/6-echo-chambers-that-shaped-the-sound-of-popular-music](https://reverb.com/news/6-echo-chambers-that-shaped-the-sound-of-popular-music)

  3941. musictheory 2019-04-16 07:34:25 Richard_Berg
    I would guess it's because the instruments have a quicker, more definitely-pitched attack than the voice does. Do you find, for instance, that it's easier to transcribe pizzicato string parts than arco?

  3942. musictheory 2019-04-17 12:47:50 cronos844
    I'm basically asking how to make a string of notes sound complete. As in, if I just play random notes on a flute, I'm not going to get a melody that sounds complete, or that sounds finished. What makes a melody sound finished?

  3943. musictheory 2019-04-18 00:54:59 DoDevilsEvenTriangle
    Tuxguitar works much better for me than Gpro,. especially when transposing or changing 4-string to 5-string bass, which I do a lot. I don't understand the concern about fingerings. I like Tabledit for different reasons, and I'm surprised more people don't know about it.

  3944. musictheory 2019-04-18 01:50:31 Jongtr
    I use Sibelius to open the .mid file as notation, which can just be copied and pasted to a tab staff. I imagine GuitarPro and TuxGuitar (and maybe others) work the same way. However - as with those - the tab then needs a huge amount of editing to render it playable. That's even if the mid file was taken from a recording with guitar only. Never mind a mid file from piano or multiple instruments. IOW, the software knows enough about guitar to place each *single note* in a suitable string/fret position (usually between frets 0-4), but it takes no account of how playable multiple notes are, in chords or sequentially in melodies. You have to use your common sense (and experience as a guitarist) to choose fret positions and fingerings.

  3945. musictheory 2019-04-18 02:24:11 Jongtr
    I'd say it's good. Learning the various positions and shapes for any single chord is really valuable knowledge. E.g., you can play a C major chord anywhere you can find the notes C E and G within reach at the same time. You can learn the note positions first if you want, but seeing chord shapes as you go will speed the process up. Here are all the shapes for a C major chord - every one containing those 3 notes: -0----3----8----8----12----12----------------- -1----5----5----8----13----13----------------- -0----5----5----9----12----12---------------- -2----5----5----10---10----14----------------- -3----3----7----10---------15---------------- -----------8----8----------------------- That system of overlapping shapes is known as C-A-G-E-D for reasons that ought to be clear. (The last shape is another "C" form.) All 12 major chords are playable with the same 5 shapes in the same order, they just start in different positions. Naturally, if you also learn the notes in each chord as you go - as well as exercises in note identification up each string - then it won't take long to have the fretboard memorised.

  3946. musictheory 2019-04-18 14:57:37 17bmw
    Again, sorry for formatting, I'm still getting the hang of reddit. Also, sorry for any spelling, grammar or punctuation mistakes. I'll try to edit those out when I see them. That said... *"But it is my presumption that the harmonies present in jazz are either non-present in classical or are considerably rarer. Is this presumption wrong?"* Yes, this presumption is wrong for classical music. Certainly, Classical (period) music was less harmonically adventurous than a lot of jazz but the Romantic Era was a whole different beast. It might be rarer to see these things outside of the "canon" and outside of many of the pieces you'd encounter in say, an undergraduate level theory class, but there's more than enough classical music that does have these harmonic features to call into question your presumption. *"Can you tell me where I can find out more about this?"* There's a lot [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_chord) about chordal extensions including rules for four-part voice leading and a hefty bibliography if you'd like to read more. Rameau's theory of supposition (mentioned in the article) gives a lot of historical context behind chordal extensions. It's a bit of a rabbit hole but, if you want to jump down, [this article](https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/38/2/155/2982076) might be a nice start. Schoenberg's Theory of Harmony and Structural Functions of Harmony also touch on this subject. Those are two texts I can't reccomend enough. *"Can you elaborate on this? I understand you but I want to experience examples of what you're saying, because i believe you and want to experience it for myself"* I'll do the best I can but I ask that you try to find exhaustive examples on your own. I'll drop some stuff here (like related terminology, further reading, and one or two examples) to help point you in the right direction but this is one goose I don't want to chase tonight. **Upper structures**: Funky stuff happens when the tonic or dominant are extended (usually over pedal points). You might want to start by looking into [Chordiods](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordioid). Slonimsky's Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns is (one of the best texts on the subject but [George Chadwick](https://imslp.org/wiki/Harmony:_A_Course_of_Study_(Chadwick,_George_Whitefield\)) and [Ebenezer Prout](https://imslp.org/wiki/Harmony:_Its_Theory_and_Practice_(Prout,_Ebenezer\)) both consider the subject in their work. There's also tons of ink spilled on [polychords](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychord), both in writing them into music and writing about the music they're in. Strauss's Elektra remains one if my favorite examples of them. **Tritone substitutions**: I can't, off the top of my head, think of classical music using a tritone substituted chord as a dominant but it is common for the neapolitan to move through a preparatory V6/4 chord. Additionally, common tone diminished chords and modulation by fully diminished seventh chords are [well-known and well-noted](http://musictheoryexamples.com/26CT.html). For examples of neapolitan funness, honestly look through the Chopin's entire catalogue, Op. 48 No. 1 and his G minor Ballade being great places to start. Also, Schubert's work has a lot of wacky key relationships, tonicizations, and modulations. His lieder are easy enough to digest and his [one of his piano sonatas that I'm still trying to remember. I'll edit it in soon if I find it]. **Modal progressions**: Use of the church modes should be easy enough to find all over classical music. For starters, Gradus Ad Parnassum gave examples of species counterpoint in all the modes. Some specific pieces: Grieg's A minor piano concerto features mixolydian, Sibelius's sixth symphony is rife with dorian, Bruckner's 8th has tons of phrygian, and Beethoven's 15th string quartet positively glows with lydian passages. Also, you might want to check out [chromatic mediants](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_mediant). It's not exactly modal per say, but their use can often produce quasi-modal effects on the surronding music. *"Who are these people and what do you mean by this?"* Billy Strayhorn was a jazz pianist, composer, and arranger most commonly known for his work with Duke Ellington. Claudio Monteverdi was a composer and director of the late Renaissance/early Baroque known for his sacred and secular vocal compositions. For clarification, I'm not saying these two were similar harmonically, just that one person's music was no more "out there" than the other's. I'm sure they would've loved to meet and chat. *"are you saying there is no difference at all?"* No, I'm not saying there isn't a difference; the degree to which some harmonic features are common in one style is different than the other (which says nothing of other musical parameters!). I'm saying the difference is a lot smaller than you're suggesting it is. A lot of the examples in this post might not be exact clones of the structures found in jazz but I do hope they make it clear how close the harmonic systems are and how much they inform each other. The language of one isn't foreign or rare to the other; you can use the same tools to analyze the jazz canon that you'd use for the classical one. This was a lot of work but the hunt that went into this answer was super fun. Thank you so much for starting this wonderful line of discussion. I'm sorry that this response kind of got away from me length-wise but I hope this helps and take care!

  3947. musictheory 2019-04-18 19:11:57 Jongtr
    The G natural would be a blue note. I.e, yes that's all that's happening. This kind of mixolydian groove is essentially blues-inspired, and blues is all about the "neutral 3rd" - typified by the m3 played against a major 3rd, and often bent up. In this case, though I think it's even *less* than that; ;-) The G seems to happen just before he changes chord, so it's the natural result lifting the fingers off the E major chord shape to move to D. That leaves the open G string ringing briefly. (Other open strings would also be audible, but you notice that one because it's out of key.) Still, the reason that doesn't sound "wrong" (like a technical mistake) is that it adds a bluesy vibe to it.

  3948. musictheory 2019-04-18 19:13:57 mrclay
    Pretty much just a blues note. I’m not crazy about how he voices it that way. In a cover band I’d try to use my pinky to briefly tap (not hold) the G on the D string to make it a G E melody.

  3949. musictheory 2019-04-18 20:49:27 south87
    1) I never said my definition was *the* only single and supreme definition. It was a way to generalize a traditional practice in the Classical era so OP could get hang of what Schoenberg was saying. Again, you are concentrating on my answer than on OPs question. (I didint see your solution of the problem by the way). 2) Again, I am talking in the context of the book. My definition is for OP to get the hang on Schoenberg. Its a very good book, it just needs some explaining. I didnt not intend it to apply to ALL music for all ages. Thats just you! 3) Now it is clear to me that you didnt study the examples. For the subject at hand, composition, the beginning composer benefits from models always or at least as Schoenberg presents it. He provides examples from the Classical literature because he knows its a good way for the beginner to get acquainted with compositional basics. In composition the beginner has to look at many examples of forms so he can get his head around all the recommendation and rules that are alwas given so he can see how they all work. If you are not a trained composer you wouldnt know what I am talking about. It does not matter if you think the examples are not the real deal and only really the most basic extracts of all musical literature because the important thing is that he chose them to illustrate what he meant. If he would have drawn examples just from simple Folk songs, the book would have been aimed at a very low level. Well no, no Twinkle Twinkle Little Star here. The book is meant to be as broad as possible and 'real' so Schoenberg presents examples from "serious" literature, Piano Sonatas, String Quartets, Sextet, Symphonies. The real value here is that Schoenberg found actual examples from the musical literature that illustrates what he is talking about. That proves and justifies the chapter and assures the aspiring composer that such formal designs are completely valid. The book is so great because it encourages the composer to move to the next level which is score analysis. Throught his writings, Schoenberg always thought theorists that relied only on rules and not what the actual great composers wrote, where mistaken. He always said that he learned the most from the actual musical literature. Schoenberg chose those examples wisely. 4) The book can't delve into every detail of a composition. The books intention is not to be an encyclopedia but a manual that teaches you how to think as a composer and how to draw knowledge from the musical literature. So what did he really mean when he talked about approaching the cadence? I already said my interpretation. Whats yours? I did not read it. In any case, I think the examples leave it pretty clear that the "approaching" was more of a common procedure than an exception. Oh but you didint check the examples! Then you will never understand then! Read the musical literature for yourself. Start with the examples in the book.

  3950. musictheory 2019-04-18 22:51:51 BonetoneJJ
    They are useful for sting instruments to play patterns like on a guitar. String instruments have multiple ways to play the same pitches. Patterns are a great way to learn scales/modes.

  3951. musictheory 2019-04-19 06:01:28 shvampt
    Not sure about guitar specifically since I play piano but these are some things I think could help. * You could learn the intervals that make up chords such as major/minor/diminshed and the 7th chords. So major being built with a major third between root third and a minor third between third fifth, minor being minor between root third and major between third fifth, diminished being two minor thirds between the notes. This could help you figure out chords on your own and voice them in different ways. Adding the 7th on top is either just another major or minor third depending on the quality of the chord. * You could learn the relationships of chords in a key. Examples being the 5 chord of a key will always be dominant with option for a V7. 2, 3, and 6 being minor chords in a major key. 2 being half diminshed in a minor key, etc. * For more technical options you can learn arpeggios with progressions. So you take a 1-6-2-5 progression and play 3/4/5 notes, however many you want in that chord and when you play the next chord in the progression try and play the closest note possible and play that arpeggio in the opposite direction. Somewhat of a voice leading exercise. This can help you weave melodies over chords and see the relationship and shared notes of chords(if there are any). * Learning different voicings for chords and in different positions can really change up the sound instead of just using open string voicings and bar chords down at the bottom of the neck. * Key signatures are good to learn if youre reading standard sheet music but also to remember what chords are played in relation to the main tonal center.

  3952. musictheory 2019-04-19 06:35:50 deathbyicepants
    Resonance. When you create a pinned boundary condition the string resonates at twice the frequency of the fundamental. They are at specific frets because that is where those specific frequencies are resonant relative to the fundamental.

  3953. musictheory 2019-04-19 06:38:46 17bmw
    The only instrument that *doesn't* have harmonics would be something like a tuning fork capable of producing a pure sine wave. The reasons for this involves a lot of math but I never got past Calc 1. Suffice it to say that every common orchestral instrument (guitar included!) produces an infinite amount of harmonics with every note. We tend to perceive the amalgamation of these harmonics (and the relative strength of each one in relation to the fundamental) as timbre or tone color. As for why touching a vibrating string at a specific point produces the bell-tone sound: the string in question is already vibrating in a way to produce and sound any of the fundamental's infinite harmonics. By touching a special point on that string (a node) some harmonics can be made clearer; you effectively emphasize a specific harmonic within the stack while also quieting others. This obviously easier to do where nodes are easy to find and the harmonics you're bringing out aren't so lofty that they can't be heard. This is why they sound better at certain frets and are downright impossible to hear at others. Interestingly enough, producing amplified harmonics by touching nodes is involved one way or another in the technique of a lot of instruments. On strings (bowed or unbowed) this obviously involves touching the string at the desired node. For woodwind instruments, this involves over-blowing and this over-blowing technique is at the basis of the brass family's pitch production. It's also the reason we have to tune unpitched percussion. Even on the piano, you can silently depress keys while playing to produce "ghost tones." I hope this helps and take care!

  3954. musictheory 2019-04-19 06:39:35 Jongtr
    The string contains partial vibrations. As well as moving side to side as one, it moves in fractions too. The harmonic "nodes" align with simple string fractions, and each fraction moves at certain multiples of the open string frequency, which produces different pitches. I.e., touching the node prevents the string vibrating at those points, allowing the harmonic frequency to emerge. Fret 12 = 1/2 = 2x frequency = octave frets 7 and 19 = 1/3 = 3x frequency = octave + 5th fret 5 = 1/4 = 4x frequency = 2 octaves frets 4, 9 and 16 = 1/5 = 5x frequency = 2 octaves + major 3rd Higher harmonics are possible, but increasingly harder to find. Between frets 3 and 4 are 1/6 and 1/7 string length. 1/8 is between frets 2 and 3 and 1/9 is roughly over fret 2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String\_harmonic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_harmonic)

  3955. musictheory 2019-04-19 06:42:05 Bsacco64
    Without getting too science, say for instance you pluck an A string. That A vibrates at 440hz. If you press your finger to a fret half way down the string, you get a note sounding 1 octave higher at 880hz. This is because only the half of the string you pluck is vibrating. With a harmonic however, both sides of the string vibrate, but still at twice the frequency.

  3956. musictheory 2019-04-19 06:53:58 beaumega1
    This is the concept of [Standing Waves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave). Simply, when you pluck an open string, the string oscillates between one end and the other. The "ends", or points at which there is no up/down motion (aka vibration) are called "nodes". Imagine you and a friend are holding either end of a jump rope, and moving the whole rope up together, then down together. Harmonics are achieved by creating more than one standing wave over the same resonating body. Imagine a 3rd friend shows up to you two with the jump rope. You stop swinging it for a second, and your friend decides to pinch the middle of the rope, holding on to it. When you and the friend at the other end begin to swing the rope, you now have two halves of the rope which are effectively creating two distinct waves, versus the one standing wave we began with. Now, think of playing a harmonic at the 12th guitar fret. This is the halfway/middle point of the string. When you lightly touch it before plucking the string, you are creating another "node" (point of no movement) halfway down the string. The sound you hear is an octave over the open string (hey! an octave has the ratio 2:1). This is different than fully pinning down the string at the midway point/12th fret, as both sides of the string are able to resonate, producing that timbrally different "harmonic" sound. From here, you can divide the wave/string into thirds (around the 7th fret) to produce a P12 (octave + fifth), which has three standing waves. Even though you didn't create both of the two new nodes necessary for 3 standing waves over the length, the 2nd node automatically stabilizes. You can make 4 standing waves around the 5th fret, producing a note two octaves over the open string note, and so on and so forth. What's special about the pattern of notes created by increasing ratios of waves to string length? Well, you end up creating the harmonic series. Let's say you're doing this on an E string. You'd get: E, E (up an octave), B, E, G#, B, D, E, F#, G#, A#, B.... etc, the pattern of intervals of which is: octave, 5th, 4th, M3, m3, m3, M2, M2, M2, M2...etc.\* \*These intervals are not as discrete as notes/half-steps on the piano. But they are close approximations within the first 10 or so notes of the series.

  3957. musictheory 2019-04-19 11:22:16 algorithmoose
    I'll add a bit of math to this. I'm gonna have some hand-waving "this is how it works" bits which I'll explain further if anyone wants. The full math is [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_vibration) but I'll give the tldr. Based on the weight of the string, the tension on it, and the shape it's currently in, the string will accelerate up and down. We simplify things a bit, but it ends up just being Newton's Laws plus a bit of math to represent the string shape and where the mass is distributed in it. This ends up being a system that produces waves (shapes in the string will tend to propagate through the string), and most importantly for us, standing waves which a few others are talking about. The ends of the string are fixed up and down, but can bend which gives us boundary conditions. A standing wave is something that will oscillate in time, but not space, so unlike a ripple in water which will propagate in space, any point on the string will just move up and down in sync with the rest of the string. The equations that made waves work will make standing waves in certain shapes (modes) and based on the boundary conditions at the ends of the string, the shapes that work are sine waves that have zero crossings at the ends of the string. These will have wavelengths which are fractions of the string length, and based on these wavelengths and the wave propagation speed you get frequencies on the harmonic series (fundamental, octave (half string, 12th fret I think), octave+5th (1/3 string, approx. 7th fret), 2 octaves (1/4 string, approx. 5th fret), 2 octaves+M3rd (1/5 string, approx. 4th fret but one of the higher frets probably works), etc.) Putting your finger on the string adds a boundary condition which reduces the solutions to a much smaller set of standing wave shapes, the lowest of which is the one you hear, usually. The math lets you have multiple harmonics coexisting; just add the shapes together and the result is also a standing wave. When you play a normal note, all the harmonics are present to some degree based on how you strummed or plucked or bowed; these are just the initial conditions you give the system (well, bowing is more complicated) and any standing wave shape that is present when you release the string is going to keep oscillating until it dies out from losing energy to sound waves, friction, thermoelastic damping, etc.

  3958. musictheory 2019-04-19 11:25:01 xiipaoc
    This is an interesting question with slightly confusing terminology. But first, let's make something clear: wind and brass instruments have harmonics too, in the same sense as string instruments. First, let's talk about what "harmonics" actually are, because that's confusing some people who have answered your question. Whenever you play a sound, unless that sound is a pure tone (like you get [here](https://www.offtonic.com/theory/applets/tonegenerator.html)), there will actually be many other tones that are part of your sound. For most "pleasant" sounds, these other tones are multiples of the original tone's frequency, so if the tone is at 100 Hz, there'll be other tones at 200 Hz, 300 Hz, 400 Hz, 500 Hz, etc. These other tones are called *overtones* or *harmonics*. You can actually hear them in your own voice if you try to do Tuvan throat singing (look it up). Or you can see them really easily with a [spectrum](https://www.offtonic.com/theory/applets/spectrum.html). Click on "Log" in the upper right and sing an "ooh", then, on the same note, change that syllable to "aah". Look at how the spectrum changes. The spectrum shows all of the tones that make up the sound the microphone is picking up. Now, these harmonics aren't a property of sounds in general. They only happen for sounds that are "pleasant". That's in quotes because you can find literally anything pleasant or not pleasant at your whim. However, sounds that *don't* have harmonics that are at multiples of the fundamental frequency are, well, not so pleasant. They'll sound like nails on a chalkboard. As a simple example, let's say you and I decide to sing in octaves, but I'm out of tune. That's what happens when the harmonics aren't multiples of the fundamental. We call this *inharmonicity*. It's not *bad*, because, hey, maybe you want that in your sound! In fact, a little inharmonicity can sound nice and warm, which is ironically more pleasant than the sounds I called "pleasant" a few sentences ago. So, these "pleasant" sounds, how are they made? It turns out that, surprise, most of the instruments we use make "pleasant" sounds. There's a reason for that: we think that the instruments that *don't* make pleasant sounds aren't worth playing! The 19th century is full of instruments that didn't make the cut. If we play it today, it's because we figured out that it sounds good. This means that the instrument is in a shape that allows the tones it produces to have harmonic overtones as opposed to inharmonic ones. On a string instrument, the physics is actually pretty simple. A string vibrates such that the two endpoints of the string are fixed; they don't move. It will vibrate in different ways (called *vibrational modes*) at particular frequencies that depend on how heavy the string is and how tight it is (I don't remember the formula, but it might be something like L·sqrt(T/y), where L is the length, T is the tension, and y is the mass per unit length -- welcome to dimensional analysis). The point is, it turns out that, when you solve the equations and whatnot, the vibrations of a string are pretty simple. The first vibrational mode will be the whole string going up and down together, and it will be at frequency f. The second vibrational mode will be half the string going up and the other half going down, then reversing, at frequency 2f. The third vibrational mode will be the first third of the string going up, the second third going down, and the third third going up, at frequency 3f. The fourth vibrational mode will be the first quarter of the string going up, the second going down, the third going up, the fourth going down, at frequency 4f. You get the point. Here's where it gets interesting. If you take your finger and touch the center of the string, vibrational mode 1 can't happen, because that's the entire string going up and down together, and the center of the string can't move very well (but it can still move a little) because you have your finger on it! But if you try to play vibrational mode 2 instead, that one actually works, because the center of the string doesn't move in vibrational mode 2. Or 4, or 6, etc. On a guitar, the center of the string is the 12th fret. Likewise, if you touch the point a third of the way up the string (which is fret 7 or fret 19), vibrational modes 1 and 2 can't vibrate, but mode 3 can (and so can mode 6, mode 9, etc.). If you touch a point a fourth of the way up (fret 5 or what would be fret 24 if it went up that high), you get modes 4, 8, 12, etc. A fifth of the way (fret 4), or two fifths (fret 9), or three fifths (fret 16), or even four fifths (fret 28 if it existed), and you get vibrational modes 5, 10, 15, etc. These are the harmonics available on string instruments. I mentioned frets because you mentioned them, but of course the same modes work on fretless string instruments too; you just need to know where the point 1/3 of the way up (or whatever) is. Note that there are also artificial harmonics, which is where you do harmonics on a non-open string. The same rules apply. For mode 2, you need to touch the point halfway down the string from the fret you're holding, which is (always) 12 frets down. On a woodwind or brass instrument, you don't get the nice and easy string math, but the air column math is actually pretty similar -- because if it weren't, people wouldn't play these instruments! However, instead of frets, you have a whole bunch of holes that change the shape of the air column. The shapes of the vibrational modes on a string are easy to understand, but they're more complicated on wind instruments. Still, they exist. The cool thing is that you can control them with your mouth and your air speed. Have you ever swung a chain around in a little circle and had it actually kind of split into two directions? I can't really describe it. You do this by spinning it faster than it can handle, and hey, you have the top 2/3 of the chain to the left while the bottom end sticks out to the right as the whole thing spins. Well, you do a similar thing with the air column. Use a tighter embochure and blow faster air, and you get a higher vibrational mode! On woodwinds, there's usually some key that helps the air flow in the right way; on flute, oboe, and sax, it's called the octave key because you jump up an octave when you press it; on clarinets, it's the register key, because you *don't* go up an octave but rather a 12th -- going from mode 1 straight to mode 3, because mode 2 doesn't work on clarinet for some reason. On brass, it's even more fundamental, because you only get three valves (four if you're lucky). With these three valves, you have to play *all* the notes. How does this work? Consider an open fingering on a trumpet; that's written middle C. It's actually vibrational mode 2; 1 has a very unstable sound so it's not used. If you overblow a little, you jump up to mode 3, a G. Overblow some more, and you're at mode 4, C in the staff. Overblow even more, you're at E; even more, high G; even more, an out of tune Bb; *even more*, high C. You can even keep going if you have the chops for it! Most trumpet players prefer not to hurt themselves tightening their embochure so much, but the ones who like to show off will be hitting the very high G an octave above the staff! OK, that was a lie. They're trumpet players; *of course* they want to show off. Small trumpets, big egos. (Source: my brother is a trumpet player. ALL THE STEREOTYPES ARE TRUE. ALL OF THEM.) So there you have it. All "pleasant"-sounding instruments have a way to play harmonics and extend the instrument's range, simply because they were specifically engineered to sound "pleasant" and having overtones generally means you can play them if you want.

  3959. musictheory 2019-04-19 11:25:50 Gdubs76
    Because the string is divided equally into integers when played at the 12th, 7th, 5th, and 4th fret; it creates resonance, especially with the other strings when tuned to perfect fourths as is such in standard guitar timing.

  3960. musictheory 2019-04-19 13:05:17 reckless150681
    Good explanation! A few details and whatnot. The reason why certain spots on the string sound better is for a number of reasons. 1., the instrument likely resonates better at these frequencies. 2., if you touch the string at a place that does not form low-number nodes (i.e., your vibrating length is NOT 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4 or 1/5 of the string), then the specific superposition of harmonics required to produce a node at that point tends to be high-pitched. Put simply, imagine your friend pinching the jump rope at 30% of the way through the jump rope. You might think that the shortest wavelength would then be 30% of the total length. However, the rules of standing waves say that you can't just have half of a wave; you have to have some number of complete waves. So if your wavelength is 30%, then you'll have 3 1/3 wavelengths - 30%, 30%, 30%, and 10%. How do you reconcile this? Well, it turns out that you're forcing the jump rope to vibrate at a much higher frequency. What is another way to put a node at 30%? Why, by having the wavelength = 15%. You'll still have some remainder left over, so let's try another - how about 10%? That works. You will have ten complete wavelengths of 10%. You'll notice that this frequency, then, is 10 times the fundamental - so it's very high. Given that humans have an upper limit to the frequencies we can hear, many of these are all but inaudible. Electric guitars can exploit these weirdly-placed harmonics because of their distorted amps and better ability to pick up a wider range of frequencies (since they are less reliant on acoustic resonances). The last detail is about wind instruments. Simply put, wind instruments are far more complicated than strings. You need to make the difference between open and closed tubes, cylindrical vs conical bores, and end conditions on pipes in order to create a mathematical model.

  3961. musictheory 2019-04-19 20:12:34 decoy_hexapus
    I suspect it’s because we guitar players don’t know anything about theory. The 2 is to differentiate from the high E string, rather than to denote where that tone falls on a piano keyboard.

  3962. musictheory 2019-04-19 20:35:10 GKkolom
    They could call low E an E3 and high E an E5. My friend learns to sing and recently he tried to prove me that he could sing E5, but he sang E4. Than he got stuck with this - he plays open high E string and sings in unison, but can't get it that this note is not E5 but E4.

  3963. musictheory 2019-04-19 20:46:20 FailedSurfing
    Isolating a single partial isnt the clearest description. All harmonics are integer multiples of the base frequency, i.e. dividing the string into n parts of equal lengths. When you play a 'harmonic' you remove all harmonics that don't have a node (stationary point) at the position you touch. So if you play a 12th fret harmonic you remove all harmonics that aren't multiple of n=2.

  3964. musictheory 2019-04-19 21:09:54 Jongtr
    >it just adds a bunch of unnecessary ledger lines Well it's a question of where those ledger lines go.;-) If notated in concert, you'd need seven ledger lines to get down to the bottom E, and no more than two above (for D on fret 22 1st string to sit on top). Lowering the stave by an octave gives you more or less the reverse: for 3 ledger lines below and a maximum of seven above. The choice is easy because most guitar music is played in the lower two octaves of its range (up to E on fret 12, 1st string, 3 ledger lines up), and it's easy enough to use 8va for beyond that, if it's sustained for long enough. Otherwise most of us can read up to 4 ledger lines up with little trouble, which takes it to A on fret 17, 1st string (or A# on fret 18 of course).

  3965. musictheory 2019-04-19 21:26:40 Jongtr
    Actually low E on guitar *is* E2 at 82.4 Hz. Bottom E on bass is E1, 41.2. Guitar and bass guitar are both notated an octave higher than they sound, or they sound an octave lower than written. Or (if you like) their staves are lowered by an octave. Middle C (C4, 261.6 Hz) is written in the 3rd space up on guitar notation (played on 2nd string 1st fret), and above the 4th ledger line up on bass guitar. The idea is that guitar is roughly a mid-range instrument, at least as it is normally played. Middle C therefore sits in the middle of its notation, same as it does in piano double-stave. From 3 ledger lines below the stave to 3 ledger lines above takes you from bottom E to E on 1st string 12th fret. So G clef an octave below treble register (tenor register in fact) suits guitar fine. The rarer C clef (as alto or tenor clef, middle C on middle or 4th line) would also cover guitar well. but guitarists have enough trouble reading G clef... ;-) In fact, the guitar clef is often given a small "8" below to indicate the octave transposition, and is then technically known as a "tenor G clef", not a "treble clef". Bass guitar, meanwhile is an octave lower than guitar, so it obviously makes sense to lower the concert bass stave by an octave too - just as for double bass, in fact (one reason it's called "double" bass in the first place). Low E (E1) is then only one ledger line below. Bass guitar can range well above the stave, of course (a little more easily than double bass) although it doesn't often do so in normal usage. And there is room below for 5-string bass (going down to B0 at 30.9 Hz, just one note above bottom A on piano).

  3966. musictheory 2019-04-19 22:18:07 Jongtr
    "Playing music" covers the production of music in any way available. Tune in to a music station or select an MP3 and press "play", and music comes out. The music is obviously recorded, and you are just allowing that recording to be heard. But you are still "playing" it, by the deliberate action of pressing "play". From there, there is a spectrum of both the amount of *creative input* and any *musical skill* involved (which is probably what the argument would come down to): At the lower end, it might start from just turning the volume up or down - creatively adjusting the dynamic level (which is an aesthetic choice). You might have two MP3s, that you can switch between at certain points - mixing samples, as it were. Let's say you move to an actual musical instrument. You might have an electronic keyboard with a demo track. "Playing" that means just pressing a button or two. Maybe you hit a key or two while it's playing - now you're edging towards "performance". Maybe you clap along, or sing along. That's "performance", requiring some degree of musical skill or awareness. Turn off the demo track, and begin putting various fingers on various keys. It will now certainly *look* like you are "playing" the keyboard. But all you are doing is pressing switches which enable the machine to produce various sampled or synthesized sounds already in its soundbanks. On some keyboards, just pressing one key enables you to produce a chord, or a programmed rhythm pattern. Naturally, if you are not a musician, you'll probably just be pressing random keys, and the result won't sound like what most of us would call "music", because that presupposes some kind of organisation of the sounds into familiar patterns. But you could probably bang out a rhythm on just one or two keys, which will have the basics of musical organisation. Move to an old-fashioned acoustic piano. Now you only get one kind of sound from the instrument, but you are a *little* more in control of how it sounds. Even so, you're still just "operating the machine" - pressing keys, while various levers make hammers hit the strings. Still, this is full-blown musical *performance* \- *really* "playing music" - for most people. It's then a narrower debate about whether a string instrument, or wind instrument, is more "real", because you have more control over tone, timbre and pitch than you do on a piano.

  3967. musictheory 2019-04-20 01:02:13 trainercase
    It's not quite that a \*single\* partial is being isolated. &#x200B; Imagine a string vibrating along the whole length (fundamental pitch). There are two fixed nodes on either end of the string where the string does not move and a spot in the center where the string moves its full range of motion. Now imagine vibrating at the first harmonic - two standing waves half the length of the string. Instead of two stationary nodes, there are three - both ends and the center. Instead of one position with max amplitude, there are two at 1/4 and 3/4 (halfway down each half). At the third harmonic, you have four stationary nodes and three maximum points, etc. &#x200B; Normally all these get added together to make a complex vibration pattern. But by lightly touching the string at a node point, the player forces the string to NOT vibrate at that point. This mutes any partials that require movement at that point and allows through any partials that have a node there anyway. &#x200B; So by touching the halfway point (12th fret on guitar), the middle of the string becomes fixed and cannot vibrate. This prevents the string from vibrating at the fundamental, so it's not heard. The first harmonic has a node in the center so it can vibrate just fine with the center fixed. The third harmonic (quarters of the string) also has a node at the center so it plays as well, and so do all higher harmonics with a node at that point. I believe harmonics like the second (thirds of the string) will also be muted like the fundamental but I'm less sure of that - hopefully someone can clarify that part of it.

  3968. musictheory 2019-04-20 02:39:43 vehementshred
    Maybe you can answer this question. I've recently started studying intervals within the context of the CAGED method after using 3-notes-per-string for a number of years. Is there a more efficient method of learning intervals, or is it all just brute force memorization when using these patterns? Obviously the root, 3rd, and 5th for a Cmaj chord don't work in the context of a shift in tone to Amin. C-E-G don't sound as strong against that chord change. Also, is this something that's strictly inherent to guitar players due to our use of modular patterns across the fretboard? How do other musicians approach improvisation in relation to chord changes? I feel like i'm reverse engineering everything i've learned.

  3969. musictheory 2019-04-20 03:37:10 MouflonMusic
    Harmonics on stringed instruments are very close to sine waves. Any differences in the sound at that point come from the resonance of the instrument's body, and the method by which the string is played.

  3970. musictheory 2019-04-20 05:17:48 expiredvegetable
    If this is what you are learning: 'how to make a string of notes sound complete' Then you will need to learn about melodic contour... leaps should be mitigated (exceptions if the next note is a step and is consonant with the first note) You could even plan the start and end of your melody in advance. You could plan the range you will encompass, a simple framework for example only: Give yourself G, and end at G an octave higher over the span of the melody.

  3971. musictheory 2019-04-20 09:41:13 UncertaintyLich
    In Gamelan music they sort of recognize octaves, but they’re usually out of tune since the beating of dissonant intervals is considered desirable. But even then, most gamelan ensembles have some string instruments and vocal parts that operate more along the lines of Arabian music, and those of course use in-tune octaves. So it would be hard to make a case that they don’t understand octave equivalence. They just like to play out of tune.

  3972. musictheory 2019-04-20 09:44:15 josh0114
    As stipulated before, the octave is the second overtone in the harmonic series, which is used by a large amaranthine of tunings around the world. Also aforementioned is the topic of stretched or compressed octaves which usually have to do with the material of the instrument, such as string tension, hammer material, etc. However, there are cultures who intentionally detune their octaves to fit certain aesthetic or theological principles. One such culture which does this are the Indonesian Gamelan ensembles of Java, Bali, and Sunda, but particularly Bali. Ombak, the concept of interference beats, is achieved by slightly detuning each marimba by an interstitial proportion. This concept applies to the Pinpeat of Cambodia, the Piphat of Thailand, the Nhã Nhac of Vietnam, the Hsaing Waing of Myanmar, the Kulintang of the Philippines, Brunei, Singapore, and East Timor, the Sep Nyai and Sep Noi of Laos, as well as the Malay Gamelan of Malaysia. The Indian system of Hindustani and Carnatic music involves a fascinating theory which includes terms such as nada, swara, and sruti. A nada is any musical sound that can fall within the pitch spectrum of any instrument. The slight vibrato inflections of Carnatic singing is redolent of nada. A swara are the 12 distinctive pitches that practically all tuning systems, in one way or another abide by. Those twelve notes are the C-B that we commonly associate with. All other microtonal notes, or inflections, are simply minuscule derivations that are sharper or flatter than one of those notes by some amount. Take into account, this is not what I personally believe, but the way the Indian system perceives it. There are two fixed points which are the Sadja, and the Pañcama. The other 10 swaras have inflections that either flatten or sharpen them. Those other ten are komal rsabha shuddha rsabha, komal gandhara, shuddha gandhara, shuddha madhyama, teevra madhyama, komal dhaivata, shuddha dhaivata, komal nisada, shuddha nisada. This is the Hindustani nomenclature. The Carnatic nomenclature is different, but doesn’t serve our purposes at this current moment. These are the basis of the 22 srutis, which are the 22 JI intervals of the Indian system. Those 22 intervals are 1/1 256/243 16/15 10/9 9/8 32/27 6/5 5/4 81/64 4/3 27/20 45/32 729/512 (or 64/45) 3/2 128/81 8/5 5/3 27/16 16/9 9/5 15/8 243/128 2/1. The Greek Tetrachord System is based off of various divisions of a perfect fourth or a 4/3, with each particular set of divisions determining what genera is being played. The Arabic, Turkish, and Persian System also relies on the tetrachord system, but the tetrachord is called a jins(singular) or ajnas(plural), and the conjunct note is called the ghammaz. The appellation for these jins relies on what the first jins is. I.e., Maqam Hijaz starts with jins Hijaz. These systems don’t rely on the octave. Lastly, there are many Microtonal Western systems devised that do not rely on the octave. The first is the Bohlen-Pierce scale, which splits the perfect Twelfth or the tritave (3/1), into 13 equal sections. This is known as 13EDT(Equal Divisions of the Tritave) with each step in the scale equalling around 146 cents. The second ones are the Gamma, Alpha, and Beta scales of Wendy Carlos. The Gamma splits a 3/2 JI perfect fifth in 20 equal sections, resulting in steps of 35.1 cents, the Alpha splits the 3/2 into 9 equal steps of 78 cent steps. The Beta scale splits the 3/2 into 11 equal parts, of 68 cents each. Thirdly, their are temperaments such as Pajara Temperament, Triforce, and Blackwood that repeat at half octaves, third octaves, and quarter octaves. Triforce (9), a nonatonic subset of 15-EDO is as follows: 221221221. This, in 15-EDO steps is: 0, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, (15). This trifurcates the octave so the first period is at 400 cents, the second period is at 800 cents, and the third at 1200 cents. You can take subsets of this, such as utilizing a 5-of-9 MOS shape from the 7\9 generator\period pair. That shape is 12222. A Pentatonic subset of the nonatonic set could be, utilizing 15-EDO Steps: 2, 5, 9, 12, (15). This new SUB-MOS is 23433. I hope that helped. 🙂

  3973. musictheory 2019-04-20 09:48:41 UncertaintyLich
    Well notes of the same octave are also played out of tune just because they consider the beating of dissonant intervals desirable. Plus most Gamelan ensembles have string instruments and some vocal parts that ignore the percussion parts’ pitch organization system and function more along the lines of Arabian music. So it’s hard to make the case that they don’t understand octaves the same way we do. It’s just that they like to play out of tune because out-of-tune gongs shimmer and sparkle brilliantly.

  3974. musictheory 2019-04-20 11:11:01 UncertaintyLich
    I don’t think of using slightly out of tune notes is a “different understanding”. We do it too. We use vibrato to get a really vanilla version of the same effect and as an electronic musician I’m constantly detuning groups of notes to get richer sounds. And like I said, it applies to unisons too, so it has nothing to do with whether or not an octave is equivalent. And again—this tuning system only applies to the bells and keys. The vocals, string instruments, and aerophones all function similarly to Arabian music and the octaves are tuned normally.

  3975. musictheory 2019-04-20 14:40:40 liph_vye
    One cool reason for the stretched octave in gamelan music is that free bar instruments [have a different overtone series](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Music/barres.html#c3) then that of a string attached on both sides and because of the difference in overtones the stretched octaves will actually sound more in tune then our perfect octave. Check out [this cool audio example](http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/mp3s/challoct.avi) to hear for yourself how timbre can make our octave sound more dissonant than a stretched octave. The example comes from Tuning Timbre Spectrum Scale by William A. Sethares. Fascinating stuff!

  3976. musictheory 2019-04-20 16:48:49 alijamieson
    Odd thing is discovered last year is that an octave as we understand to be a 2:1 relationship is not universal and confined to instrument where harmonics have an integer multiple relationships. In some membranes 1:2.1 sounds harmonious. ”I just came across your article Describing the Relationship Between Two Notes: Harmonics as Decimals. It was probably the most concise and clear exposition of scales that I’ve come across, and I thought you might be interested in another author’s work that seems to be unfortunately obscure, but is especially relevant in the arena of synthesized music. It is definitely the most interesting thing I’ve learned while looking into music theory (well, maybe not Shepard tones) but it is more fundamental. To make a long story short, the harmonics based on integers in your article are the modes of vibration of a string, or, in practice, any one-dimensional object, e.g. long narrow tubes (flutes), elongated bars, essentially all western instruments apart from drums and bells. While that is no accident, it does mean that the octave itself is arbitrary. What I mean by that is perhaps best shown by example here: (I can’t link to the audio but it’s in the below post) In this example, the interval from f to 2f is dissonant, while the interval from f to 2.1f is consonant. In other words, there is nothing inherent about the harmonic scale itself that creates consonance, but the harmonic content of the notes themselves establish what is consonant. Because the sound produced by everyday instruments contains more than the fundamental harmonic, e.g. this great article here http://dalemcgowan.com/every-note-is-a-chord/ the very first note you hear actually sets the scale. Because so much of western music is based on strings, this produced the diatonic scale. This is why cultures that primarily use bells or other nonlinear instruments often use different scales. To produce that 2.1f octave, Sethares used some old research by Plomp and Levelt, where the authors surveyed subject’s perception of dissonance when listening to two pure sinusoidal tones. From the resulting entirely anthropic dissonance curve, and the spectra of a given instruments sound, the most harmonic scale can readily be constructed. Of course, using the harmonic spectra of strings produces the diatonic scale, but the most consonant scale for say, a xylophone, is actually somewhat different. You can find his website here: http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/consemi.html.” Source: http://alijamieson.co.uk/2017/12/03/describing-relationship-two-notes/

  3977. musictheory 2019-04-20 18:23:20 bobbinichols
    This is mind-blowing. Is there an ELI5 version somewhere if I want to read more about the instruments and how they vibrate? I looked at the first link you listed, but I'm having a hard time connecting that to anything I can imagine physically. I mean, when you look at diagrams for string vibrations, it's pretty easy to see what's happening and visualize a string vibrating that way. But bars? And the closed round things I'm seeing them striking when I search for gamelan music- I'm having a tough time imagining how those vibrations work, or where they're happening - gah: I can't even find a way to describe the question:0

  3978. musictheory 2019-04-21 02:46:25 MusicianMusician
    Sounds like a great idea! My band members prefer to learn by ear, and I'm fine with that. I want to try to be adaptable as I can to different situations. Understand how to work with different types of musicians, who might have different expectations. The first goal is to have a cellist join me in a small acoustic show. The eventual goal is to have a string quartet (or larger) play a new rendition of the music. My cellist is young and needs things laid out plainly. I've only met with/directed multiple strings a few times, so I'm still getting the hang of it :)

  3979. musictheory 2019-04-21 13:45:54 WheeXy
    \*Continued- D on the A string. I was just curious on what colors other people see and why.

  3980. musictheory 2019-04-21 21:45:47 pianoman97
    Yes, I associate timbres with colors. Oboe is a dark purple, auto-tune is usually silver, all string instruments are variations on red browns etc. However in ensemble settings the timbres of instruments for me blend and change with the style of the piece but it's always based off the colors which make up the ensemble. Piano music can be many colors, I've seen/felt yellow, blue, red, and red brown, even some electric blue. Sometimes when I'm alone at night in the dark with my eyes closed and no one is there to comfort my lonely...lost...sad soul....I'll even see some shapes with the colors :D

  3981. musictheory 2019-04-22 00:08:57 65TwinReverbRI
    >Are there any unwritten rules for writing for string ensembles, or is this free reign as I am the composer? Most people would pick "high, medium, and low" which could be Violin, Viola, and Cello. But it's possible to do this we 3 Celli (which was not uncommon in pop tunes that use strings). Since all the strings are similar enough in terms of technical ability and agility, I would write out the parts first without any particular instruments in mind, then figure out which would be the best instrument to play a given part. It then becomes partly about the sound you want - a Cello constantly playing in the Violin range will sound more "strident" (but can be beautiful still) than a Violin - think of it like playing higher notes on your lower strings - do you want the sound of an E note (standard tuning here) on the first string open, the 2nd string 5th fret, the 3rd string 9th fret, the 4th string 14th fret etc.? Each one has a different sound and effect. While strings can be asked to do something similar (violin can play it's high E on the lower strings just like us) you could sort of (sort of) think of a Viola as a "5 string Violin" - it's got a "lower string added" - which would be like you taking something on the 6th string, and then playing it in a higher position on a 7th string. Cello is sort of like to Viola, the relationship between Guitar and Electric Bass - an octave down - but Cello is more in the range of a Guitar and String Bass more like and Electric Bass. But you can also think of it this way - Violin is tuned the same a Mandolin. It's going to be everything from the standard tuned G string up. The high E on the violin is the guitar's E string 12th fret! Put a capo on a standard guitar at the 12th fret and you have a more typical violin range. Viola is going to cover more of, if you put the capo on the middle of the neck - fret 5 (high string is A) Cello is going to be more like a Guitar in Drop C, or in standard tuning with a B string. And Bass is of course like Electric Bass. Cello, like guitar, can go very high, so it can cover a lot of the range that the Viola might cover and if you only need 3 parts, and the Bass is covering the Bass part as an electric bass might, there may be no need for a viola (but the usual reason people leave it out is because they're afraid of the Alto Clef). So there's nothing "wrong" with not using the Viola to cover the notes in the Viola's typical range, the Cello can do all but the very highest notes (which the Violin will likely take) it'll just sound "different" on Cello than it would Viola - which may not be that big a deal.

  3982. musictheory 2019-04-22 14:00:29 E8_Heterotic
    1. For any given MOS, such as 3L4s, there is a range of generators which produce it. For each such generator, you will get a certain ratio between L and s. At the one extreme, L = s and you get, in this case, 7 EDO. At the other extreme, L/s -> Infinity and thus s -> 0, giving 3 EDO here. This tells you that one of the bounds for the generators of 3L4s is some number of steps of 7 EDO, and the other bound is some number of steps of 3 EDO. In this case, it's between 2 steps of 7 EDO (~342 cents) and 1 step of 3 EDO (exactly 400 cents). The MOS usually sounds "good" when L/s is between about 3/2 and 4. Higher rank MOS scales have similar generator regions, which turn out to be n-dimensional [simplices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex) in general. 2. There are also generators which tend to make rather trivial scales. These generators are less than about 1 step of 7 EDO. They tend to give silly scales like 1L8s, 1L9s, 1L10s, etc.. Stick to generators larger than about 1 step of 7 EDO and less than about 6 steps of 7 EDO. 3. Harmony will require some notions to expand a bit. I have a "working" theory (i.e. good enough to write music with) on harmony for arbitrary MOS scales, but it's not as tight as fourths = darker, fifths = brighter. 4. Don't worry about the math part. I'm a physicist (string theory) by trade, so I like mathematics.

  3983. musictheory 2019-04-22 16:26:47 liph_vye
    k, look at [this picture of a wave](http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/pplato2/interactive-mathematics/waves_fig_03.png). The distance it takes to cover one full cycle of a wave is called the wavelength (λ). That's shown on the x axis. On the y axis you have the wave's amplitude (A). This can be pressure for a sound wave or displacement for a vibrating string. When an object is vibrating, waves are bouncing back and forth along the length of the object and add together creating a standing wave. Check out [this animation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standing_wave_2.gif) of two waves (in red and blue) traveling in opposite direction adding together to create a standing wave (in black). The points where the amplitude stays at zero (shown as red circles) are called nodes. The points where the amplitude is going back and forth to both extremes are called anti-nodes. For a guitar string we've attached the string at both ends so those ends can't move, or in physics terms has two fixed boundaries, and since they cannot move those end points become nodes. When the string vibrates it vibrates at all the wavelengths that fit between those two nodes. [Here is an image](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Allowed_and_forbidden_standing_waves.png) showing what I mean by fit and don't fit. All these different wavelength create the different overtones. When an object like a xylophone key that isn't attached at either end, aka has two free boundaries, vibrates the two ends will naturally become anti-nodes and nodes will naturally occur about 22.4% of the objects length away from the edge. The key vibrates at all the wavelengths that fit between those two nodes which ends up creating different overtones than for an object attached at both ends. If you have something that is attached on one end but not the other like kalimba keys you'll have a node one one end and an anti-node on the other and it has it's own overtones series. Gong type instruments (which is probably what you mean by closed round things) have there own more complicated 3D vibration going on. Gamelan uses a lot of metal xylophone like instruments and a lot of gong like instruments. If your are interested in learning the overtones series of all different types of instruments the best source that I have found is the book Musical Instrument Design by Bart Hopkin.

  3984. musictheory 2019-04-22 21:16:49 Sean_man_87
    Yup, figured bass is really cool. My (late) ear training/ sight singing professor also was the Collegium Musicum (ancient music) ensemble director, and I was the only string player (violist) who wanted to try baroque playing-- our school had a baroque violin. He and I worked up a few small pieces for collegium concerts, and he would play the figured bass! Not read the realization! He was a Eastman doctoral grad and the other Eastman keyboard prof was always impressed with him reading figured bass. Basically it's like a very structured improvisation, he would play different walking bass counter-melodies to go with my melodic line. Probably the coolest skill to have as a keyboardist

  3985. musictheory 2019-04-23 19:24:27 Jenkes_of_Wolverton
    Since this is a sub devoted to Music *Theory* I'm going to suggest you learn an instrument with non-fixed pitch, such as bowed string instruments. And also something with limited pitch, such as a pentatonic harp.

  3986. musictheory 2019-04-24 03:50:38 alan-luo
    No problem. Also, it's a pretty common problem to hear a 5th in the bass where there should be a root - especially in smoothed out timbres or string-y sections like the one in the Song of Healing (great choice, by the way). That's because the 5th functions as a root in a lot of ways, as a byproduct of the harmonic series.

  3987. musictheory 2019-04-24 04:25:59 SharkSymphony
    It's harder for me to think of an instrument that _wouldn't_ go well with a lute. Probably mostly cases where that instrument would completely overpower the lute in volume. I guess the question is: how do you define "goes well together?" Similar but distinct in sound, like a guitar or dulcimer? Same historical genre, like a cornetto or viola da gambo? Contrasting styles or functions, like a woodwind or organ or drum? Complementary ranges, like a string bass or whistle? Then there are the roleplaying questions. Are the players actually going to be playing these? Have their characters played together before? What fits with their backstories and careers?

  3988. musictheory 2019-04-24 22:42:39 Jongtr
    I suspect his post was manufactured by a bot. It could easily have been. It's a string of easily googled factoids, mixed with some crude hype.

  3989. musictheory 2019-04-25 03:06:36 metalliska
    > but that to me seems comparable to criticising French people for not being able to pronounce "th": why should they? That's fine, and I definitely see where a linguistical analogy fits a musical one. But a "should" can imply that only the audience fits that familiarity. If the greatest song that they're ever gonna perform is nothing but "ths", then learning a (unfamiliar) language shouldn't be a penalty about requirements. Learning more languages (or musical motifs) is to me always a good thing. Worst thing you can do is end up dead not speaking that tongue to someone who recognizes it. >they put out a lot less sound than brass and wind instruments. So playing them outside is bad not because it violates the Margrave of Brandenburg's 1673 edict but because it sounds shitty. Not gonna lie that made me smile. >You going to complain about the pianist not walking while he plays? Keytarists are / were the natural evolution of this. >You're significantly underestimating the nuance, expertise, and difficulty required to make a tabla, by the way. Sinew, Skin, Wood. Trial and Error. > it's fundamental to the structure and technique of these instruments. Maybe you're right. Why not build new instruments? > Italian. Can you elaborate? Basically linguistical biases regarding word endings (much like spanish). "eeeoooo", and the way of instruction to have a male voice sound a certain timbre. example, mozart: >Notte e giorno faticar >per chi nulla sa gradir; >piova e vento sopportar, >mangiar male e mal dormir! >Voglio far il gentiluomo, >e non voglio più servir, >no, no, no, no, no, no, >non voglio più servir! >O che caro galantuomo! >Voi star dentro colla bella >ed io far la sentinella! Look at how it's either a verb (_r) ending a line or a a/o ending a line (feminine or masculine noun). Everything "small" rhymes with "petite". [conversely, here's NPH written by Lin Manuel Miranda](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SQfsBsMFls). You'll note how it can be more taxing (breath-wise) while dancing and continuous lyrics moreso than three-tenors' style dotted-whole notes. > Sightreading. Maybe you haven't seen that. I can just say I've been a part of a group that got full marks during one performance and had another group do it medium-horribly (I think I've done it about 8 times total, mostly with good judgements). I get far more goosebumps out of planned works; I think it has to do with the breathing of everyone involved and how being on the same 'page' as mastery instead of 'hoping'. I also suppose you're quite good at it; maybe the reward is advancement in itself. >What similarity in the lyrics are you seeing? Mainly "night" being on the eighth note reminded me of that. String Players moving: >[dancing with strings looks so easy in the movies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH319nS9M-s) [especially animated](https://video.disney.com/watch/fezziwigs-mickey-s-christmas-carol-clip-4e972a90fb91e816d5c73f55)

  3990. musictheory 2019-04-25 03:28:01 llrb11
    Yeah I’m assuming your on guitar so it would be 6th string 5 fret, 5th string 7fret 4th string 7fret that would be your A5 add the octave on the 4th string to make it fuller

  3991. musictheory 2019-04-25 06:22:40 ChuckEye
    A 41Hz low E is the lowest note on a regular four-string bass guitar in standard tuning. Almost all sound systems should be able to reproduce that and at least a bit lower. Hell, most systems can reproduce the low B from a normal 5 string without getting too muddy.

  3992. musictheory 2019-04-25 11:05:15 smk4813
    Yes. There's the regular approach - one string up and two frets over from the root (x-3-5-x-x-x : C5) - and the inverted, one finger approach popularized by thrash metal (3-3-x-x-x-x : C5). The inverted approach puts the 5th of the chord in the bass of your voicing giving it a slightly heavier sound. Since you're only emphasizing the root and 5th, you can play a power chord over almost any chord type (excluding augmented, diminished, and altered dominant chords).

  3993. musictheory 2019-04-25 20:13:44 Jongtr
    It's G minor key, basically, but obviously with a strong dorian element (the passing C major chord). There is an Eb chord at the end of the chorus, so that completes the minor key "set" if you like (both kinds of 6th and both kinds of 7th). In fact, the chord at the beginning of the verse (0:33) is clearly G *major*, although he sings the Bb over it. The last chord of the chorus (1:26) also has a major sound, before all that microtonal sweeping that follows (which actually goes up to B and back). The distinctive mood of the track is really in those string glissandos, IMO, and his similarly "lazy" vocal style. The modal ambiguity is definitely part of it - the chords seem to deliberately avoid being clear, for that reason, while those string swoops add to the modal "slipperiness".

  3994. musictheory 2019-04-25 22:39:22 BattleAnus
    It's not really detuned, it's just straight up an Ab, which is the flat 2 in G minor, borrowed from the parallel G Phrygian scale. It would normally clash, because there are absolutely regular A naturals in the vocal melodies, but at the time that Ab plays, the only thing playing is the tonic and the fifth in the string pads, so it doesnt end up clashing. Why the OP made this title and then ignored what I think is a much more prominent and interesting example of using "wrong notes" I don't really understand lol

  3995. musictheory 2019-04-26 01:19:23 DRL47
    > It resolves to a chord within the key. It doesn't have to. In the key of C, the E7 chord can resolve to an A7 in the string of secondary dominants: C - E7 - A7 - D7 - G7 - C.

  3996. musictheory 2019-04-26 12:31:07 beaumega1
    > Is this normal? If so, what causes this? [Sympathetic Resonance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_resonance) Like how if you strike one tuning fork, and hold it up to another, then second one will also start to vibrate. Like it's "catching" the sound waves from the air. A and D are/share overtones of the lower D you hear, and since you have the string set to resonate at that frequency, it also vibrates.

  3997. musictheory 2019-04-26 12:38:34 xBrodoFraggins
    Well, that makes sense, however, it still occurs even in standard tuning with the E string muted. I did notice that when in drop D tuning, if I just played the bottom 5 strings, the D string would start to vibrate as well, which confirms what you are saying, but even when I physically mute the string, or am in standard tuning, the low D2 note still gets produced. Is that because the resonance produces that note?

  3998. musictheory 2019-04-26 12:54:44 xBrodoFraggins
    I suppose it could just be my brain, but I hear it both playing it on my guitar, and listening to a recording. I have a recording where I play a drop D D chord and then just swap between muting the low D string and unmuting it and the chord sound doesn't change at all. It is like the string isn't being removed from the chord at all.

  3999. musictheory 2019-04-26 17:08:49 Jongtr
    There is a phenomenon of "difference tones" - aka (confusingly) "combination tones" - which is where a low frequency is created by the interaction of two higher ones, by the common factor of their frequencies. Check these out: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWJS\_Fzs1j4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWJS_Fzs1j4) \- well explained [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73\_CiAYX00k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73_CiAYX00k) \- skip the idiotically portentous intro. I should say that I can't hear the phenomenon myself, in either demo. But it fits what you're describing. In your case, the open A and D strings would be produce a difference tone of a low bass D of around 36 Hz - an octave *below* the bass D of drop D tuning. It would be the open D string and the A above (3rd string fret 2), that would produce the low D of drop tuning. That's because the common factor of D (146.7) and A (220.0) is 73.3, which is the D an octave below the 4th string. That low D string on its own would have overtones of D (146.7) and A (220), among other higher ones. Psychologically (as explained in the first video), our ears assume that the D and A we hear are overtones of a single sound. Intervals don't occur in nature, so subconsciously we assume two simultaneous frequencies must be produced by a single source. Provided the two frequencies have a very simple ratio, they could be harmonics of a lower pitch well within our hearing range. So - the theory goes - that's why our brains created that low pitch as the "solution" to the actual sounds entering our ears. The less consonant the interval - the more complex the ratio - the less the notes are perceptible as potential harmonics of a single sound, and the more we recognise them as two separate sounds.

  4000. musictheory 2019-04-26 18:10:15 Jongtr
    Lovely stuff. I don't think you have all the chords right though. I don't hear that nasty chord 9 in there anywhere, and I'm sure there's a Gmaj7 (or something like it), even a Gmaj7#11. As for the D/A variants, forget about those. D is the bass when you get that descending line on the top string, so you can include the 6th string. Likely shapes for that "Gmaj7-sort-of" chord: Gmaj9: 5-5-0-0-0-0, or 5-5-0-5-0-4 Gmaj7#11: 5-5-5-7-0-0, or 5-5-5-7-5-5, or 5-5-0-0-4-4 Obviously, there's a lot going on besides the guitar, so for solo guitar it's optional how much of the other harmonies you try to include.

  4001. musictheory 2019-04-26 18:25:04 Jongtr
    Not really. The main thing you're missing is the bass. That's clearly I-V-vi-IV. The harmonies are a little more vague than that - sometimes the I chord seems to persist across the V bass. I.e., the piano moves around a fair bit., while the bass (the low string patch) is consistent. So that's your main tip in future: listen for the bass!

  4002. musictheory 2019-04-27 04:09:01 vornska
    >And those people most definitely don’t play a continuous pitch instrument. When I practice the upright bass, I need to have either a drone or a tuner on ALL. THE. TIME. People who play piano and fretted instruments have no idea how easy it is to float out of tune, and then want to cry because you just wasted 10 minutes of practice time because your position was off by a millimeter. This is... not how playing a string instrument works. You shouldn't be trying to develop muscle memory down to the millimeter on the neck. You need to be able to adjust pitches on the fly in response to the rest of your ensemble. Perfect pitch is not going to be more helpful with that than a trained ear.

  4003. musictheory 2019-04-27 04:12:20 jazzadelic
    It most definitely is how solitary practice of scales and patterns works on a string instrument works. That’s where the drone comes in, which you wouldn’t need with perfect pitch.

  4004. musictheory 2019-04-27 04:30:24 jazzadelic
    Do you have experience with this? I’ve always had good intonation on the bass, but because I played with other people more than I practiced. My intuition is to play in tune with others, and my ears/fingers usually fix it faster than I can notice. But...on a string instrument your tonal center can float sharp or flat over the course of a few minutes without noticing it when playing by yourself. It’s not like I’m floating into a new key, but 15/20 cents +/-. I’m sure most musicians wouldn’t notice it either without a drone/tuner/perfect pitch. But maybe my ears aren’t as good...

  4005. musictheory 2019-04-27 08:30:44 scavengercat
    Capoed at the 7th, try first chord A string 11th fret, D string 11th fret and G string 10th fret. 2nd chord D string 8th fret G string 10th fret and G open. Third chord A string 9th fret D string 9th fret and G string 8th fret.

  4006. musictheory 2019-04-27 13:24:41 pianistafj
    Sometimes, guitar players should leave off the bass notes. When you see D/F# and are playing with a bass, there is no reason to play D with the thumb-over F# in the bass. Same goes for C/E, mute that lowest string if not the lowest three. Take this a step further. If you want a D minor seventh chord, just play F major since your bass will cover the D; it’s the same thing as F/D. There are many ways to lighten the texture.

  4007. musictheory 2019-04-27 18:14:40 robowriter
    Scientific answer: I can't hear it clearly. My practice any adjacent tone lower than the D (5th fret) on the A string. Open E ideally with notes around the 12th fret. That varies for others.

  4008. musictheory 2019-04-27 19:42:55 breakingborderline
    Protip: when playing an open G chord, mute the A string instead of fingering the B, especially with and of gain. If you really want that major 3rd, you can pick up a B using an open 2nd string instead of fingering the 5th (D) on the third fret.

  4009. musictheory 2019-04-27 21:48:09 cowsaysmoo51
    I forget the exact term, but basically intervals will start to sound muddy and unclear at lower pitches. For fifths, this is apparent at the Bb below the low E on a guitar, so I never tune a 7 string or a baritone guitar lower than that. For fourths, this seems to happen at the lowest F on a guitar (a fifth above that low Bb). This happens for all intervals (even octaves). It's helpful to go to an 88 key piano and figure out which intervals start going muddy first (it's the same on basically any instrument). This is also likely the reason bassists only play single notes besides some occasional chord stuff higher up the neck (think Cliff Burton).

  4010. musictheory 2019-04-28 10:57:26 bosiwosi
    always gotta roast u six string pleebs

  4011. musictheory 2019-04-28 10:57:55 bosiwosi
    always gotta roast u six string pleebs

  4012. musictheory 2019-04-28 14:34:25 ObviousTune
    Because maths. Simple ratios are pleasing. 5ths are the next simplest after the octave... (A4 = 440Hz ... A5 = 880Hz (doubled)... and E5 = 660Hz 3.2) see: "harmonic series on a string". It's likely the root of harmony and math (imo) asking exactly that (6000 years ago): "what is different about 1/3rd of a pipe or string?"

  4013. musictheory 2019-04-29 16:41:00 Jongtr
    >I have the ability to play most tunes This suggests you already have some knowledge, but perhaps don't realise how it will help you The ability to improvise - or to compose - begins from messing around with tunes you already know. Either you're improvising on an existing tune, in which case that tune has all the raw material you need (you just have to be creative with it). Or you're composing - or jamming from scratch - which means you can steal bits from several tunes and string them together, see what happens. I..e, this "inability" is often just a question of attitude or self-belief. A lack of confidence or entitlement, or a belief that you somehow need some additional piece of knowledge you don't have yet. There is really no secret to improvisation - you just need a creative outlook, the willingness to experiment; and then you use whatever the tune in front of you provides. Naturally, there are various styles and approaches to improvisation - habits and conventions, in particular musical genres. But what they all share is the attitude that the given tune is just a starting point; you might play it through once or twice to begin with, but then you start messing around with it, doing it *your* way. The point is not the reproduction of the existing piece, the point is creation in the moment. It's a little like being given a topic to make a speech on. You have a piece of paper with the title and a short paragraph explaining the subject. You could just read out that paragraph, word for word. But the idea is that you say something about it in your own words. You might want to rephrase some of it, to bring out what you think the important points are. You might have an opinion on it. You might want to convince an audience of your view, one way or the other. Of course, that all depends on being able to understand the topic in the first place - and the more you know about it, the better your speech will be. E.g., if the piece of paper you're given is all written in French, you could probably read it out (attempting an accent or not) but have little or no idea what it was about. That would be like a musician reading a piece of notation, of a style of music he/she had not heard much of before. But the more pieces of music you've heard in that style (especially if you've played a few), the more it's "your language". You play the notation, and immediately you know what sort of thing it is. You recognise most elements of it. I.e., there are common ways of improvising in each genre of music - which you'll be familiar with if you're familiar with that genre. I.e., you know how it's *supposed* to sound, even if you're not sure technically how to get that sound. So - you *listen and copy*, as best you can. That's when you find out that they're really just messing around with the tune and chords of the piece. ;-) But the "style" is usually about rhythm or phrasing, or the amount of chromatic embellishment involved. And sometimes you spot "licks", common melodic motifs that recur. (Happens in blues all the time.) Sorry if I'm not offering any detailed technical help! The main point here is (a) the more tunes you know, the bigger the "vocabulary" you have to make that "speech"; and (b) you just have to take the plunge and start. Maybe it will be crap to begin with. But as Miles Davis said, "Do not fear mistakes. There are none." I.e, treat every "wrong note" as an interesting challenge, not as an embarrassment. In any case, at any one point in the music there are always more right notes than wrong ones; the wrong ones are just more "interesting" than the right ones. :-) Think in *phrases and in rhythm*; then add some notes. I.e., you only need a rough idea in your head about how the next phrase will sound (imagine something like a phrase in a tune you know, or even a verbal phrase); then just add some of the right notes and try it out. Not good? OK, repeat it, and it will - *I guarantee* \- sound better. Play it a third time and maybe change one note.

  4014. musictheory 2019-04-30 00:33:10 MelodyVeysel985402
    Hey, that's totally fine! I'm eager to see what you come up with for piano, I was working out a string arrangement myself:)

  4015. musictheory 2019-04-30 02:20:38 MonogamousNugget
    I play bass and guitar and something similar happens to me sometimes, I know it will sound weird but, because I've been playing for a long time and change the tuning all the time, I can kinda feel how tense the strings are and recognize sometimes the tuning of it just by feeling the strings as I play. Like for example once I was playing in a bar and we had like 30min before the show and I decided to warm up by playing my guitar, while not being able to hear what I'm playing, because there was loud music on. When I started playing I immediately thought "shit it's in drop D" because the lower string was less tense than the other. But sometimes I even recognize if all the strings are looser that standard and by how much, like I largely know if the guitar is in E standard, Eb standard or D standard, and notice if the lower string is dropped

  4016. musictheory 2019-04-30 13:13:53 2cats2hats
    Good and bad. When you're on stage and a guitarist is out you can sometimes determine what string and how far out. Had an electric door lock and I could tell the batteries were dying when the motor pitch dropped. Used to come home at midnight from work at an old job. I knew what speed I was at on the off ramp by the pitch vibration crossing onto the asphalt grooves.

  4017. musictheory 2019-04-30 19:00:01 markjohnstonmusic
    I'm very familiar with that phenomenon. Guitars have really low-tension strings compared with bowed string instruments, harps, and piano, so the difference in tension is much greater. It's perceivable on a fiddle too, if you play on gut.

  4018. musictheory 2019-05-01 00:45:06 Scatcycle
    The two main things that distinguish film music are subtlety and emotionally driven. The purpose of film music is not always to sound "good" but fit the scene. For example, music in horror films would probably not be very enjoyable to listen to alone (huge string clusters and screeches) but provide a very clear atmosphere for a film. They cannot be too overt with this though, as it often needs to remain second to the dialogue. You'll find that harmonic changes become more important than form and melody, as melodies require more focusing to follow, and composers do not want to take away from what's happening on film.

  4019. musictheory 2019-05-01 00:45:51 17bmw
    I would love to see these studies that support the notion musicians can hear things laypeople can't. Like I said earlier, training helps make the unconscious conscious, which I have seen in plenty of studies. Sure, Herbie Hancock is more aware of what he hears and is better able to conceptualize, talk about, and reproduce what he hears better than any of us. But I've never seen any version of the assertion "training actually grants someone the ability to hear more" suported. Also, the comparison to domains like physics and biology fall flat because most people don't spend their free time casually studying the anatomy of birds on a street corner, having carpentry viewing parties with their friends, or dancing to string theory lectures. Everyone capable of hearing, however, is indundated with music from womb to tomb. Further, I certainly agree that expertise endows a person with ability to **talk** about music with greater breadth and depth. But the value judgement of "more knowledgeable" is far removed from "more elevated." I believe classifying in any way the layperson's conversation on music as being "lesser quality" (versus being "less informed") does us a disservice incalculable ways. Lastly, my main assertion is thus: yes, training better allows musicians to take what they hear and do something with it (write, talk about, reproduce, scream at, etc.) but it doesn't actually bestow extra perceptual abilities. I wouldn't dream of saying that there aren't levels of understanding within music but hearing ability isn't one of them. What we are able to listen to is largely a question of anatomy and not learning. I'm sorry if this position wasn't clear but I hope that this clarified my thoughts. Thanks for continuing this discussion and I hope you have a wonderful day!

  4020. musictheory 2019-05-01 01:02:24 17bmw
    This is the main reason why I have such a hard time classifying anyone's experience or discussion of music as "lesser quality." These cultural associations and paradigms greatly influence our perceptions if we remain unaware of them. As an example, what was considered the "knowledgeable" or "elevated" opinion on jazz music in 1920 is nothing that should be seriously entertained. This is why a lot of comparisons for me, are inadequate. Art really isn't like science because our feelings about the subject in question matter. Sure both require arduous training to reach fluency to the point of creation but laypeople can interact with any artform in a way that they cant with any science. The ability to appreciate string theory or Einstein's theory of gravity require prior knowledge and explanation but the ability to appreciate Schoenberg's violin concerto just requires working ears.

  4021. musictheory 2019-05-01 01:45:01 DRL47
    You could have a string of secondary dominants with a diminished chord in it. The chord before it would "resolve" to it.

  4022. musictheory 2019-05-01 02:06:50 DRL47
    3 strings per note in the treble registers is correct. One string going out is the usual reason for a "sour" sounding note. Just another way a piano can be "out of tune".

  4023. musictheory 2019-05-01 03:05:13 Komprimus
    There is no b6 in Mixolydian. You're thinking of b7. You start using them freely when you don't have to think about how to play them. Think of modes as scales in their own right. Practice them on single strings and in boxes (pattern 3-notes-per-string is useful). While you practice them, be aware of what the note you're playing is called and what degree it is in the mode. For example, if you were in F# Phrygian and you're playing G, think G (duh) and b2 (or b9, if you will). But to be honest, I think it is more useful to first have a good grasp of seventh chords arpeggios before doing modes. Get the major scale down. Then work on arpeggios. A seventh chord arpeggio has four notes. You're only missing three note to complete a mode.

  4024. musictheory 2019-05-01 08:37:39 syyvius
    I think Csus4/D is okay to notate if you are sight reading guitar. The process would be C power chord > lift ring finger to make the 5 a 4, and place ring finger on A string D. It seems easier to sight read than Dm3m7 because starting at D my instincts would either flip the voicing of the third an octave higher, or scramble for the original voicing above.

  4025. musictheory 2019-05-01 21:59:43 alan-luo
    Yes, it really is a totally different conception of music than classical! The very philosophies that motivate the music are entirely different. The conception of what a performer means relative to the audience is different. The sense of what groove and rhythm means is totally different. As a counterpart to your opinion, I cannot get behind listening to some classical music. Some of it makes me want to fall asleep. I really enjoy symphonies, and I enjoy a good piano piece. But some Mozart string quartets I have listened to I simply cannot enjoy. And I hate the performance philosophies, and some of the attitudes in classical music make me want to, as you put it, puke. I really appreciate that you are being open-minded towards other types of music - but many classical musicians I know are extremely condescending towards non-classical musicians. It also bothers me a lot that classical music education is obsessed with emulating dead white guys, and not concerned with helping students develop their own voice. I can't get behind how people will spend years upon years learning how one is "supposed" to interpret a piece that was never even played that way originally - for instance, Bach improvised 90% of what he wrote. Why do we box ourselves in playing Bach a certain way, then? That being said, there is a gradually increasing group of classical musicians who seek to emulate the performance philosophies and improvisational practices of the past, and I really appreciate that. And also, I have a much greater appreciation for classical technique after I had a bout of RSI. Now the one thing I really lament is my lack of classical foundation for my piano technique.

  4026. musictheory 2019-05-01 22:45:32 mehliana
    I would definitely say its guitar. Since, there are like 4 iterations of every note at different points of the neck. Piano, your C is always this one key. On guitar, the same C note can be 1st fret on the B string, 5th fret on G string, 10th on D string, 15th, on A string and 20th on low E string. You gotta pay attention to where you are located as well as the notes. Always found reading on piano easier since there is only one key for each note. The bass cleft definitely adds some difficulty but plenty of classical guitar and jazz solo pieces have moving bass lines under melodies and chords, just like a piano. Always had an easy time in band reading sheet music playing clarinet or piano at home, but guitar for jazz band fucked my day up

  4027. musictheory 2019-05-01 23:19:37 17bmw
    Sure thing! A relatively recent example of nontraditional resolutions would be Miles Davis's "So What." At its core, it still uses tertian harmony but has its rules for progression, resolution, and motion. Creating self-contained systems like these is idomatic for modal jazz as a genre. It's worth checking out if you're interested in seeing how one could go about recontextualuzing otherwise sober tertian harmony. I became a fan of Paul Hindemith in high school when my teacher randomly plopped his "Flute Sonata" in front of me one lesson because I had asked for wackier sounding stuff. Hindemith's music is still thoroughly tonal but he uses so much quartal language that many of his resolutions are based on fourths instead of stacked thirds. Belá Bartók is one of my big musical crushes. He did SO MUCH for ethnomusicology as a field while his own compositions are often far-out, contrapuntal, and sublime. The clearest and most accessible examples of him altering traditional resolutions would be his pedagogical work, "Mikrokosmos" but you'll also find it in his string quartets (I have a soft spot for the fourth and sixth quartets). Igor Stravinksy's octatonic wackiness is well known and noted ("Rite of Spring" has some of the hippest sacrifical dances around). I'm partial to woodwinds so I particularly dig his "Firebird" ballet (quarduple winds makes me swoon) and his "Symphonies of Wind Instruments." The Second Viennese School was lowkey my first love and Anton Webern was the guy I voted in as prom king. Their 12-tone compositional method throws out every rule and starts each new piece from scratch, harmonically speaking. I still tear up listening to Webern's "Herr Jesus Mein." Even so, these three didn't always need a tone row to write non-tonal stuff; check out the songs from Webern's Opus No.3 to hear what I mean. A little more pitch-centric than Webern or Stravinsky, Claude Debussy still played with what an acceptable resolution is and how music could arrive at a resolution. His "Voiles" is dreamily whole tone and his "La Cathédral Engloutie" shows how parallel structures can force the ear to reinterpret otherwise familiar chords. A fan of Debussy, himself, Tōru Takemitsu crafted incredible Impressionist gems. His "Nostalghia" turns concepts of tonal motion on their head in a way that's absolutely divine. His "And I Knew 'Twas Wind" is also superb. Finally, I can't get over how much I love Elliott Carter. He, like Bartók, uses counterpoint to create layers and stratification; the harmonies that result are mystifying. I adore his string quartets (the third especially!); notice how each player has their own melodic system and resolution is almost entirely the result of rhythm rather than expected harmonic motions. This was a lot longer than I thought it would be but I hope it helps in getting you started with atypical resolutions and the various ways those are possible. Take care!

  4028. musictheory 2019-05-01 23:58:18 tjbassoon
    I have a couple of old textbooks that are like music appreciation texts or something. They have brief overviews of the major works of the symphonic and chamber music repertoire and the most important composers. One book is from something like 1930. It's interesting to see who people close to 100 years ago considered important that we don't know anything about now, and how little press some of those that were up and coming got. For instance, I know Schostakovich is mentioned once in this book, for a string quartet maybe? Maybe a piano concerto? Anyway, not one of the many symphonies that get played every year by major orchestras across the world. I don't have the text at home with me so I can't come up with more examples. Maybe tomorrow when I'm back at my office if I remember.

  4029. musictheory 2019-05-02 03:07:14 the_simple_things
    In you first example with pure frequency as the topic, frequency has nothing to do with distance, its cycles per time period. Distance only comes in with the amplitude of the signal (volume). If you're talking about frequencies in that sense then the real question is really is time discrete or continuous? Because if time is discrete then you can only have discrete frequencies because you can only measure a cycle in those discrete granules. If time is continuous then you have infinite measuring resolution for a cycle. i.e. 1 cycle per 0.2s, or 0.22s, 0.221s -> infinite decimals. The lower limit for frequency would probably 1 time of the universe whatever that is.... but it begs another question, what is the upper limit something can vibrate at? I.e. assuming continuous time then frequencies are continuous but how fast you can vibrate something may be limited or be discrete. For example, some quantum state changes, lets say flipping between 2 states you could cycle and it will have a frequency. Some say state changes are instantanious (infinite?) but others apparently have been measured at a billionth of a billionth of a second. If a quantum state change is a billion of a billion of a second (very high frequency) is there anything in this universe that can go a trillionth of a billionth of a second? So even if time is continuous, it maybe limits in the universe on how quick things can cycle. In your second example you're talking about a stringed instrument and using the length of string to change the frequency at which it vibrates. So minimal movements etc + plank lengths could potentially make your ability to make frequencies discrete / granular. Really though, things like planks length are somethig like a million billion billion times smaller than the width of an atom. If a string is made out of a length of atoms I strongly suspect you will hit discrete limits based of the number of / size of the atoms + bounds of the bonds rather than plank lengths. Thats not a distrete limit of frequencies, rather the ability to make them. Ultimatly though to argue granular you're in the standard realm of relativity and space-time where things like planks length are calculated from. This classic thoery does not take in quantum effects and in fact is where the classical theory breaks down. So I dont think there has been any proven minimum lengths, still many debatable unknowns and some truths assuming the limited understanding of space and time... Maybe once we figure out how the universe works we may be able to actually answer this question, but for all intents and purposes its continuous as the possible discrete differences are far beyond what a human could hear/percieve or even measure with the best / most accurate scientific equipment (did I mention plank lengths are ridiculously small?)

  4030. musictheory 2019-05-02 12:29:53 Icosahedralcello
    If it were advanced techniques in genres like metal or jazz fusion, ideally sweep picking, string skipping, hybrid picking, plus some alternate and economy-picked runs would be covered. If it were advanced techniques in classical guitar, ideally tremolo and many left hand exercises and techniques to play fast arpeggios running across the fretboard would be covered. What would be most ideal, is if the technique class also highlighted various songs in which the techniques are used, and maybe adopted some exercises from these songs (For example, the sweep picking in Perpetual Burn by Jason Becker, string skipping in many Paul Gilbert Songs, Everything in Guthrie Govan's songs, etc.) All the best, I hope the classes go well!

  4031. musictheory 2019-05-02 12:41:12 TheBeatlesSuckDong
    For me, the list would include: Harmonics, natural, tapped and pinched. Explaining the difference in how the string vibrates and how to find the nodal points should be mentioned as well as how to play them. Some arpegio shapes and general speed building for playing across the neck. Diminished seventh arpegios are my favorite right now, but learing a number of different shapes helps. Tremolo use, obviously only for eletric guitars that have them. Trems can be used for lots more than just vibrato and dive bombs, and using them in conjunction with harmonics or for more subtle shifts would be good to touch on. Sweep and economy picking, using the knowledge of arpegios for earlier; specifically how to use sweeps and economy picking for expressive playing sprinkled in with other techniques. The same up and back down the same scale shapes on all six strings over and over is boring. Hybrid and fingerstyle picking, maybe not from a strictly classical perspective, but more focoused on using double stops and more twangy cointry and blues licks. This makes lots of string-skipping licks easy to play.

  4032. musictheory 2019-05-03 02:34:57 Avast_WM
    But keep in mind that a guitar can do some cool things a piano can't. Playing two copies of the same note, for instance. 5th fret on the B string and open high E, creates a doubled sound with two Es with different timbres.

  4033. musictheory 2019-05-03 03:54:30 RichardPascoe
    A useful way to approach the major flat keys on the guitar is to note the open strings available in the key. So for Eb major you only have the open G and open D string available. It just helps to know that the other notes in the Eb flat major scale are all fretted. For the key of C major there are five open strings available. This sort exercise can be done without the guitar and helps with improvising.

  4034. musictheory 2019-05-03 05:00:07 Bad_Sex_Advice
    seven chords? Do you mean like 7, m7, Maj7 or are you insinuating there are seven chords in a key? Essentially a guitar is built in a way that makes it easier to do chord progressions. On a piano you'd have to remember that the 5th of C is G, but on a guitar you just know that the 5th of any note you are playing is one string over, and two frets up. This is why guitarists generally can't read music; they can simply memorize the patterns of scales, and apply that pattern anywhere on the neck. A major chord will always be the same shape. A minor chord will always be the same shape. The only thing that ever changes is where you place that chord on the guitar neck. If you ask someone to play Bm7 on a guitar they will be able to play it, but they likely will not be able to tell you what notes are in a Bm7 chord. (edit)

  4035. musictheory 2019-05-03 05:07:21 Blackops_21
    Absolutely. The guitar has a full range of chords. It can also reach subtle notes in between piano keys by bending the string. By directly playing the string (instead of a key/hammer like the piano) you are also able to get various natural and pinch harmonics. The guitar has a much larger octave range as well. One thing you can't play on guitar is a 7 note chord. Unless you own a 7 string, which quite a few metal guitarists do.

  4036. musictheory 2019-05-03 06:13:16 Exige30499
    In standard concert pitch, E is the most popular key in my experience. Most guitar players (sweeping generalisation here) are 'shape' based, as in their playing is based on the pattern created by a scale. E fits very nicely all over the neck and is one of the few keys you can play scales in an 'open position', playing the scale using both open strings and fretted notes. The ability to change tuning very easily is a bit of an unusual factor not common to other instruments. If I tune my guitar down a whole step, so the lowest note is now a D, that would become the most comfortable key to play in. But as I said before, a large portion if guitar players are pattern based, memorizing scale shapes, and then using all their old licks these in whatever new tuning they happen to be playing in. So while technically they are playing in a different key, they would still treat it as if they were playing in E. Basically in a standard tuning, where all the string are tuned to the "correct" intervals (from thickest to thinnest string: perfect 4th, p 4th, p 4th, major 3rd, p 4th) the most common key is whatever the note of the thickest string is. Other keys do get used, but this is the case in most blues based music. Jazz based dudes are a different story, as they tend to have more of an academic background and are more comfortable playing in other keys.

  4037. musictheory 2019-05-03 06:17:41 CoolKJazz
    For classical, I would definitely stay on piano, for edm/electronic music, guitar. I would keep in mind the many advantages piano has: being to play chords and a melody at the same time (or bass line and chords), being able to play low and high notes at the same time, being able to simply change the notes in a chord with out repositioning your hand (may happen sometimes, more chord voicings, having access to 10 fingers instead of 5, 88 strings instead of 6, not having to tune as often, e.t.c. Piano is generally more diverse. That being said, guitar has advantages like: string bending, vibrato, portability, distortion, changing tone, pedals, and generally looking cooler than piano.

  4038. musictheory 2019-05-03 06:20:34 Geromusic
    Assuming the guitar is in standard tuning: G(Em) and C(Am) are both guitar friendly. Lots of rock and metal is in Em, E (major, less common), or some other mode starting on E because it's the lowest open string and is often used as a pedal tone. A lot of modern metal bands tune down a whole step or more, and most of their songs are in whatever key the lowest string is tuned to.

  4039. musictheory 2019-05-03 06:23:39 EverquestComposer
    Yes very much. I play both piano and guitar professionally, and I started on guitar. I learned chord theory young (age 12) and studied extended harmonies (jazz) also at that age. But I discovered classical music including inversions and other ways of analyzing harmonies. I now have 4 DIFFERENT ways of analyzing. &#x200B; I also have recently worked on many arrangements for an acoustic guitar using a drop D tuning, and a more piano style analysis, where I am careful about voicings, voice leadings and how the notes of any chord should be laid out. I've found AMAZING new voicings with open strings and progressions that lend themselves to the natural keys of a drop D tuning - D A G C because of open notes (also relative minor keys to these) If you don't use open string voicings then flat keys can present a challenge on guitar, but it's easier on a guitar with a nice light action. You CAN work out good arrangements in flat keys, and I like to finger pick and flat pick together using a thumb pick or my index finger nail as a pick. &#x200B; The key to doing this is understand the NOTES in the chords you play, and the various places to find them. I understand a lot about music theory and can listen to a tune and play it immediately on piano. I can roughly play it on guitar too, but working out an arrangement with Bass, chord and melody and counterpoint takes a little time. &#x200B; I'm working on a youtube channel to present how to really know music theory and make it useful on all instruments, with a little knowledge of piano. Look for it.

  4040. musictheory 2019-05-03 06:40:26 joeribraams
    Try playing the lowest string with your thumb, not just a substitute for barre chords but it opens up a whole new world of embellishments too.

  4041. musictheory 2019-05-03 06:56:57 munificent
    Yes. Mechanically speaking, a guitar is a *brilliant* piece of engineering. It: * Requires only six strings, which are easily tuned independently. * Can be easily carried around. * Sounds wonderful and is loud enough to project to a room even when played without amplification. * Has a very wide timbral range — you can strum or pluck at different places on the string, hammer, use different kinds of picks, finger-pick, etc. * Gives you excellent control over rhythm and dynamics. * And is flexible enough to let you play chords of up to six notes, with a very wide variety of voicings, across all keys and scales. * Is easy for a novice to get skilled enough to play something that sounds nice. Not too bad for an empty box, some strings, and a board.

  4042. musictheory 2019-05-03 07:28:09 Avast_WM
    Right, but what I meant was that you can't have, for example, one string ring out while another plays the same note as part of a phrase or chord. There is no doubling up on piano notes - one key and only one key plays a given note, and to play the same note again, you lose the tail of the previous strike.

  4043. musictheory 2019-05-03 09:22:04 xiipaoc
    Short answer: yes. Long answer: no. Shit, the long answer was shorter than the short answer. Let's change it to... not really. There, now it's longer. So, the guitar can play a wide variety of chords, but it can't play all of them because there are only six strings and you only have four fingers to play them with (unless you do some really weird thumb stuff or are a polydactyl or something). If the chord is four notes and you can get a reasonable shape for it, you can move it all over the fretboard. In particular, you can do a *six*-string major or minor triad, or even a dominant 7th, minor 7th, or major 7th, and move it all over the guitar, though it requires a barre and depending on your guitar you may have some trouble sounding good at, say, the 11th fret. This is with your basic E shape. With your basic A shape, you can do the same but with 5-string chords, again, all the way down the fretboard. However, is that the sound you want? There are many workable voicings for most simple chords, some of which are nicer than others. One useful voicing is just the top three strings in open position, of half-barre them all together, to create a minor chord, easily movable up and down the fretboard. As for the diminished triad (or half-diminished 7th, or even fully-diminished 7th), there are simple four-string (and four-finger) voicings that you can also move up and down the fretboard. This is the yes part of the answer. The not really part of the answer is that... plenty of voicings are *not* workable. The strings are a fourth apart (except for the G and B strings, of course), which means cluster chords are really hard to play and may not be possible at all. Even your simple 1-3-5 voicing may just be too awkward. It's actually possible to do a 1-3-5-1 or 1-b3-5-1 using the four bottom strings, and you can move that around the fretboard, but it's a stretch and it's annoying to play. On the other hand, 1-b3-b5 is hard. If you want to play a Bdim triad, your best bet is actually x2343x, which you can of course move around the fretboard easily, and this is 1-b5-1-b3. Why not take advantage of the open strings? You could do x20401, but that doesn't sound as rich, and if you need to move it up the fretboard, you need to barre and then fret four frets away. So simple voicings on the piano that have good voice leading are sometimes a pain in the ass or even just impossible on guitar. So, can the guitar play all 24 keys (you forgot minor) and their... 7... chords? Yes. But like the piano can? Not really.

  4044. musictheory 2019-05-03 10:03:24 JDude13
    There are two main voicings. The scale degrees of one of these voicings are: 1-3-5-1-3-1 (like the open G Major chord) but this can’t be made into a “barre chord”. That is it involves open strings that can’t be easily played by using a single finger to press down all the strings to simulate an open chord in a different register. This is because the non-open strings in a G chord are so far apart. So while you can play a G Major in this voicing you cannot play a G# Major. Or a G minor for that matter. There are only three chords you can play in this voicing by starting on different strings: G, C (1-3-5-1-3), and F (1-3-5-1). Though F is unique in that it has no open strings so it can be played anywhere on the fretboard. And also since the F chord only has one 3rd and that third isn’t on an open string it can easily be converted into a minor chord. The other main voicing is 1-5-1-3-5-1 (like an open E Major chord). The three variants that can be made based on starting the chord on different strings are E, A (1-5-1-3-5), and D (1-5-1-3). This chord shape has the advantage of having only one third that is non-open meaning they can be made into minor chords with ease. And all their non-open strings are clustered together meaning that they CAN be used to make barre chords so you can use these chord shapes anywhere on the fretboard to play any major or minor chord you please. In fact, the F Major chord in the first voicing is just an E Major chord played by barring the first fret and ignoring the top two strings hence why F’s scale degrees appear at the end of E’s scale degrees 1-5-(1-3-5-1)

  4045. musictheory 2019-05-03 11:10:42 EnnardOfInside
    If I could make an 88 string guitar, grew giant hands, grew 78 more fingers, than, yeah, maybe.

  4046. musictheory 2019-05-03 12:23:42 Avast_WM
    Not to mention the fact that it takes all of 10 seconds to radically change the tuning to whatever you want. Grab an 8 string guitar, tune it however you like, profit. Both instruments have their benefits and drawbacks, as always, but some things are just flat out impossible on one or the other. A guitar can't have more than 6 (or however many strings you have) notes sustain at once, a piano can't duplicate the same note at the same time.

  4047. musictheory 2019-05-03 12:33:05 bing6o
    That's what I do! Obviously as a newbie it's a dreadful thought, but now it's nothing. Took some self-discipline, but I locked away my capo until I gained the strength/tecnqiue to play barre chords for the length of an entire practice session, and eventually a whole gig. Now it's nothing. Same thing I did for learning fingerstyle/fingerpicking. Dropped a pick until I was happy with my ability. EDIT: Not insulting capo users! Totally agree with the comments on how open strings sound when in a different key. I actually did this a lot, because I really like the flair of playing what's normally a barre, but with the 1st and 2nd string open. I manage to do it without a capo now, since I usually have an acoustic in E and another in D standard to switch it up. Been favoring playing in D standard a lot lately, with some 12s and my warmer-sounding guitar.

  4048. musictheory 2019-05-03 12:59:51 DoDevilsEvenTriangle
    I dated a French Horn player in college. She could push the instrument well outside its norms. Last time we crossed paths she had taken up electric bass and was playing a six string fretless, and that didn't surprise me one bit. She would never be happy with the limitations represented by "frets" or "valves" for that matter.

  4049. musictheory 2019-05-03 14:48:51 Jongtr
    1. Slow tempo 2. Big string arrangement. 3. That's about it. Despite the generally optimistic theme (the lonely road always "leads to your door"), there are a couple of verses about tears and crying and being alone, which helps, naturally.

  4050. musictheory 2019-05-03 21:50:10 Jongtr
    That's true. There's some very clever (intuitive) links between the lyric, the melody and the harmonic movement. I like the way the "road" of the melody leads to the "door" of the cadence. That has little to do with the "sad" emotional association though, IMO. I.e., the thematic link between those things makes the song very *successful* as a composition - it's all of a piece. The whole thing (for me) conveys a sense of warm reassurance: *everything will be OK.* One might be somewhat bruised and battered by experience, but *now it's fine; we're home!* That's why I think Phil Spector's string arrangement is overdoing it - it's superfluous. We don't need the orchestra to lay on the syrup - the song itself does the job well quite enough. It would be much more effective as a solo performance, Paul and the piano.

  4051. musictheory 2019-05-03 22:10:04 ajarndaniel
    Yeah I'd recommend working on scales starting from each tone degree too. Major starting on the root, starting on the 2nd, the 3rd, etc. Three notes per string.

  4052. musictheory 2019-05-03 23:15:50 rTheBeardedGuitarist
    Yes but there is no 3rd in the chord (I'm not playing the high E string) and there is the 2nd (D). So it's a maj7 sus2 chord in third inversion.

  4053. musictheory 2019-05-03 23:19:36 rTheBeardedGuitarist
    The second note from lowest to highest is an open D string.

  4054. musictheory 2019-05-04 01:05:14 TrebleStrings
    I can't speak for the others, but cello is considered the "tenor" voice of the string section. Viola is "alto" and violin is "soprano." Cello uses treble clef, too. Tenor kind of makes sense because it fits most higher parts that are above bass clef but not thumb position.

  4055. musictheory 2019-05-04 01:06:07 65TwinReverbRI
    >Why do they use this clef specifically? Because it was the next one in line. Don't forget that while **today** instrumentalists may be pushing the upper extremes of those instruments to the extreme, the way music-making was in the 1700s was both not like that, and nor were the instruments developed enough to play that high. They really just needed enough (initially) to get to maybe G above the Bass staff, not the high C bassoon part that begins The Rite of Spring. But the "next in line" also makes sense - Male vocalists might be called on to sing in Bass, Baritone, or Tenor clefs, but not really Alto or Treble (at least, not since all-male early music choral music) so the practice would have generally been to move to the "next available common clef" rather than "skipping one". Finally, here's something we don't often think about: Cello, Bassoon, and Trombone (hey, it's called the *Tenor* Trombone!) actually play the TENOR role in music quite frequently. Don't forget the French name for Viola - "Alto" (and of course its clef). That these instruments could provide Bass was a nice by product, but they often played the role of a tenor instrument and it wasn't necessarily about a few ledger lines here or there, but really playing in that range for extended periods of time or just covering that range while other instruments were higher. It may have actually evolved with Sackbuts - precursors to the Trombone, which had Soprano, Alto, Tenor, and Bass versions - and Trombone was used to accompany Vocal music, so had similar ranges to cover those parts (remember the whole story about Beethoven 5 was the first symphony to use trombones, but they were already used frequently in Opera orchestras and Sacred settings - we just always forget that). The Cello may have partly evolved this scheme and position from the Viols that preceded it - the "Alto" Viol has a low string same as a Viola (makes sense, right), but there wasn't really one an Octave down like Cello is, but Cello would be the "next range down" that could cover what the Tenor Viol did. It should also be noted that "Tenor" is a historically ancient term, meaning "held" and was what a chant melody in long note values was called - the "holding part" essentially - then something was added "higher" (Altitude...Alto) and then "above" (Sopra...Soprano) - or they had "Duplum" and "Triplum" - Triplum is where we get "Treble" (like British English speakers sometimes say Double, Treble, and we have Treble Hooks for fishing lures in American English - it means "Triple" really, not specifically "high" as we now think of it). So these instruments would have been in the right range to double vocalists taking that part and thus inherited the role - and the clef - of the tenor part. HTH

  4056. musictheory 2019-05-04 03:13:34 beaumega1
    Do you really want such a resource? A chart like this would be watered down by a myriad of impractical possibilities. Example: One impractical way to generate a C major chord on a standard-tuning 6-string guitar would be: low E string at 12th fret (E) A string at 3rd fret (C) D string at 5th fret (G) G string at 9th fret (E) B string at 13th fret (C) E string at 8th fret (C)

  4057. musictheory 2019-05-04 03:34:21 nthexum
    I'm not sure how this fits into the historical development, but it may be worth noting that tenor clef is a fifth above bass clef. Since the cello is tuned in fifths, you can use the same fingerings, shifted over by one string. Perhaps this is the origin, and the other instruments took it up by association.

  4058. musictheory 2019-05-04 03:49:02 TrebleStrings
    There's not another string to shift over to. The bass to tenor clef change usually occurs somewhere in the neighborhood of Middle C, and Middle C on the cello is within the range of the highest string. If you're changing clefs, you're also changing positions, so fingering is going to change. Now, if the jump is a fifth and you were already in fourth or fifth position on the D string, then fingering might be the same when you get to the A string, but maybe not.

  4059. musictheory 2019-05-04 04:48:59 The_Angel_Of_Def
    You already got a lot of great ideas floating around in this thread, which is great for me because a lot of my suggestions don't really work without being closed combined with the stuff already mentioned. A few of my favorites aren't distinctly sad, but can be used to enhance sadness if it's already present: - 5/4 can make a riff sound kind of lethargic/mopey and almost give the song a feel like it's dragging. It's literally taking one more beat than most songs would to reach the one, so combined with a strong sense of tension and release, you can make your audience feel pretty uneasy as their waiting for the downbeat. - Arpeggiating the chord progression and letting all your notes ring out and bleed into each other can feel pretty dense and unrelenting in bass, especially when coupled with a drone/pedal tone. Not really sad on it's own, but in a minor key it can take sadness straight into depression if used effectively. - Harmonics can be particularly haunting to the ear, and can really invoke a sense of dead and melancholy. I especially like combining them with the above suggestion by using a fretted drone and arpeggiating a chord in harmonics. This can feel particularly tense and uneasy because harmonics are untempered so their harmonies will naturally sound somewhat off. - Unresolved tension such as in a deceptive cadence or unexpected or unnaturally resolved tension such as in a backdoor progression can leave the listener feeling ill at ease. The tension is gone, but there also wasn't a satisfying resolution. This mild discomfort works well with sadder songs and eerie melodies. -The 12th feet is the middle point between your nut and your bridge, so plucking your strings there let's the whole string flop a bit and can help take the edge off faster riffs. This is used extensively in reggae to sound more "laid back", but you can also apply it to other places you want to play faster without it feeling too "upbeat" like maybe a fill during a sadder sounding baseline.

  4060. musictheory 2019-05-04 05:10:30 nthexum
    Yeah, I mostly meant in the higher positions. Playing the notated pitches in tenor clef on the A string uses the same fingerings as playing them in bass clef on the D string, barring alterations for the key signature. >If you're changing clefs, you're probably also changing positions, so fingering is going to change. Now, if the jump from bass to tenor is a fifth and you were already in fourth or fifth position on the D string, then fingering might be the same when you get to the A string, but maybe not. Not sure what you mean by this. The notation doesn't determine when you shift; the player decides that. It's just a visual shortcut to make reading and hand-writing the higher notes easier.

  4061. musictheory 2019-05-04 11:49:22 oskar669
    Gotta be honest: Not sure who this is supposed to help. For a beginner guitarist it is most important to know all the notes on the E and A string, and then you can gradually work your way up from there. The best exercise to learn all the notes is playing your scales/arpeggios/pentatonics in circle of 4ths and over two or more positions. There's no point in being able to 'find' a note when you don't have the muscle memory to access it when you need it.

  4062. musictheory 2019-05-04 14:24:19 markjohnstonmusic
    Actually C major is a nuisance. It's the hardest key to play in on keyboard and mallet instruments because the lack of vertical relief between black and white notes makes it easier to hit wrong notes and because when you're spread out to your maximum on a keyboard you can't avoid the neighbouring keys. (I.e. playing a tenth D-sharp to F-sharp is easier than E-G.) String instruments sound better in D major, brass in the key they're pitched in.

  4063. musictheory 2019-05-04 20:59:22 driftingfornow
    Hahahahahahaha. I know exactly what you are talking about. Hope you are having a good time if you’re still up. If you’re sober enough to read this try: Holding a C chord while picking a pattern of thumb (thumb on the C/ 5th string) then plucking a descending melody on the root while holding the rest of the C chord from this pattern. It goes, CCCBCCAAGGGF#EEEE. Literally hold the c chord, pluck a waltz, and change the root. Super meditative. Also these two sets of chords are great. Chord #1) 325400 slide up to chord #2 87(10)800 Chord #3) 0879(10)0 slide down to chord #4) 032450 I like to play strummed (chord 1) down down down sliiiiiide (to chord two) down down down slide back down to chord one. Down down down sloiiiide back up to chord two and let it ring, then move to chord three and stun down down down, slide to chord four and strike once.

  4064. musictheory 2019-05-05 00:22:01 oskar669
    No, it's like saying: when you play a chord on piano, you learn the shape of the chord in relation to the root note, rather than being aware of every single note individually. Or it's like saying, when you read, you're supposed to read words as entities rather than every individual letter in the word. Beginner guitarists exclusively play chords with the root in the bass, and the root is either on the E or A string. If you're bored you can play "find the note" on every string, but it's not efficient practice. If you practice your licks and scales in circle of 4ths you'll know all the notes on your instrument within weeks, and you'll know them in a way that is accessible. When you play music you don't have time to think logically about where a note is, you need to *know* where it is.

  4065. musictheory 2019-05-05 00:29:25 markjohnstonmusic
    Every day. Moreover I'm a string player. Didn't I say that already? Basically we're arguing over string players' behaviour, so you can cite references till the cows come home, but you're still basically trying to tell me what my and my colleagues' practices and behaviours are. > top Orchestrator in Hollywood So he doesn't work with professional orchestras. He works with computer-generated sounds and the occasional pick-up group of freelancers. Being the top x in y is also irrelevant if y isn't where professional x's are to be found. Hollywood is no more a clearinghouse for professional musicians than it is one for professional plumbers.

  4066. musictheory 2019-05-05 08:43:40 TwoFiveOnes
    Ah I see thanks! So, why not include the 9th 4 frets up from the root fret on the G string? Those voicings are super nice

  4067. musictheory 2019-05-05 08:51:59 arveeay
    Good question. I assume you're referring to the A-string root shapes. The short answer is the difficulty in using that 9th position, while also having the root on the A-string, and ideally having a 3rd *and* a 7th on the other available strings. What voicings do you like with the 9th there? What do you omit (if anything) to make then work?

  4068. musictheory 2019-05-05 14:27:37 Goblinwithaknife
    Depends on what the music is written for, orchestration wise. For example, a wind band would be using different ranges than a string quartet, and the quality of the instruments' tamber can vary in their individual ranges

  4069. musictheory 2019-05-06 12:07:55 65TwinReverbRI
    Good question. I would say, for strings, even though you don't have to write for the lowest note on the instrument, that should still somewhat affect choices - C, and G major for example. F Major has the low C available for Cello and so on. For winds, it may be just a preference for flat keys in general (though certainly, one would pick a Clarinet in the key of the piece - so not all Bb instruments, but those things could dictate keys to some degree). There are of course Piano Sonatas in Em, which I'd consider "Chamber Music" as well, but I know you're probably thinking of duets and more. A good question would also be, do pieces in G Major or A Minor have other movements in Em? It may be an unpopular first movement choice, but may appear elsewhere. Haydn's Key choices for String Quartets are mostly Major for first movements anyway. Here's all of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_string_quartets_by_Joseph_Haydn#List_by_keys The whole "brooding" element as the Romantic Period began and progressed shows more pieces in minor overall, and obviously more and more remote keys. Maybe watch the videos from the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment about instruments in Haydn's et al time - as they are much more limited than we tend to think of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3NCGSvKHCQ

  4070. musictheory 2019-05-06 12:29:07 thebeengrim
    Yes and no. Mostly no, IMO. But it’s a difficult question that reasonable people could disagree about. First, a few obvious facts. You can earn a Ph.D. in music theory. Music theory professors and PhD students can publish research articles in academic journals, just like a biologist or chemist or physicist or engineer. At the highest academic levels, music theorists attain the same degrees, communicate with the same methods as any scientist. So in one sense, the easy answer is yes. But is music theory science? I’d argue that it isn’t, because ultimately I think music theory is the study of aesthetics. Does something sound good, and if it does, how can we reproduce those good sounds in a new context. Feelings are a crucial component of music theory. Why do major keys sound happy and minor keys sound sad? Why do suspended chords have tension? There are areas of music theory that are science adjacent. There are aspects of music theory that are very mathematical, with respect to constructing harmonic intervals and polyrhythms. There are aspects of music theory that intersect with psychology and biology pertaining to what we can physically hear and distinguish. Lowest and highest notes. Fastest tempos. Etc. There are the fields of acoustics and audio engineering, dealing with how sounds propagates through a physical space or how it can be captured and reproduced through electronic equipment. But ultimately I think music theory is about aesthetics. Now, you could argue that the definition of science is loose in itself. That philosophical attempts to define science have largely failed, from Karl Popper’s _Conjectures and Refutations_ to Kuhn’s _Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ to Feyerabend’s scientific anarchism. For example, the field of string theory is thought to fail Popper’s criteria for refutability, but is still considered science. There’s also an ongoing “crisis” of reproducibility in many fields from psychology to high throughout biology and beyond concerning statistical and machine learning methods that seem to yield garbage results which are still published as “science”. So maybe there are no reasonable criteria to exclude music theory from the sciences. I’d argue that music theory SHOULDN’T be a science, and you shouldn’t want it to be. That the most useful communications of music theory aren’t PhDs and academic publications, but songs. Let art be art. Study it. Understand it. Explore it. But ultimately it’s value will always be subjective.

  4071. musictheory 2019-05-06 13:52:50 cellomold
    Exactly what \^ said. I'll just add that the 5th fret on the E string is an A regardless of what scale you're using. The only way that changes is if you are using a different tuning that effects that string.

  4072. musictheory 2019-05-06 23:56:16 TrebleStrings
    The player is going to favor what is most efficient, and what is most efficient is based on training, which makes it somewhat predictable. But there are also tone considerations, so sometimes the position actually is chosen by the composer or by the section leader or conductor. And key matters. If I'm in fourth position in A major on the D string and the clef changes to tenor, the finger pattern on the A string won't be equivalent without an accidental D sharp. There are too many exceptions for a cellist playing at the level at which they would favor a higher position on D over a lower position on A to make a generalization that tenor clef means an equivalent finger pattern on the next string.

  4073. musictheory 2019-05-07 00:34:50 markjohnstonmusic
    \> Keytarists For real? The keytar is pretty obviously a very different instrument than, say, the piano (not to mention the pipe organ). \> String Players moving And I'll rope this in, since what I'm going to say is relevant to both points. My two instruments are the violin and the piano. Both instruments have a robust, well-developed tradition of virtuosity that demands everything a human being can throw at it, physically, mentally, and emotionally. You could say, look, musical singers dance at the same time; why can't violinists do that?, but you'd be missing the point that if there's any spare capacity in a violinist's noggin, the next step in the development of violinistic virtuosity is going to use up that capacity. That's what makes these disciplines interesting. You can complain that Usain Bolt can't juggle while he runs a 9.55 100m. I can't watch the Disney clip, I'm afraid. &#x200B; \> Why not build new instruments? You're more than welcome to. Lots of people do and always have. I personally am of the opinion that the sonic potential of the computer hasn't even started to be really explored. Any new creations, however, are going to grow (if they do) in concert with the violin and the piano and the bassoon, not replace them. Violinists and pianists and bassoonists are passionate about continuing to pursue and develop the tradition of which I spoke above, and clearly audiences continue to be passionate about hearing that development. &#x200B; \> Sinew, Skin, Wood. Trial and Error. OK there's a bit missing from that. Tablas are pretty interesting drums for a few reasons. But that's neither here nor there. &#x200B; I think you don't have a clear idea of sung Italian. Mozart is part of the so-called bel canto tradition, in which emphasis was placed on beauty and projection of tone during arias and ensemble numbers, and where the plot is acted in recitative, which is a kind of sung dialogue. In Verdi and later composers, this distinction no longer exists, and there can be absolutely masses of unpleasantly unsingable text (for an example [https://youtu.be/kFDYgvZWKtg?t=6600](https://youtu.be/kFDYgvZWKtg?t=6600)). In addition, the Italian is only one of several operatic traditions, and a modern opera singer has to also be capable in German, French, Russian, and Czech, not to mention English ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf8Z\_ciROM4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf8Z_ciROM4) I mentioned above). &#x200B; I'm afraid I don't understand your first paragraph. Of course learning more is a good thing, but (and this is basically what I said at the beginning of this) criticising someone for not doing something they didn't set out to do is, I think, missing the point of what they are trying to do. &#x200B; This will probably sound condescending, but the experience of sight-reading you describe is light-years behind what I'm talking about. This: [http://ks.imslp.net/files/imglnks/usimg/6/62/IMSLP422501-PMLP03532-strausssalomeboosey%26hawkesvocalscore.pdf](http://ks.imslp.net/files/imglnks/usimg/6/62/IMSLP422501-PMLP03532-strausssalomeboosey%26hawkesvocalscore.pdf) is the kind of thing I regularly find myself sight-reading in my job, and it has to be in the right tempo and stable and accurate enough that a singer can sing to it, and while I play I'm singing any parts not covered by the singers present and whenever the singer screws up (which means I have to have an eye on their parts as well). Doing it well is as pleasurable as doing anything well, though because what you're attempting is essentially impossible, it's tempered (and indeed far outmatched) by the awe and respect for the music you're playing.

  4074. musictheory 2019-05-07 01:59:34 nthexum
    Yes, the player makes that decision based on their individual training, their individual body and instrument, and most importantly what is appropriate for the music. Sometimes that decision is unilaterally made by a section leader or conductor, but that's still a decision made by the performers. Composers occasionally specify a string, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Fingerings may not be exactly identical because of the key signature. But because the strings are tuned in fifths, these differences are minimized, especially in early orchestral music which is usually limited to a few closely related keys which are idiomatic for the string section. It may not be a perfect 1:1 correlation, but that's not really the point. I probably could have explained better in my original comment. It's not so much about the fingerings themselves as it is about the locations on the fingerboard. Each notated pitch refers to several positions. Top space in bass clef, G, is a 4th above the D string, an octave above the G string (1st harmonic), and an octave+5th above the C string (2nd harmonic). Top space in tenor clef, D, is a 4th above the A string, an octave above the D string (1st harmonic), and an ocatve+5th above the G string (2nd harmonic). I don't care which finger you use or which string you play it on, the point is the two sets are identical, but shifted by one string. This may change a little with your key signature, but will be true enough of the time to provide quick reference points for changing clefs. You still have to learn to play in the clef, but its close relationship may make that easier to do. This may be a contributing factor to why these instruments use tenor clef instead of alto or going straight to treble, even though these other clefs may sometimes be more appropriate for the ranges notated in tenor.

  4075. musictheory 2019-05-07 12:56:48 divenorth
    The main reason a C# and Db are performed differently is because when string plays and vocalist tune chords by ear they tune them according to the overtone series. For example a true major 3rd is sharper than an equal tempered major 3rd. Roots ideally will be tuned in equal tempered while 3rds and 5ths will be tuned according to the overtone series. If anyone is interested I can show the math.

  4076. musictheory 2019-05-07 18:58:32 bminor68
    Anyone can play big chords. A quartet (of any kind) is four (mainly) monophonic instruments that have quite specific playable ranges. To compose something that utilises them at their best managing to create melody, harmony, baselines, and maintain dynamics and listener interest is a real challenge. When you listen to classic string quartets by the masters you often can't believe its just four instruments, because it sounds so much bigger and busy and impressive. I LOVE composing for quartets. It's a bit like stripping back any help and safety nets and stretching your raw compositional and arrangement skills. You learn LOADS about harmony and counterpoint. Think of it as a master chef making a meal with really limited ingredients or a master artist only having a paper and pencil to use. it's the same reason that drives big Hollywood movie stars occasionally back to a crappy small theatre to be in a play. Not for the faint hearted but as a musician it's invigorating.

  4077. musictheory 2019-05-07 19:00:36 65TwinReverbRI
    >Is a ‘string quartet’ a ‘thing’ beyond just having four string instruments play in one piece, Yes, and that's the issue. Now, people are people, and there's always going to be those people out there who go "it's art you can do what you want" and "stop gatekeeping" and so on, but it's kind of like writing a movie screenplay, complete with scene direction and so on. Sure, you can take your iPhone out and call up the video app and press record and say you "made a movie". But you didn't make Avengers: Endgame. That's a whole different level. And a String Quartet - as we understand and typically refer to the genre - is a major Hollywood Release, not a "student film" or even a "home movie". Let's put it this way: Mozart is often regarded as one of the most amazing composers ever, who mastered every single form in the Classical Era, and who was a child prodigy - someone who began composing at an astonishingly early age and composing well at that age. There are two things that everyone on the planet wants to do when they "start composing". The first is to compose a String Quartet (usually that, or "my first Symphony"). The second is to do so without the aid of a teacher (or really, any musical training whatsoever). As great as Mozart was - as naturally gifted as he was - what do you think his first piece was? Do you think he worked without a teacher? So what makes everyone else think they can do it? Well, because they are so uninformed about music that they just have no clue what they're doing. _____ Back to the previous idea - "the" String Quartet is not just a piece for four string instruments in the way we take it. It is a FORM and a TYPE of piece that has some fairly well-defined elements to it. For example, the "classic" String Quartet is for 2 Violins, Viola, and Cello, is typically in 4 movements, with the 2nd movement being an Adagio and the 3rd movement a Minuet and Trio, and the first movement is generally in Sonata Form. In the hands of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, The String Quartet really becomes the "ultimate show of a composer's ability" aside from the solo Keyboard Sonata. Granted, Haydn's early String Quartets are little more than Baroque Suites for that instrument combination. But we usually take the word to mean the mature Haydn - through Beethoven form. Now, can you write for Violin, Violin, Cello, and Bass, (people skip Viola because they can't read Alto clef...so what does that tell you) and call it a "String Quartet" and write some simple little 4 chord loop progression a la EDM styled pop music and call it a "String Quartet" if you want to. But really, it's where those "in the know" see the most naivete coming through. One may not care about that. But it exists.

  4078. musictheory 2019-05-07 19:16:43 GoldmanT
    Great response, thank you. So the 20th century string quartets like Bartok, Berg, Schoenberg etc aren’t really in the manner/form of the earlier names you mentioned?

  4079. musictheory 2019-05-07 19:38:13 expiredvegetable
    Good answer as always, I have some questions if I may: Is there a large difference between the ideas found in baroque fugue and that of a string quartet? Don't both develop themes and such by way of counterpoint and imitation? Also can a fugue be a string quartet?

  4080. musictheory 2019-05-07 19:47:18 BlunderIsMyDad
    A fugue can be written for string quartet, but you wouldn't write a lone fugue and call it a string quartet, you'd call it a fugue for string quartet. Calling a piece "string quartet" doesnt just mean instrumentation, it implies a larger scale work typically with multiple movements.

  4081. musictheory 2019-05-07 20:22:39 whatagainst
    Composing for orchestra is 'difficult'. There's nothing that makes string quartets more difficult, than say wind quintets, in fact I'd say it's a lot easier to write for strings for most people.

  4082. musictheory 2019-05-07 20:29:11 south87
    Its not true. Its not a form. A Quartet may or not have the movements characteristic to a Sonata: An Allegro. A contrasting piece in a ternary time signature, an Adagio that can be a Rondo, or a Theme and Variations, or a simple ternary composition, the final movement is another Allegro movement that rounds up the whole quartet. The movement that remains constant through the 20th century is the Allegro part, which is a Sonata form. Schoenbergs 4 quartets are written in the classical Mozart/Beethoven style. Like the one I described. Berg's both works for quartet have an Allegro for the first movement but then change alltogether. Bartok follows the style of the late Beethoven quartets. They are quite different from the previous. The difficulty of composing any genre is that you have to plan a piece that is to take advantage of every resource that format gives you. Because the string quartet has so many effects and techniques at it's disposal, the string quartet becomes something you have to work learn to take advantage. The percussive effects, the effects with the bow, the ability to play fast passage work, the ability to simulate wind instruments, etc.

  4083. musictheory 2019-05-07 20:30:31 whatagainst
    This is nonsense. A string quartet an ensemble. That's it. It comes with historical baggage, but almost every other ensemble or form comes with historical baggage. Being aware of what came what people wrote for the specific ensemble you chose is way more important than worshipping the string quartet as some sort of godly ensemble. The first thing you need to do to write a good string quartet is to write a shit string quartet. Then write another one, slightly less shit.

  4084. musictheory 2019-05-07 20:32:08 ILikeasianpeople
    Are there any good texts that talk about string quartet writing? I’ve searched for one but I can only find PDFs that contain an anthology of quartet textures from various composers to ‘steal’ for your own use.

  4085. musictheory 2019-05-07 20:32:52 south87
    The baroque fugue is the culmination of the polyphonic imitative genres of the Renaissance. The fugue is a genre, a compositional procedure and a style. A string quartet is a different thing, its a collection of movements that can have different types of forms. They both use counterpoint but that does not make them similar in their conceptual origin.

  4086. musictheory 2019-05-07 20:41:50 expiredvegetable
    I'd love to learn to write for a string quartet one day. Thank you for responding

  4087. musictheory 2019-05-07 21:20:35 Zak_Rahman
    Presuming you're in standard tuning: Find and play the 5th fret of your E string (either, makes no difference). You got yourself an A. Now take it down two frets. Each of these frets is a semitone. Now you're on the third fret of the e string. You got yourself a G.

  4088. musictheory 2019-05-07 21:27:02 Viola_Buddy
    You know, I've never realized how almost opposite barbershop quartets are from string quartets. The philosophy in barbershop is basically the opposite of what you're describing here: to have four people all singing, but making it sound almost like a single voice (that happens to sing four notes at once, using a fairly limited set of basic chords). But string quartets, as you describe, are often more about making there seem to be *more* instruments are playing than four, not fewer, trying to capture as many textures with the instruments as sounds good.

  4089. musictheory 2019-05-07 21:42:54 PulpHerb
    That has always been my question, why is the string quartet or various piano centered trios, reigned for so long as the core chamber ensembles. &#x200B; Woodwind quartets, wind quintets, and brass quintets are much rarer in terms of pieces.

  4090. musictheory 2019-05-07 21:44:27 The_Original_Gronkie
    There is some confusion here because of what the term "string quartet" means. It means two things: 1) an ensemble consisting of 2 violins, viola, and cello, and 2) a work that is generally a Sonata for that ensemble. It is the second definition that confuses people. A String Quartet, a Piano Sonata, and a Symphony are essentially the same thing: a work for those instruments or ensembles that follows the form of the multi-movement Sonata. A Symphony is essentially a Sonata for Orchestra, and a String Quartet is essentially a Sonata for String Quartet. The Piano Sonata is the only one that makes it obvious. As for the rest of it, that's all hyperbole. It is true that the String Quartet strips the music down to it's very basic elements, and it becomes pure theory and composition, but one could also say that about the piano. In fact the piano is even more stripped down because it only has a single performer instead of four different musical personalities. One other thing - there is some debate over the differences in form between the string quartets of different composers. That can all be blamed on Beethoven, as can most "rule breaking." Before him, everyone stayed in their proper lane, even Mozart. They respected the traditional Sonata form of the Symphony/ Sonata. Even Beethoven himself respected that form for much of his career, but near the end he began to veer, often wildly. He threw in extra movements, used fewer movements, connected movements, changed movements around, substituted different forms for the traditional forms, etc., yet he called them all Sonatas, despite the fact that they often bore little resemblance to the traditional Sonata form. So how did he get away with it? He's Beethoven, that's why! Are you going to tell him he's wrong? I'm certainly not, that guy is crazy.

  4091. musictheory 2019-05-07 21:46:54 unequaltemperament
    I've performed one of them, actually. Maybe we're defining style differently, but I would find it very difficult to explain to someone who doesn't understand the basics of string quartet history that Schoenberg and Mozart's quartets are stylistically (in an aesthetic sense) similar.

  4092. musictheory 2019-05-07 21:57:11 GoldmanT
    In all honesty, despite asking the question, my ear tires of string quartets fairly quickly, all that scratching and popping. ;) Agree with your points though, I much prefer a mixed ensemble with some percussion in it, especially tuned percussion.

  4093. musictheory 2019-05-07 22:06:51 divenorth
    Speaking strictly of the 4 instruments, I generally get my composition students to compose for string quartet early on. It’s no different than writing for satb and if you can compose for string quartet it’s really easy to transition to full orchestra. I don’t think it’s that hard.

  4094. musictheory 2019-05-07 22:08:19 agromono
    I'm not quite sure I agree. Contemporary barbershop singing is more about performance and unity and using the music to do this. Barbershop arrangements often have extensive part solos which does not sound like "one voice", as you say. I do agree with the comment about string quartets though.

  4095. musictheory 2019-05-07 22:09:15 whatagainst
    So shouldn't be composers be recommended to write for string quartet then, since it's easier than winds and brass?

  4096. musictheory 2019-05-07 22:18:21 65TwinReverbRI
    > The first thing you need to do to write a good string quartet is to write a shit string quartet. Then write another one, slightly less shit. This is true of course, but most people would benefit more from writing some shit simpler pieces first - some people will only end up frustrating themselves trying to tackle something they're not ready for. It's like Diving - you have to learn how to a basic dive before you can do a half Gainer with a Twist - and yes, you're going to mess up that Gainer a bunch of times before you get it - but it's probably not a bad idea to learn to swim!

  4097. musictheory 2019-05-07 22:25:43 65TwinReverbRI
    Fugue is a Form and an "Approach" to writing music. "The String Quartet" as a form is totally different. And then, the ensemble is just a group of players. A Fugue can be written for any instrument or group of instruments capable of playing the parts. A String 4tet ensemble could absolutely play a Fugue. But Fugue is way more specific than "counterpoint and imitation" - those qualities appear in most classical music. Fugues are "more specific" types of counterpoint and imitation. IOW, with a Fugue, we talk about the Subject, the Answer, Countersubject, and so on - and how they enter - Real Answer, Tonal Answer, and things like that. Other counterpoint and imitation may just simply be that - we have "Motives" and sometimes "Themes", but they're not really as specific as Subjects and Answers, etc. You can also have "fugue-like" parts of pieces as well - sometimes called "Fughetto" and things like that. But by and large, a Fugue is a pretty well defined method of composing a specific type of piece often called a Fugue (and often it's called that because of the composition technique - like a Canon being called a Canon). A String Quartet (the form) is an entirely different animal - but it may have a movement that's a fugue or fugal.

  4098. musictheory 2019-05-07 22:30:23 65TwinReverbRI
    Not usually. Sometimes they will use formal structures - even sonata form - but often, things like Theme and Variations, etc. but they also develop their own new types of forms (Arch Form for example). Some also still adhere to the 4 movement layout, though tempi may not be in the same kind of order. But yes, 20th century (and later Romantic Period) composers broke as many ties with tradition in terms of form/genre as they did with harmony/melody/rhythm and they became "String Quartets" primarily because of the "weight" of the piece (except for Webern maybe ;-) and the ensemble. Obviously, Debussy's and Ravel's Quartets are a little more tied to tradition, and those who wrote in a Neo-Classical or Neo-Romantic style brought back more ideas from those earlier periods in one way or another, but certainly other composers pushed the boundaries of the form. But most are going to be "heavy duty" concert-weight pieces meant to be played by superior musicians - not just a light romp for a common set of instruments used in String 4tets.

  4099. musictheory 2019-05-07 22:36:31 dtru2005
    It's easy to write a shit string quartet. A musician who hasn't been exposed to top level teaching will appreciate less what makes string instruments so much more versatile. Every little thing is a debate, especially bowing. Do we agree with the bowings (or the publisher)? Do we want a downbow gesture for more force or an upbow for a more delicate one? Should we play it all downbow? What kind of colour are we looking for here (do we play on the fingerboard)? Bowing decisions are everything with string musicians. Couple that in with the technical precision required to sound like one instrument and whether or not the writing is awkward for the instrument.

  4100. musictheory 2019-05-07 22:53:18 _wormburner
    Yeah I agree with you. Those expectations of what a string quartet "should be" are only relevant when one is studying form and style of the string quartets that adhere to those conventions. To say that a piece with 2vln, vla, vc isn't a string quartet because it's in one movement and through composed for example is absurd

  4101. musictheory 2019-05-07 23:05:14 south87
    Really? Thats awesome. I think its actually a good think to elucidate such controversial or such stereotyped subjects to a beginner: In string quartets, Schoenberg is more close to Mozart than anyone would normally think. A beginner must be aware of the whole musical panorama so he or she can find his own way, otherwise we are just repeating history.

  4102. musictheory 2019-05-07 23:12:46 divenorth
    I agree there is a lot to learn and their first attempt at a string quartet isn't going to be the greatest but they have to start writing for strings somewhere. I say go for it and learn in the process. If you wait until you know everything before doing anything nothing will get done.

  4103. musictheory 2019-05-07 23:19:56 south87
    But that doesnt have to do anything with the string quartet. The string quartet as well as the piano quintet, the duo, the string trio, the symphony, the accompanied sonata, the wind quintet all traditionally adhere to the "Sonata" format. Its not part of the quartet as a "form". Its the basic format for "serious" music. Any quartet or symphony or quintet or sextet or septet rooted in tradition will show the same basic format: 4 movements, or or two in Sonata form, one being the minimum required amount. So the "form" you describe is as characteristic to the quartet as it is to any traditional classic genre.

  4104. musictheory 2019-05-08 00:02:06 divenorth
    Wow talk about a controversial topic. To all aspiring composers: don’t let all the comments about how “hard” string quartets are stop you from composing for the ensemble. Just go for it. I promise you will learn a lot. Not everything you write will be good but without practice you won’t get there either.

  4105. musictheory 2019-05-08 00:03:40 markjohnstonmusic
    Maybe. I've never heard of the string quartet being seen as a particularly difficult genre. It is a genre to which many composers have turned their hand for the reason that such versatility offers the chance to create truly monumental works, with which composers want to compare their best. But getting the nuts and bolts of a string quartet right is far, far easier than for a wind quintet.

  4106. musictheory 2019-05-08 00:24:36 _wormburner
    So why would you be explaining the similarities of Schoenberg and Mozart quartets to a beginner if not to study? That's what started this whole conversation. >Maybe we're defining style differently, but I would find it very difficult to explain to someone who doesn't understand the basics of string quartet history that Schoenberg and Mozart's quartets are stylistically (in an aesthetic sense) similar. -------------- >I think its actually a good think to elucidate such controversial or such stereotyped subjects to a beginner: In string quartets, Schoenberg is more close to Mozart than anyone would normally think. A beginner must be aware of the whole musical panorama so he or she can find his own way, otherwise we are just repeating history. Nobody is talking about shielding a young musician. But there is a tact to introducing appropriate material for someone's level of study independent of listening to discover or for enjoyment. When we are talking about comparing form and theme, s/he is studying those things. Just listening doesn't require this conversation at all.

  4107. musictheory 2019-05-08 00:30:35 GoldmanT
    It wasn't this was it? https://alevelmusic.com/alevelcompositionhelp/writing-and-developing-a-simple-classical-theme/stage-4-texture/string-quartet-textures/

  4108. musictheory 2019-05-08 00:54:50 PulpHerb
    As opposed to self-important snowflakes like string players? Gotcha.

  4109. musictheory 2019-05-08 01:05:03 PulpHerb
    Wouldn't the lack of versatility and harshness on the ears (as a wind, but not a string player I'm going to take your word for sake of argument) make the wind ensemble a better challenge to set yourself. &#x200B; It is similar to why so many great chefs work with junk parts of an animal, liver, ofal, etc, instead of the good cuts. Anyone can make the fillet off a cow tasty, but it takes real talent to make someone enjoy beef liver.

  4110. musictheory 2019-05-08 01:09:45 _wormburner
    I mean doing stuff like that is generally bad orchestration it's not unique to string quartets.

  4111. musictheory 2019-05-08 02:14:46 GoldmanT
    Just not a fan of the string sound, probably favour the cello because it's warmer, but a bunch of violins sawing away I can only take for so long. I *did* do a winky smiley. :)

  4112. musictheory 2019-05-08 03:23:42 respighi
    Your analogy is ridiculous. A string quartet that defies classical conventions is not like a "home movie". It's like a Pulp Fiction or Mullholland Drive that defies narrative conventions. And no, not every aspiring composer wants to start with a string quartet or symphony. That would be the rare case, as it's 2019 and not 1874.

  4113. musictheory 2019-05-08 03:23:43 sonicbed
    This time last year I wanted to compose for a string quartet. I had no idea what it would entail. Fast forward to now, I've learned so much regarding harmony, melody, voice leading, and counterpoint that it was worth the plunge. I have a ways to go, but I *know* I've made progress.

  4114. musictheory 2019-05-08 04:17:07 Atheia
    From Wikipedia: >Ever since Haydn's day the string quartet has been considered a prestigious form and represents one of the true tests of the composer's art. With four parts to play with, a composer working in anything like the classical key system has enough lines to fashion a full argument, but none to spare for padding. The closely related characters of the four instruments, moreover, while they cover in combination an ample compass of pitch, do not lend themselves to indulgence in purely colouristic effects. Thus, where the composer of symphonies commands the means for textural enrichment beyond the call of his harmonic discourse, and where the concerto medium offers the further resource of personal characterization and drama in the individual-pitted-against-the-mass vein, the writer of string quartets must perforce concentrate on the bare bones of musical logic. Thus, in many ways the string quartet is pre-eminently the dialectical form of instrumental music, the one most naturally suited to the activity of logical disputation and philosophical enquiry. Ok, let's digest this. >With four parts to play with, a composer working in anything like the classical key system has enough lines to fashion a full argument, but none to spare for padding. Essentially this says that you only have four parts. This can create all the harmonies that you need in classical tonality, but for chords with four notes, you have none to spare. For triads, doubling becomes very important to the sonority. This is in contrast to the orchestra, where you have a bunch of instruments to double in unison or octave. You can certainly double stop, but is that always idiomatic? >The closely related characters of the four instruments, moreover, while they cover in combination an ample compass of pitch, do not lend themselves to indulgence in purely colouristic effects. The string quartet consists of instruments that have timbres that are largely similar to one another. Though one can tell the difference between a violin and viola, this difference pales in comparison to the instruments in, for example, a wind quintet. It therefore limits the composition's possibilities in this manner. >Thus, where the composer of symphonies commands the means for textural enrichment beyond the call of his harmonic discourse Octave doubling, instrument combinations, etc. >and where the concerto medium offers the further resource of personal characterization and drama in the individual-pitted-against-the-mass vein The string quartet contrasts with the concerto, because the composer has expressive freedom in the soloist's part. It is easier to compose for such forces because the orchestra more often than not plays the role of the accompaniment to the soloist - due to the vast differences in sound and projection, this is what inevitably happens. >the writer of string quartets must perforce concentrate on the bare bones of musical logic Or, in other words, there is less room for expressive cadenzas, single-instrument virtuosity, and orchestration (what one can do with multiple instruments) prowess. There is form, harmony, melody, and it must be realized in four instruments of similar timbres. In terms of form, the closest analog would be the fugue. It is the most demanding of the forms in part due to its complexity, and exposes most the composer's ability to write in counterpoint. Though the string quartet does not always follow as formal a procedure like the fugue, it is the ensemble that, unsurprisingly, has the highest skill gap of all. Many romantic composers, for example, wrote no string quartets, or just one. Some of the quartets written by great composers are even quite questionable. Simply look at Faure's string quartet, a composer who obviously struggled with this form (and mentioned it throughout his life).

  4115. musictheory 2019-05-08 04:20:09 ILoveKombucha
    I'm more of an early music person, so I honestly haven't listened to many classical string quartets by the likes of Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, and forward. I know enough to know that what you say is correct; "String Quartet" comes with expectations of form and so on. I'm more versed in things like viol ensemble music - works by composers like Byrd, Lawes, Purcell, etc. I simply love this kind of music. I'm curious if you see writing for a viol ensemble as being problematic in the same way you see writing a proper string quartet. To me, it seems an almost ideal medium for learning to write counterpoint for instruments. The early music for these kind of groups seems to mainly be centered on either the idea of a Fantasia - basically a bunch of loose fugues strung together in whatever way the composer sees fit, or various dances in something like a suite. Personally, I don't see the problem here. I can see that maybe it is along these lines that an amateur is drawn to the string quartet as an instrumental ensemble (and not as a form for musical writing). It seems pretty reasonable to me! You're always thoughtful about these things, so I'm curious how you see it: Gaining practice writing for a small and mostly uniform (in type) instrumental ensemble (strings, viols, etc) versus writing a formal string quartet - thoughts?

  4116. musictheory 2019-05-08 05:18:11 klokbok
    Normal people don't give half a hoot about form and development. It rests almost entirely upon the collection of pitches and how they are used. What is obvious in Mozart (still very difficult to grasp, though) is invisible in Schoenberg, due to the alien language he employs. If someone asked me to show them cool/beautiful modern string quartets, I would probably go with Ravel or Bartok, due to their much higher accessability to people who are not accustomed to the sounds of the twelve tone idiom, nor the idea of requiring an ability to pay attention to form while listening to a song.

  4117. musictheory 2019-05-08 07:10:01 65TwinReverbRI
    Earlier things like Trio Sonatas and other chamber music do tend to rely more heavily on Polyphonic Counterpoint than Homophony - and I think that's where the problem arises - a lot of people come at "classical music" through mostly Classical Period music (especially when they're talking String 4tets and Symphonies!) so they're more used to that whole "Melody with Accompaniment" kind of thing. So that means, they put the melody in the first violin, and make a bass line for the Cello, and the 2nd and Viola fill in the inner parts. Most people also have only learned 4 part chorale style writing rather than counterpoint and see that kind of Homophonic writing as an outgrowth of that. No doubt that kind of texture appears in Quartets (and similar) but there's also a lot more counterpoint and in the case of mature-er quartets by Classical composers, a lot more interplay between the parts. Looking at something like a Trio Sonata, Sackbut ensemble, or Viol Consort works, you see a lot more of the upper instruments especially swapping roles - one look at a Trio Sonata would scale most would be composers away because it's actually quite foreign to what most people learn and are taught. What's really interesting is because of this, by the time String Quartets come along, they're actually already pretty advanced string writing - it's not all just Vivaldi chugging away in 8th or 16th note chords (I exaggerate of course, but I think you know the kind of passages I mean). ____ I think maybe the bigger issue with writing for any ensemble is, a lot of people out there who want to do this won't have access to an ensemble that can play the music so they can actually hear what they're writing on real instruments. It's different enough from virtual instruments that it's necessary (though if people would just write for virtual instruments/synths and stop messing with these ancient forms, that'd be cool too ;-) So in that respect, most people should probably be starting with 4 Part Chorale style before expanding to strings - that have more techniques and wider ranges, etc.

  4118. musictheory 2019-05-08 07:15:24 65TwinReverbRI
    > That would be the rare case It's not rare. Spend a little time over at r/composer and within just that very small segment of the population you'll see a way higher number of beginners writing String Quartets (and Symphonies). Usually they call it Opus 1, No. 1, and also give it a name, like "The Epic". And I'm not talking about String Quartets that defy conventions there. I'm talking about a person who has no clue how to write for String 4tet trying to write one - that's like trying to film a Hollywood Blockbuster without knowing what you're doing. And the vast majority of people out there *do* want to write like it's 1874 (or 1774 or 1674 for that matter) because again, they're so unaware of music that they have basically only heard a String Quartet or a Symphony and have decided they want to become a composer.

  4119. musictheory 2019-05-08 07:27:56 65TwinReverbRI
    YOu may disagree partly here, but here's an issue with this: While working with sound is always going to help you learn something of course, the vast majority of woud-be composers out there are sitting behind a DAW, plugging in notes until something sticks, not learning from actual music, nor knowing enough music to have any realistic reference point to even deviate from if they want. Rather than learning about strings and writing for strings, at best they will learn to "put string synth sounds together". But many of them won't ever even learn what Pizzicato is. Many won't understand dynamics or articulations, and especially not bowing or more idiomatic things for the instruments. I'm not saying they have to learn Harmonics or open string tricks at this stage, but even just understanding how bowing works - or what double stops are possible (and whether they should really use them are not) are not going to be foremost. I've seen hundreds of "beginning composer" works "for strings" (but really, string sound) with 5 and 6 note block chords for Bass. I agree that people should absolutely try, and absolutely experiment, and learn what they can, but they also shouldn't be - what is it - "blissfully unaware" - of what writing for strings really involves and get so far into it that they're embarrassed later - like, "why didn't anyone tell me".

  4120. musictheory 2019-05-08 08:52:09 dtru2005
    I agree, but at the same time OP is saying writing for string quartet is easy which I heavily disagree with. Like I'm not even talking about modern music but your early Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven string quartets. So much of chamber music is interpreting the score and you can see that in masterclasses with great musicians. Composers don't realise that string musicians often are acquainted with the best that chamber music has to offer and can definitely tell when a composer has not written properly for string instruments

  4121. musictheory 2019-05-08 08:54:32 cless__alvein
    There are a lot of people here talking about the difference between writing for a strong quartet (the instrumental ensemble) and writing a String Quartet (with the formal and historical implications) but I feel like I should point out that in 2019 many, many String Quartets do not use historical idioms and that something no longer needs to have sonata form or any of the other stylistic formal constraints to be “a String Quartet”. That’s an extremely limiting view that ignores contemporary music.

  4122. musictheory 2019-05-08 09:22:37 ILoveKombucha
    That makes good sense. I know basically nothing about string instruments beyond their tuning and range (and I haven't tried writing for them). I could see how someone could easily underestimate it. What do you think of people writing exercises or short pieces for a string quartet sort of group (could be viols or what have you)? To me, one thing that appeals about it is that you do have more independence between parts than what a keyboard will get you (and a lot of students aren't competent keyboard players anyway), so you can write a little more freely in a way. Like, it's all too easy to write impossible music for keyboard, even if its in a basic chorale type structure. I wonder if this is part of the appeal of writing for a small ensemble. And as much crap as people get for wanting to write for string quartet, it seems downright humble and reasonable compared to wanting to write for orchestra! :D

  4123. musictheory 2019-05-08 09:33:30 dtru2005
    It's hard to say because I'm not good at composition (I'm better at performing lol) but it's great to practice short compositions for chamber groups. Just people shouldn't ignore that composers generally have an idiomatic writing style that just makes sense to play, individual to each instrument group. E.g. for woodwinds phrasing probably needs to ensure that they have room to breathe, be mindful of different registers etc and also consider that some musicians would find it much harder to play without getting chopped lips. As for strings melodies are great and all but sometimes composers like to do retarded string crossings (even Dvorak and Beethoven lol) or when they attempt to do really good string quartets they make notes jump all over the place without considering timbre, range, whether the bowings make sense etc

  4124. musictheory 2019-05-08 09:41:59 ILoveKombucha
    It's all good man. If you didn't know, an LFO is a "low frequency oscillator." It's a synthesizer thing. Synths make sounds/notes/etc, and LFO's let you modulate those sounds. LFO's can modulate different things, like volume, or pitch. If you play guitar, and while a note is playing, you wiggle your volume switch forward and back, you are basically acting as an LFO on the volume of the guitar. Likewise, if you apply vibrato to a string, you are acting as an LFO on the pitch of the guitar. (You are oscillating the pitch). Hope that helps~

  4125. musictheory 2019-05-08 10:49:20 PulpHerb
    Earlier in the thread it was said: "To compose something that utilises them at their best managing to create melody, harmony, baselines, and maintain dynamics and listener interest is a real challenge" implying part of the love of string quartets was the showing off of skill. That was amplified by other comments as a reason for the string quartet's popularity.

  4126. musictheory 2019-05-08 11:07:09 65TwinReverbRI
    It is a different sound - when you strum, a down stroke means the pick hits the lower strings first (and often more forcefully) while an up stroke means the pick hits the upper strings first (and again, often more forcefully). Since you can't really hit all the strings perfectly simultaneous in either direction, this gives each direction a subtle difference in sound (which you can accentuate by focusing more on the lower string while playing down strokes for example). Side story - one of the reasons it's so hard to use MIDI Guitar synth sounds and get them to sound like a "real player" is besides the fact that when strumming there's a certain amount of randomness to which strings are being accentuated, there's this "down roll" and "up roll" going on - it happens so fast we don't really think about it as a "roll" or arpeggio (unless it's exaggerated) but it does have a different sound. So we do it when we want that kind of sound (or, sometimes, people do it for show on stage too...). It's not uncommon to play upbeats with down strokes to get a more consistent sound out of all 8 strokes in 4/4. It's also not uncommon to play only up beats (such as in Reggae rhythms) as down strokes. But there's definitely a different sound and feel between the two strokes (even if we try to make them as equal as possible, because it's still the string order they're striking). I would say just constant strumming "in reverse order" is generally uncommon and would only be used for an effect, or, possibly, just someone who didn't learn to play conventionally, or in some cases, because a rhythmic pattern is shifting and necessitates doing it that way (there are many single string soloing things that require reverse alternate picking, or economy picking, and so on). Overdone, it can make the rhythm seem "backwards" - accents in the wrong place, or accenting the upbeats, or any of those things. So it could be a useful skill to cultivate when you want those kinds of sounds. HTH

  4127. musictheory 2019-05-08 11:20:33 DexterMcSnuggles
    Thank you for the detailed response, I was going to ask why do it when alt strumming a single string, but even a single string sounds kinda different up and down strumming. And yeah I never see it done constantly, just at certain parts. I still don't see how the benefits could outweigh the difficulty, but if you get used to it it's really not that hard, I'd still avoid it entirely when/if I compose my own music, I like it to be neat and orderly.

  4128. musictheory 2019-05-08 11:36:17 65TwinReverbRI
    > Its not true. Its not a form. See my response above. When I say it's a "form" I mean that the String Quartet as ensemble and as "form" (form of sonatas) are inextricably intertwined (in the CPP).

  4129. musictheory 2019-05-08 17:53:04 dtru2005
    Bruh what kind of string quartet are you listening to? Good violinists don't screech at all

  4130. musictheory 2019-05-09 12:38:33 exceptyourewrong
    We're so used to hearing keyboards with equal temperament that it can be odd to hear them any other way. But most instrumental (string, brass, woodwind, and even vocal) ensembles definitely sound better with just temperament. A string quartet or brass quintet playing equal temperament sounds downright bad.

  4131. musictheory 2019-05-09 23:02:20 exceptyourewrong
    Charles Rosen is a pianist. You should listen to me about wind/string groups. He's sort of right though. We'll play equal temperament when playing WITH a piano. But not when playing in groups like string quartets and brass quintets.

  4132. musictheory 2019-05-10 06:03:39 exceptyourewrong
    I don't know this book, so please keep that in mind as you read my comments, but I have a few problems with this excerpt. First off, that passage reads like it was written by someone who just doesn't understand what the members of a great chamber group do. Which is too bad, because he's a fine musician, but is also common amongst pianists, in my experience. Second, I think he might be using "just intonation" differently than most string and wind players do. He seems to be treating it like a temperament on a keyboard, but that's not how we think about it. For us, it's a process of constantly adjusting based on the musical context to create the most beautiful and impactful chords. For instance, his comment about the A being sharper than the Bbb. Yep. Because in this case, the A is a leading tone and Bbb isn't. Raising that note creates more tension which can then be released at the cadence. I will agree with him that the goal is increased expression, not some mathematical ideal. Good groups won't be consciously thinking about the math anyway. Another problem is that he's using a passage with a lot of incomplete seventh chords and diminished chords as his example. Basically there are more intonation options in this piece than in something with traditional, functional harmony. Major thirds and perfect fifths are the intervals most affected by just intonation because it's possible to play those intervals in a way that the resultant tones (sometimes called "resonant tones" Google it if you're not familiar) line up perfectly. Minor and diminished triads can't be as *perfectly* in tune, so they always involve a compromise and sometimes equal tuning could the best option. The book "A Study in Musical Intonation" by Christopher Leuba explains this pretty clearly. This brings up a point, though. Some modern music should probably be played in equal temperament, no matter the instrumentation. If you're playing 12-tone music and a major triad happens to occur, it's not likely that lowering the major third will make the chord more impactful (although it will make it ring more, so maybe...). Most people will play unaccompanied melodies in mostly equal temperament too. But ensembles playing music with tertian harmony are using just intonation more often than not. The idea that we adjust relative to equal temperament is sort of mistaken, too. We talk about the necessary adjustments relative to an equal tempered scale, but we (wind players, at least) aren't thinking about it that way. We're adjusting to our instrument and since our instruments aren't constructed to an equal tempered scale (because physics) we have to make adjustments even when we are playing in equal temperament. We just make different adjustments based on what we're hearing around us. This is a difficult concept for young students. They want to put their tuning slide in some magic spot and be in tune, but it just isn't that simple. Tuning is a complicated issue and people can get pretty aggressive about their opinions. (I hope you don't think I am!) But please believe me when I tell you that most (good) groups are playing with just intonation. I should say that I think it's important for young students to learn equal temperament (I teach trumpet at a University). They spend so much time in justly tuned ensembles that they can have trouble adjusting to playing with a piano for juries and recitals. Recently on Facebook I suggested that using a clip on tuner isn't ALWAYS a terrible idea and someone told me that I was "ruining music" (their actual words) because the ears are "the only tuner you need." People can be mean. Haha Hope this is useful. Sorry if it's a bit long!

  4133. musictheory 2019-05-10 07:22:34 exceptyourewrong
    How does it disprove that? "Just intonation" means "adjusting to the context of the music." Yes, in general that means lowering the third and raising the fifth of major triads, but that's not the entirety of it. If you want an example of just intonation listen to any recording by any major symphony. I'd be curious if you can find an example of an EXCELLENT group playing in equal temperament. I'm not aware of one that does (regularly at least). Using equal temperament means playing accepted amount out of tune. Remember, it's not the first or only temperament system! It works well on keyboard and fretted instruments because it's consistent, but string and wind players have never used it except to match those instruments. I don't know of a recording that shows a string quartet or brass quintet or whatever playing an actual piece with both equal and just intonation (I'd like to find one though!). This video shows a piece in three different temperaments, which is neat, but again, that's not the same thing as just intonation. https://youtu.be/lzsEdK48CDY I think Rosen goes wrong by treating just intonation as simply a different temperament. As if he could tune a piano to "just intonation." He thinks string and wind players are moving each note a specific amount and calling it a day. That's just not what we do. And yeah, 432 is bullshit.

  4134. musictheory 2019-05-10 08:31:41 exceptyourewrong
    So I think I might have realized our misunderstanding and I could have been clearer. There IS a temperament called "just", but that's not what I mean when I say wind and string players play with "just intonation." I mean we play chords in a way that the resultant tones line up and they "ring" as much as possible. That is the same way that a tonic chord in just temperament is tuned. Just temperament (and most temperaments) fell out of favor because it was very limiting, but non-keyboard instruments can and do adjust for every chord. So, depending on the harmony, I might play an "E" 20 or more cents sharper or flatter than the same "E" in the bar before. Rosen is right that no one plays "just temperament" anymore. Just like no one uses "comma mean-tone" or Pythagorean temperament anymore.

  4135. musictheory 2019-05-10 12:06:28 65TwinReverbRI
    Maybe a better way to think of this is the reverse: A "typical Classical Sonata" is a "refined" and "codified" version of other "freeform" multi-movement pieces that evolved from both Baroque Suites (Divertimenti) and Dance Pairs (the Adagio et Allegro type pieces) with influence from the Sonata da Camera and Sonata de Chiesa. You can even watch with Haydn's early String Quartets - they are basically Baroque Dance Suites. It's really him who sort of "creates" this 4 Movement form we know now a "Sonata Form" (of the whole work, not just a movement) and who applies it to all the genres he worked in - Solo Keyboard Sonata, Concerto, String Quartet and Symphony - the "elevated" or "more formal" forms.

  4136. musictheory 2019-05-12 08:17:31 TomSerb
    In general, the violin is limited to two strings (a "double stop"), and the notes have to be on adjacent strings. That's because the curve of a violin bridge makes it difficult or impossible to sound three notes at the same time. Although I have seen virtuosos perform three at once (two with the bow, the third with a left hand pizzicato), it's not a normal thing. But you can adapt the instrument to make three string chords possible. Some bluegrass fiddle players do that... but since it's an adaptation of the instrument, and it makes it more difficult to play single string notes, I wouldn't say that's a "general" thing either.

  4137. musictheory 2019-05-12 08:21:25 fhughes131313
    Is it the same with pretty much all the bowed string instruments common to classical (viola cello dblbass etc)?

  4138. musictheory 2019-05-12 09:20:07 AndDuffy
    2 string chords are used often as accents in bluegrass/fiddle music. I'd never play a 3 string chord with a bow, I suppose you could but you'd have to apply so much pressure that you'd risk damaging the instrument. If you really wanted to, you'd do it as a slur or arpeggio.

  4139. musictheory 2019-05-12 10:37:39 aotus_trivirgatus
    The way that you're describing a string quartet makes me think of [Vivaldi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRTX1M591lA). Did you know that he composed most of his works for [a music program for girls at an orphanage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Vivaldi#At_the_Conservatorio_dell'Ospedale_della_Piet%C3%A0)? In a situation like that, a composer may be inclined to keep the music on the simpler side, featuring a good violinist and relegating less capable musicians to a more supporting role might be a smart idea. However, I would suggest that you study four-part harmony more generally if you want to write string quartets. For many composers, the goal is to make *every* part melodious. You generally study chorales, but many of the principles apply to string quartets. Since my first instruments were guitar and piano, this is something I had to learn. I'm partial to Debussy, who may not be to everyone's taste. However, I'm pleased to see that one of my Debussy favorites, his [String Quartet in G Minor Op. 10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8I7uHb7GY0), appears on [Gramophone's Top 10 String Quartets](https://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/top-10-string-quartets) list. Follow that score. Who's got the melody? Often, everybody at once. Does the cello always have the lowest part? No, not always. An interesting, dark melody can be created when the cello plays in the high register.

  4140. musictheory 2019-05-12 10:41:21 65TwinReverbRI
    Why not study the String Quartets of other composers?

  4141. musictheory 2019-05-12 10:50:24 Xenoceratops
    Listen to string quartets, first of all. Because there are only four instruments, quartet writing tends to be very contrapuntal. In general, it's good practice to let everyone have a go at the melody. Yes, even the cello. Cello sounds really really good in its tenor register, so please, let the cello shine at some point. As an example, take [this section from Beethoven's Op. 18 No. 1 quartet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-SJGq1KdCQ&t=1m26s) where the cello is voiced above the second violin. Don't be afraid to write cello up high - it can do so much more than low notes. I would also advise you to look at [Smetana's String Quartet No. 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L1lPraMNUk) (score available [here](https://imslp.org/wiki/String_Quartet_No.1%2C_JB_1:105_(Smetana%2C_Bed%C5%99ich\))). It begins with a big chord, played sff by the entire quartet. That kind of declamation is very effective. Right after, the violins and cello are playing accompaniment and the melody is in the viola. It takes a while but eventually the accompaniment pattern switches to the viola and cello while the two violins get the theme in octaves. The third movement (13:47) begins with a solo cello melody that starts in that tenor register and works its way down to the bass. Think about interlocking rhythms and activating the texture. The beginning of the Smetana quartet is a good example. Everybody except the viola is basically playing the underlying harmony, but it sounds nice and full because they're all doing tremolo between two notes out of the chord. It's much better than just sustaining those notes without any rhythmic activation.

  4142. musictheory 2019-05-12 11:13:09 OrganicChemistrysux
    [Paper Thin Walls Vitamin String Quartet cover](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PUO0virMrU&list=OLAK5uy_ncVwEtYPsvCNWQ1SkzMQtP0r5YnzNJ7pE&index=11) This group have a lot of good covers of famous songs

  4143. musictheory 2019-05-12 12:30:19 tF_D3RP
    Also, if you move the bow further away from the bridge and closer to the fingerboard, any string instrumentalist may be able to play all notes at the same time with a certain amount of force. In the [Walton Viola Concerto](https://youtu.be/P23GdaDcPkU?t=280), the soloist is able to play triple and quadruple stops (or chords) with little arpeggiation using this way of playing the chords.

  4144. musictheory 2019-05-12 14:48:58 agromono
    If you're doing this in string quartets, you're not doing a very good job of arranging

  4145. musictheory 2019-05-12 15:14:31 IdiotII
    >The way that you're describing a string quartet makes me think of Vivaldi. >a composer may be inclined to keep the music on the simpler side, featuring a good violinist and relegating less capable musicians to a more supporting role might be a smart idea. While this is decent advice for a beginner tackling their first string quartet, I'm of the firm opinion that Vivaldi was an exceptionally lazy and unimaginative composer. I mean, honestly, who brags about being able to write your music faster than the copyists can copy parts? Did he not stop and think "oh, maybe writing is so quick because I take one idea and sequence it over and over into oblivion?" The fact that Bach lived around the same time Vivaldi did makes the latter's fame completely inexcusable to me. Sorry not sorry.

  4146. musictheory 2019-05-12 15:29:14 IdiotII
    Every piece can theoretically do almost any "role." The cello can carry the melody (and often does), while the first violin can "fill out chords" on occasion, though I feel like approaching a string quartet as though it were a homophonic chorale pretty much defeats the purpose of writing for a string quartet in the first place... But yes, it would not be completely incorrect to assume that generally speaking, you give the lowest note to the cello, and the highest (usually melody, again generalizing) to the first violin. Write it that way, but then see if you can find interesting ways to "trade roles" and give the cello a moment to shine, give the viola a phrase where they get to really be brought forward "in the mix," things like that. String quartets are an incredible canvas for getting your feet wet as an ORCHESTRATOR. Can you imagine how shitty literally every symphony ever would sound if "high instruments have the melody, low instruments have the bass notes, everyting else fills in the chord" were a rule?

  4147. musictheory 2019-05-12 16:48:37 aotus_trivirgatus
    Oh, but I wasn't giving OP the advice to write like Vivaldi. I was saying that OP's description of the roles of each instrument in a string quartet, if followed, would probably result in composing a string quartet that would be *like* one written by Vivaldi. If you downvoted me because you thought I was especially fond of Vivaldi's music, well, I'm not. But I was trying to stay away from matters of taste. I do think, however, that Vivaldi's music may have served a practical purpose, given the musicians he had to conduct. Imagine the orphanage kids trying to play Debussy and make it sound good. It's not gonna happen.

  4148. musictheory 2019-05-12 23:40:20 StarsOfVarda
    You have to be playing loudly enough that you can use enough velocity/weight that the bow gives a bit, the string gives a bit, and you contact all 3 strings. Even then, you do start on the bottom two and pivot to the top two strings, but it's in one motion. All three strings only contact for an instant. But the bottom string kind of resonates through, and the sound doesn't drop out perceptibly.

  4149. musictheory 2019-05-13 00:30:15 Ijerkofftoanimegirls
    "and a good deal of contemporary classical" Sure, if you are talking about the Contemporary Classical that isn't actually classical music and is just pop music with a string section and a piano then that is true. But real Contemporary Classical is either not tonal at all or would never be analyzed the same way as Jazz. "common practice has the 7 imply b7 unless explicitly stated otherwise" in common practice harmony, the amount of extensions are diatonic.

  4150. musictheory 2019-05-13 05:38:57 Scatcycle
    I'm not arguing that everyone should go out and omit tons of 3rds in their compositions, I'm just pointing out that from a harmonically functional standpoint, there is more to a fifth than meets the eye. In music it is important to not only look at what is physically there, but also at what our brains put in ourselves. Prolongation is based on this entire phenomenon of chords existing in our head even when not being physically played. The third in the fifth is all the same. My point with the ending chord is that what makes the piece minor, as opposed to major, is scale degree 3, and even when that is not present in the final chord we carry with us and interpret the last chord as minor. It's just a perfect fifth, physically more a major chord than minor due to the overtones, but the brain is powerful and perceives the quality of a minor chord nonetheless. If you end a major piece with a perfect fifth the brain will interpret it as a major chord. Ending a minor piece on even just full octave string Cs is a completely different sound to us than ending a major piece on full octave strings Cs. That is the point I'm trying to make, that our brain injects harmonic function where it may not physically exist. Such a nuanced subject would probably be hard to find documentation on, but Schenker pioneered the idea that harmony extends beyond the physical chords themselves. Harmonic manifestation in our brain does not explicitly reflect the chords we hear in each moment. It all depends on where we came from and where we're going.

  4151. musictheory 2019-05-13 13:14:40 Jam--
    The upper staff is vocals and the lower is music. It corresponds to run c b a on the bass note while playing the d chord (3, 2, 0 on the fifth string).

  4152. musictheory 2019-05-13 13:24:12 elruinc
    A lot of people like to scoff at licks but I would suggest them as a great thing to practice. There is no set number, you can always have more in your bag of tricks (especially for real fast tunes or tunes you don’t know well...because that happens). What is more important than lots of licks is truly knowing the licks you do have. When you transcribe (which really is the best thing in the world for any student of music) it isn’t really for the purpose of learning the whole thing to go out and execute it note for note. It’s about taking ideas (licks) from that solo and using them in other contexts. Study how the idea was used in the solo, then apply it in your playing. The thing with licks is that you NEED to practice them in all keys. Have a few licks in major (II-7, V7) and in minor (II-7b5, V7alt). Some ascending, some descending. I am a guitarist so for me it’s crucial to work out the lick across the different string sets. With other instruments it might be playing it in different registers, etc. Just like scales and arpeggios you practice them until you don’t think about it anymore. Then when you play it starts to sound more fluid and less “licky”.

  4153. musictheory 2019-05-13 13:59:00 StarsOfVarda
    Some string ideas \- notate vibrato, then make it like a whole section with synchronized vibrato that starts normal then slows wayyy down and randomly fast oscillations thrown in, then when you get used to it, half the section goes out of phase and slowwwllly glisses downwards &#x200B; \-divide the section into 4 parts that slowwwly gliss upwards at intervals of minor 7ths and octaves, (idk why just sounds just consonant enough but just dissonant enough, also sounds like it could be starting a harmony but it's super not) then whoever's at the "top of the slide" when they hit a certain note seamlessly drops an octave so the whole slide just sounds like it goes on forever but never really gets anywhere &#x200B; \-Cellos can do like a harmonic gliss or like a seagull effect (finger an artificial harmonic then slide up the string without changing the distance between your fingers, sounds like fricking spooky birbs) &#x200B; \- solo violin doing this naggy wide overly even vibrato that goes from like low D# to just above E, super ponticello and grindy &#x200B; \- ponticello double bass just quarter note, quarter rest, quarter note, quarter rest, whole bows, like 100-120 bpm, steady as a rock. Maybe like a major 7th like low C and B &#x200B; \-do all of them at once &#x200B; \-do all of them slowly going from pppp to ffff and back at different phases &#x200B; \-end it all with like a massive crescendo up to ffff all in sync and then just drop out all in sync when you least expect it

  4154. musictheory 2019-05-13 15:46:46 whosthatmatt
    Instead of traditionally bad playing, why don't you use some noises? For example bow-overpressure on string instruments is pretty gross to me. Inhale singing, super high register brass and winds (with overblowing). or playing piano strings with something metallic (just some examples). You can't some pretty 'nauseous' noises out of most instruments! Also you could work with samples of disgusting noises, like blackboard screeching, if you really wanna go all the way.

  4155. musictheory 2019-05-13 16:53:48 Joxton
    I really like what u/notice27 said but I guess I could add something. Fundamentally, our brains get an effect from calculating the mathematical ratios between two rhythms or more (some people get no effect but it's very rare). These rhythms being frequencies and also rhythms played on percussive instruments. One trend we have found is tension and release and you can refer to the harmonic series to see how to derive tensions, so a lot of our enjoyment is actually kinda embedded in nature. As for why we enjoy it or how and why certain things are what we enjoy, I dont know. Scientifically speaking, laughter is just a form of confusion but you would never guess that of it. So think about what music could possibly even be considering its cognition is so complicated. The emotional anatomy if music is humongous. Think about it: timbre, overtones, tonal distance, harmonic density, harmonic movement, dynamics, syncopation, etc. Just imagine what each of these actually do to our brains. What if one is made of the other? One is made of three others? Each are fundamentally unique things? One only works because it contrasts the other in the brain? I've had times where I was on drugs and was firmly convinced that the purpose of reverb was to widen the narrowness of melodic lines or that overdrive on guitars was simulating a string section without anyone ever realizing it.

  4156. musictheory 2019-05-13 17:44:10 armadillo-army
    There is a reason chords sound good. Certain chords sound good because the frequencies are in nice intervals from each other. This means that the [overtones line up](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone). In other words, if you think about the “nodes” of a standing wave like a guitar string, the places where the string doesn’t move, line up more over time. I think your other questions are good and I haven’t researched them. Music is a set of patterns, which our brains are hardwired to look for.

  4157. musictheory 2019-05-13 17:50:27 ePluribusBacon
    The reasons for why more complex harmony sounds good to most humans are not well understood and have a lot of cultural aspects to them, but basic intervals that sound "harmonious" seem to follow the harmonic series. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music\) Basically, vibrating systems naturally vibrate at frequencies that are simple ratios of each other. A string can vibrate as one, in two halves with a node of no movement in the middle, in three thirds, etc. Take the notes that each of these divisions gives you and play some of them together and you'll find you get some of the fundamental intervals of music. A ratio of 2:1 gives a perfect octave. A ratio of 3:2 gives a perfect fifth. A ratio of 5:4 gives a major third. So by taking directly from this series you can make a major triad. Our brains seem to like hearing these intervals and ratios expressed in sound, though exactly why is still a bit of a mystery, at least from what I understand.

  4158. musictheory 2019-05-13 20:55:28 ellblaek
    dude. this is exactly right, from 2014 to 2017 i played guitar in a band and being that i was in high school i experimented with drugs and music a whoole lot. I've thought about guitar effects alot as well, and how one can use a guitar as a sort of limited string sextet. my favorite effects was reverb+long delay+chorus+volume pedal for them sweet swells

  4159. musictheory 2019-05-14 06:22:14 65TwinReverbRI
    >Is this common and am I just inexperienced? I hate to say it, but, yes :-) Let's just say that guitar players who get a little more "advanced" tend to explore various voicings more - instead of the more basic Power, Barre, and Open Position chords. It doesn't "defy" other things, it "liberates them" if you like :-) Those voicings you mention are easy to do on guitar. And not really that uncommon. We could say they're comparatively rare I suppose, but there's enough music out there using different voicings. A lot of them come from open string kind of stuff - where a drone string is kept below or above some fretted notes. But they can also come from people just trying things out and finding a sound they like and going with it. R-507 is a common one from blues patterns, and that's where some would encounter it, but if you simply leave off the top string of a 4 string 7th barre chord form for a 7th chord, there you have it.

  4160. musictheory 2019-05-14 08:51:26 darikana
    Very cool piece. As others have said, voice leading and the meter is not really felt in 7. It’s alternating 3/4 and 4/4. Sometimes successive dotted 1/8ths are difficult to understand. Wherever you can show the beat with tied eight-sixteenth is more easily sight read by classical players. Have you showed this to a string player? Everything is absolutely playable, I just question some of your slurs/bowings. String instruments have a lot more technique available to them as well. I wouldn’t even call it extended techniques because all of these are in the standard repertoire, but pizzicato, double stops, harmonics are all available to you. Also the range on these instruments is incredible and you could use more of that to your advantage as you progress the piece.

  4161. musictheory 2019-05-14 13:11:46 seth_k_t
    Oh yeah, I bet this would definitely make a string player cringe if they looked at it. I know this for a fact because my theory class was doing a composition concert where we got a bunch of different musicians from the school to play our pieces and I showed mine to the director of the Advanced Chamber Orchestra and she was like, "Yeah, so there's a bunch of stuff on here that just doesn't make sense/looks weird for an orchestra musician." And then the ACE ended up not playing it not only because of that, but also because they never rehearsed it even though I gave it to them like 2 weeks in advance :( Sob stories aside, the ranges/techniques/compositional conventions are things that I didn't really think about when writing this. I'm an absolute classical noob, my formal training being as a jazz drummer and my personal tastes being extreme metal, jazz, and post-rock. In addition, this piece was actually adapted from a brass quintet I wrote; I changed it to strings because my school doesn't have enough brass musicians for a quintet. So you can definitely tell that it's written by an amateur.

  4162. musictheory 2019-05-14 13:33:23 jackbellmusic
    Yeah man! The classic is Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum which you can find a pdf of online for no cost. Even though its a bit outdated, it still covers the core principles well. Once you have grasped those, just analyse analyse analyse. Bach's music will teach you a lot about counterpoint- start with the inventions then move onto Brandenburg concertos and cantata's etc. Basically all of Bachs music has contrapuntal elements, his work is a gold mine. Mozart string quartets and symphonies also contain lots of contrapuntal motion. If you're looking at a string quartet, and have a piano, its incredibly useful to play all the parts individually and then play them 'against' each other to get a sense of the intervals created by their interaction. This additive approach will help you understand how musical lines can come together to form a unified texture without being a mess. Good luck

  4163. musictheory 2019-05-14 20:57:57 badtemperedclavier
    this is so wrong. String Quartets are indeed one of the hardest genres to compose (Shostakovich admitted himself while trying to compose his first string quartet as an "exercise" after writing his monumental 5th symphony) because of the texture that originates from the classical period "Thematische Arbeit" (all the voices in the ensemble have to work independently to produce the total result), not necessarily because of the form, (sonata, rondo etc) Read this article: [https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/mozart-quartet-in-c-major-k465-dissonance/](https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/mozart-quartet-in-c-major-k465-dissonance/)

  4164. musictheory 2019-05-15 02:22:10 Woochia
    "Pleasant" and "unpleasant" can be subjective. But "consonant" and "dissonant" can be linked to the physics of sound. When a string of a guitar vibrates at a frequency F, it emits a sound that is actually a combination of several frequencies. These frequencies are F (the note we hear, the one we sing) and frequencies at F*2, F*3, F*4, F*5, etc... These frequencies are called the harmonics (they are responsible for the "tone" of the sound), and this series of frequencies in particular is called the harmonic series (this was theorised by Pythagore) You can define consonance as "the more harmonics in common, the more consonnant". Or you could define consonance as "the simpler the ratio between 2 frequencies, the more consonnant" (if one note 's frequency is 3 time the frequency of the second note, they are very consonnant. And if the frenquency of one note is 2,75 time the frequency of the second note, they are way less consonnant) Or you can define consonance as "the absence of beating in the sound when two notes play together" I actually made a video about it, maybe I'll find it usefull: https://youtu.be/WDbxhNb_gk4

  4165. musictheory 2019-05-15 03:20:04 FwLineberry
    Move the note on the E string down one fret and you have a typical G#13 chord. Moving that note back up one fret gives you the b9, but sacrifices the root. The root will be played by the bass or piano in a lot of cases or implied by how the chord is being used. When it comes to guitar chords, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to get the essential notes.

  4166. musictheory 2019-05-15 06:26:03 Octopuseses
    I honestly believe the fingering is written wrong by mistake. If you move the dots on the D, G and B strings up by one fret it becomes a common add13 voicing. Edit: The -9 doesn't really make sense, but if you included the A e on the E string it would add the 9th and it would be a proper 13 chord.

  4167. musictheory 2019-05-16 00:01:46 smk4813
    No. Emotional responses arise due to other complex factors as u/Xenoceratops pointed out. As an aside. If you're playing a six-string guitar , don't tune lower than drop C or C standard. If you have a baritone guitar or seven-string, then its a non-issue. Guitar tunings are chosen to capitalize on particular chord shapes/voicings and what your open strings can hit. Though nowadays, guitar tunings seem to be built around the particular key of a piece of music is in. The vocals are the limiting factor here - does your vocalists feel more comfortable singing in B or C?

  4168. musictheory 2019-05-17 06:09:52 KingSharkIsBae
    The alto saxophone (along with many instruments in the "band world") is a transposing instrument, meaning that what the musician sees on paper and what the audience hears is different. Weird right? But as far as transcribing goes, all you need to know is the key of the instrument you're transcribing from (Eb in this case), and the key of the instrument you're transcribing to (most, if not all, string instruments are in C). Saying that the alto sax is in Eb means that whenever a C is written on their music, the actual (scientific) pitch of that note is an Eb. In this case it transposes down a Major 6th (if descending intervals are challenging for you like they are for me, it's a minor 3rd up then an octave down). This transposition down of a Major 6th works for all notes in the music. For example, an F in the alto sax part would transpose down to an Ab. This logic also applies to say a Bb trumpet. Their C is Bb, so transpose everything down a Major 2nd. Hope this helps! If you have any other questions I'll reply ASAP.

  4169. musictheory 2019-05-17 06:42:43 Evilpooley
    I'm not saying the numbers don't exist in nature, and certainly not trying to imply that. I'm simply saying the generally humans tend to think in threes or fours. Interestingly, the reason telephone numbers are seven numbers is actually to do with the growing number of phone users and a mix of combinatorics and psychology. Originally there were so few telephone users that a 4 digit code sufficed, but these had to be increased in length to deal with the growing numbers of people with a telephone. (Same situation to the extensions in America. Sooner or later you just run out of numbers, especially when people can have have work, home and mobile.) You are also correct about the psychological tests, but it has nothing to do with humans being good at 5 and 7, it's actually because we ran out of numbers but in general humans are not good at accurately things much bigger than 7 items long. 7 was dubbed a magic number by psychologist George Miller ([See this Wikipedia entry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two) which was seen as a limit of how many things the average person could recall off the top of their head. When increasing numbers, this was actually considered as misdials caused real issues and were costly mistakes back when switchboards were human operated. (I believe it was estimated at 10% of all calls were misdials, but I have no source for that and might be well off.) For the maths/combinatorics explanation: much more recently, back in 2009 two neuroscientists published a paper modelling memory as a decision tree, where nodes are clusters of neurons and the weight of each edge (or strength, if you prefer) is due to how well you can link between them (or ignore the other pathways you might flick to). Unfortunately, the possible number of combinations grows **really** quickly, and it becomes almost impossible to recall much more than about 7. (NB: this is obviously possible to increase for specific items you have put effort into memorising, and some humans will always be better than others, but generally speaking this model has been accepted.) [This is agood article on the paper shortly after it was published.](https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/brain-memory-magic-number/story?id=9189664) As a final interjection, most adverts for phone numbers tended to use groups of 3 and 4, rather than a single string of 7. I realise this ties into subdivision, but still relies on us being more comfortable with a 3 and a 7. I realise this has gone slightly off topic for the original question asked in this thread, but I think it's still fairly interesting.

  4170. musictheory 2019-05-17 22:06:10 glamfolk
    Some overtones are really much louder than we think they are, and the tuner just picks them out. Also, playing those open strings might cause the g string to resonate quite loudly.

  4171. musictheory 2019-05-17 22:27:12 motophiliac
    Er, ha, this is gonna be weird, but I've never understood what those arrows are actually for. So, let's say I'm wanting to tune a string to be a pure major 3rd above a tone. Say I have a string tuned to A=440 Hz. I could pick the next string, and tune it exactly to a C#, but if I instead wanted to tune it to an exact major 3rd above A, I would instead use the right hand arrow to tune it to a major 3rd?

  4172. musictheory 2019-05-17 22:33:24 motophiliac
    Yeah, I had a look at the instructions for it. Although I got the left and right arrows mixed up, I had no idea that tuners had these indications on them. I've never really needed them because guitars are tuned absolutely, with each string having a set frequency so I've never needed to tune anything to major or minor thirds. I have to say thanks for shedding this bit of light on something I'd never even noticed.

  4173. musictheory 2019-05-17 22:50:09 motophiliac
    So I take it string sections do tune themselves in thirds? I know that pianos (and Fender Rhodes, specifically) can be stretch tuned. If you're saying that a pure major 3rd is slightly flatter than the equal temperament equivalent (tuning to which is designed to give pure octaves), I'm figuring that instruments tuned this way have stretched octaves? I'm wondering how much this affects how an orchestra sounds, if they are tuned as you've explained.

  4174. musictheory 2019-05-17 22:51:30 TomSerb
    There are a lot of areas within physics that have music applications. I could probably list at least 100 things, but you could start by just googling the following terms, and see where they lead you: * standing waves (how strings vibrate) * harmonics, partials, overtones (how vibrations affect timbre) * string resonance (how those partials get distributed) * string inharmonicity (why the same pitch on strings of different mass and/or length have different timbre) * acoustic resonance (how sound boards/boxes work on instruments) * cymatics (how plates, diaphragms and membranes vibrate) * Chladni lines (plate vibration at different frequencies) * transverse vibrations (vibrations on circular surfaces like drum heads) * reflection phase change (string vibration at the end points) You can move into the soft sciences too. Psychoacoustics is the study of how we perceive sounds - why octaves seem to be different sizes in different ranges (which affects how pianos are tuned - look up "stretched tuning"), how we can perceive sounds that aren't really there (extrapolating a missing fundamental), etc.

  4175. musictheory 2019-05-17 23:04:00 Sean_man_87
    No in orchestra it's as equal temperament as much as possible. There is a wide range of the pitch in orchestra. The better the orchestra (normally) the narrower pitch center for each note. This is for solo, unaccompanied playing. There is a small, but important amount of rep for string instruments (bach, reger, etc.) That just intonation is suited for. I basically can feel the difference in hand shape when playing with piano vs. Playing unaccompanied

  4176. musictheory 2019-05-17 23:50:42 Jongtr
    Plain D7, I make it. It would be D11 if he was playing the 1st string, but he isn't. Talking in terms of the *shapes* (as if there was no capo), which you might find easier to think about, it's Em, C and B7. He sometimes adds the b9 to the B7 (fret 1 on B string), and sometimes plays a simple B power chord with added b6 (x-2-4-0-x-x). If you want to accentuate the "Spanish-ness" of this tine, think harmonic minor. That's E harmonic minor from the capo (G concert harmonic minor). Do you need a pattern for that?

  4177. musictheory 2019-05-18 00:15:40 Jongtr
    Your bass G string is actually 98 Hz. Its 7th fret harmonic would be 98 x 3 = 294 Hz. The equal tempered pitch (which you'd actually get on 19th fret, where there is another node) is 293.67. The frequency difference is 0.33 Hz, which equates to one "beat" every 3 seconds, if you were to hear both pitches together. IOW, a *very slow* chorusing effect. An octave higher, that 2 cent difference will result in beats twice as fast, but still pretty slow. The beats between tempered 5ths (or rather between the harmonics of tempered 5ths) is how piano tuners tune pianos.

  4178. musictheory 2019-05-18 03:19:58 Bakumaster
    Yeah, that one and the second (?) string piece really threw me

  4179. musictheory 2019-05-18 04:13:16 Da_Biz
    It's not psychological, it has to do with the properties of a steel string and tension. I'm not going to pretend to understand exactly the reasons why as I have not delved deeply into them, but it results in slightly sharper harmonics the shorter a string is. Perhaps the same type of snooty perfect pitch people who demand exactly A440 have a similar distaste for stretch tuning. Check out the graph; it clearly shows variable differences between equal temperament.

  4180. musictheory 2019-05-18 04:30:24 Tabbert12
    Welcome to string theory and the never ending quest to finding the perfect tuning. Nothing adds up not even octaves.

  4181. musictheory 2019-05-20 03:57:22 lastaccount-promise
    The oozy accordion and string harmonies really reminded me of the soundtrack to Waking Life, all done by the Tosca Tango Orchestra.

  4182. musictheory 2019-05-20 04:02:48 I_am_Norwegian
    Yeah, I seem to remember this from when I learned to tune my guitar. I was wondering what the title meant, given that I'm pretty sure I didn't tune my B string to Bb. The last decade however, I've only learned theory from the internet. Takes me a minute when my brother who learned music theory in school talks of moll and dur to go "ah, minor and major".

  4183. musictheory 2019-05-20 05:09:06 luv2belis
    It's so you can tune your 7 string to BAGHDAD

  4184. musictheory 2019-05-20 08:42:03 Xenoceratops
    Between the pieces you provided, I don't hear much of a similarity. There are some traditional symbols that both John Luther Adams and Mendelssohn use, such as sustained (usually tonic) harmonies and an activated texture (usually arpeggiation) against it. Check out the prelude to Wagner's [Dad Rheingold](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loTqK2Fyrrw) for another evocation of water using these ideas. The "[Vltava](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G4NKzmfC-Q)" movement of Smetana's Ma Vlast is a little different: it begins with two flute melodies representing individual streams joining together into the Vlatava river (which you can hear when the running line transfers to the string section). Would you know these things if the composer didn't say "this is about the sea/a river"? I'm guessing no. I certainly wouldn't have guessed the Mendelssohn, because that shit's old hat for common practice music. Can you imagine how many sustained tonic chords and arpeggios there are in the orchestral repertoire? These symbols might occasionally form a repertoire all their own, but generally it's whatever the composer decides on in the moment. I mean, Takemitsu just [spells it out](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_JkZs1Ku9c) in pitch-class motives (E♭-E-A). The programmatic symbolism in Ken Ueno's [I screamed at the sea until nodes swelled up, then my voice became the resonant noise of the sea](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKu5-EtQ94Y) is completely different.

  4185. musictheory 2019-05-20 08:48:22 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, they asked because sometimes people don't know what modulation really means ;-) You say "Harmonic Progression" which is usually written as a "string of chords" like you have: F - C - Am - Bb - looks like a chord progression in the key of F Major. But it sounds like you're saying you're ending the Am section on an Am chord, then just simply moving to the Bb section starting with the Bb? If so, it may sound "smooth" to you, but it might not to other people. Something like "smooth" is subjective. But, the other thing is, we've all heard millions of modulations like this. We're used to them. They don't sound anywhere near as abrupt as they might have 300 years ago. I'd have to hear it myself and see if it sounds "smooth" to me. But if it did, it would have to do with listening experience and exposure, not anything inherent in the notes or choice of keys. As a sometime composer, I find this stuff a distraction to writing. Is it what you want? Then do it. Don't worry about the why. Let people 200 years from now worry about that.

  4186. musictheory 2019-05-20 16:11:10 Jongtr
    There are several ways of playing the other than the orthodox way: 1. Left hand picking, right fretting, bass string on top 2. Left hand picking, right fretting, bass string on bottom (right handed guitar flipped over) 3. Good hand fretting, weaker hand picking - i.e., a left-handed player playing a normal guitar the normal way 4. As 3, but for a right-handed player. I.e., same as 1 or 2, but with the dominant hand on the frets. There are well-known players in each category. Category (2) tend to be self-taught (obviously). Wiki has [lists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musicians_who_play_left-handed) for types 1-3. B B King and Mark Knopfler are examples of type (4) I'm not sure what you mean by "reverse the body", not what kind you think looks "hideous and tacky". Type (1) could mean either a guitar designed for left-handed playing, or a right-handed guitar that's flipped over, with the strings reversed so the bass is still uppermost. Jimi Hendrix played that way.

  4187. musictheory 2019-05-20 21:58:03 RyanT87
    I'm not an expert on ancient Greek music theory (we studied it in our History of Theory I seminar, and I'm most familiar with the reception of ancient Greek music theory in Medieval and Renaissance theoretical writings), so I can't comment in detail on the Seikilos epitaph. But while indeed it does use letters in the music notation, these are certainly not the same letters that we use today for designating pitch; that happened gradually and generally in the manner I described above. I probably should have been more specific. The sentence you quote could have been better worded as: "The ancient Greek pitch systems outlined in music-theoretical writings did not use the letter names for pitches that we presently do, but rather names such as 'Proslambanomenos' and 'Hypate Meson.'" It is worth noting, too, that the ancient Greek music-theoretical writings were for the most part little concerned with describing musical practice, but rather sought to demonstrate how numbers were manifested in music, just as in astronomy. (This is reflected in grouping music and astronomy with geometry and arithmetic in the [Quadrivium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrivium) of the [Seven Liberal Arts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education).) This is why in the pitch system they demonstrate how the entire thing can be built from ratios using only the numbers of the *tetraktys*: 1, 2, 3, and 4. 2:1 divides the string in half and gives the octave, then 3:2 gives the fifth and 4:3 the fourth. From this, you can measure the distance between the fifth and fourth, which gives you a tone of 9:8. (Note too that all these ratios are superparticular, meaning x+1:x, a type of ratio they particularly seemed to like.) You can then take two of these tones to make a major third (or ditone), and if you measure the distance between this ditone and the perfect fourth, you get a semitone called the *leimma* ("that which is left over"). If you take a tone and subtract the *leimma*, you get the *apotome* for your two sizes of semitone. So this demonstrates the mathematical beauty of the musical pitch system in that it can all be derived from these simple numeric ratios. And this interest in ratios and numbers lead to things like the [music of the spheres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musica_universalis) and measuring celestial movement with things like the [Antikythera Mechanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism).

  4188. musictheory 2019-05-21 06:02:34 jazzadellic
    When we repeat the notes of a chord in different registers, that is called "note doubling". It's a common practice in all of music composition going all the way back to the earliest examples of music composition. Just think, what would all the instruments in an orchestra play if we didn't use note doubling? Note doubling isn't only there to give the bassoon players something to do...chords with doubled notes simply sound different then chords with only three sounded notes. They sound more full. I mean test it out. Play the notes G-B-D on your guitar and then play a full six string version of G, and tell me they don't sound different. If you can hear there is a difference in how they sound, then you understand why we need to use note doubling sometimes - it increases our musical palette of sounds which for composition is a good thing.

  4189. musictheory 2019-05-21 06:12:08 Owlentities
    I think having just intervals (or other needed fine pitch deviations based on expressive context) makes enough of a difference to the emotional content of a piece that good musicians will, consciously or unconsciously, either try to fix the pitch on the fly with instruments that have that capability (string bending, fretless instruments, voice, etc.), or else they'll compensate with composition to avoid, to some extent, the incorrect intervals on instruments that can't fix them. Probably there's enough flexibility there that "correct" pitch doesn't actually need to be annotated, as this is the same kind of very subtle artistic judgment that needs to be made with rhythms, for example, and though you can hear the difference, it's not always practical to notate it in exacting precision.

  4190. musictheory 2019-05-21 06:38:39 TomSerb
    Doubling doesn't have to be in a different register. The guitar is capable of playing unisons (one string open, another fretted) on the same pitch in a chord voicing.

  4191. musictheory 2019-05-21 06:43:06 griant46290
    > When playing or creating a chord from a key scale, and then applying that to the guitar, why are their extra notes beyond the "1,3,5" of a chord? There aren't, just multiple instances of the same three notes: G, B, and D. Below are a number of examples of how to play a G major chord on guitar, first shown as the frets played on each string starting at the low E on the left and extending towards the high E on the right, then showing the notes of those chords (which are all G, B, and D in various orders and with various notes repeated): 320033 - GBDGDG 320003 - GBDGBG 355433 - GDGBDG

  4192. musictheory 2019-05-21 11:13:32 CustomSawdust
    The string quartets of Charlie Chaplin. I love them. So melodic and lyrical. He was a true artist.

  4193. musictheory 2019-05-21 12:11:03 65TwinReverbRI
    That music theory is irrelevant, and sound is more important :-) Seriously, these guys weren't sitting around going, "gee, we need to modulate the transposition of the z-related set to generate a negative harmonic series which will form chords related by the functional alignment of the necrotonic scale". More likely it was: [hits blunt} "duuuuuuude, that was wicked, play it again, I think we can make a song out of it". More seriously, it's just a chord shape - could have just been an accident - a happy accident! - that gets moved around with the bass note changing. That bass note moving in the ever common I - IV - V - I helps to hold it together and make it make sense, but the rest is really more about moving this shape around and the funky unexpectedness it creates with the open string in there. Basically, it sounds "ordinary, but with something unusual". The former satisfies our need for orientation, but the latter satisfies our need for hearing something fresh.

  4194. musictheory 2019-05-21 14:22:18 GormyGorm
    Learn your scales, major and minor. Learn them in open position (played in the first few frets, using open strings whenever provided the option between the 5th fret and the open string above it). I would personally say that you should learn your music theory and application of it on an instrument that is completely unfamiliar compared to the guitar, and then once you feel that you know a lot more, you could work on applying it to guitar, which would probably be easier. When I was trying to learn theory and apply it to guitar, I found myself constantly trapping myself in patterns and boxes for chords and scales, which started to limit me.

  4195. musictheory 2019-05-21 16:14:09 Jongtr
    >matching the voice to the notes of the chord. That's essentially what you need to do, or at least where to begin. You don't actually need to know the notes in each chord, but you have to be able to tune your voice into them. E.g., when you play a C chord (x-3-2-0-1-0), pick each string in turn, and see if you can sing that note. Depending on your age and gender, you may not be able to get to all of them. An adult male, for example, may struggle to get the note of the top E string. A woman (or boy) might struggle to get the low C (3rd fret 5th string). But the basic skill you need is to be able to hear when your voice is in tune with as many of those notes as you can reach. Do this for every chord you are playing: pick each string and try to sing or hum the note. An additional useful test is to find your own vocal range. Sing/hum the lowest and highest notes you can comfortably reach - i.e., comfortably enough to be able to hold them on pitch - and find those notes on the guitar (just single notes not chords). This will be the range within which you need to sing any song. This will probably mean you need to lower (or raise) the key of some songs - unless you have a great voice with a big range! That's *transposition*, which requires some additional knowledge of theory and guitar technique.

  4196. musictheory 2019-05-21 18:47:56 expiredvegetable
    Isn't a string instrument also much more demanding in a composition setting because the way they 'resonate with the overtone series'? So a poor voicing can be unforgiving on strings but slightly more tolerable on a piano. I've never played a string instrument though.

  4197. musictheory 2019-05-21 22:43:42 jakethesnakebooboo
    If that were true, string players wouldn't be the most consistently out of tune culprits in the ensemble tho

  4198. musictheory 2019-05-22 00:08:56 0nieladb
    In a vacuum, no. A simple melody in 5/4 time is generally indistinguishable from 5/8. However, usually context will help out. A passage of music in 5/4 (in a song that is primarily 4/4) will sound very different than a passage of 5/8. As others have pointed out, there are also tendancies (usually in the drums) that will hint as to what's happening time-wise. For example, jazz music typically has a swung 8th note, not a swung 16th note, so jazz is typically written in 5/4. Speed and subdivisions are another factor. If the music is moving so fast that you can barely count the subdivision (see Adam Neely's latest video on the composition he wrote for string quartet), it generally makes the most sense to think of it in 5/8. However, if the tempo allows for subdivisions that stray into 8-notes-per-beat territory, it's generally safer to assume those are 32nd notes in 5/4, as opposed to 64th notes in 5/8.

  4199. musictheory 2019-05-22 22:25:23 CapedSam
    I'm hearing: D (open 6th string, tuned down), A (harmonic at 5th fret on 5th string), E and G I'd spell it 1 5 9 11

  4200. musictheory 2019-05-23 03:53:33 MusicTheoryLover
    Part of it comes from having looked at and listened to a lot of music for a particular instrument. The idea is to learn what kind of writing is idiomatic to an instrument, such as the type of figuration, articulation, and the character of a musical passage. Also you want to study the changes of timbre from one register to another (the clarinet has some of the most marked differences of tone color from one octave to the next) and decide when the instrument is right for a particular range of pitches. With strings, you'll want at least a rudimentary knowledge of fingering to make for convenient changes from one string to another; this is especially important when writing double or multiple stops (chords). Also, for brass and wind instruments, find out what leaps are easy and difficult, especially when leaping downward (the relaxation of pressure required when going down is always harder to control than an increase of pressure when going up). It's really many different factors, and sometimes more than one instrument is up to the task for the same passage.

  4201. musictheory 2019-05-23 04:09:27 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, Let's say that composers of the past were generally either around all kinds of instruments all the time, in addition to the ones they could play themselves (which were often more than just one instrument), and they actually had teachers, and many went through apprenticeships or studied in academic institutions, or, with other great composers and so on. Generally speaking, people who did that (and who continue to do it today) have a lot more familiarity with instruments and their roles - when someone goes through our Music Education Degree, they will take "methods" classes where they spend a semester on the String family, then a semester on Woodwinds, and so on. They will also study Piano, and go through Sight Singing, and will take Conducting classes. They will perform in a lot of mixed ensembles, and they will conduct mixed ensembles, and ultimately go on to do Student Teaching at a school with a band and learn enough about all the instruments to be able to help kids learn about music and play their instruments at least at a level decent enough to put on your typical Middle or High School performance. And they're not even composers! Some of them may of course write, and/or arrange, but, I mean, I hate to say it this way, but composers are very often educated - "schooled" - in all this stuff. And also, student composers generally have plenty of opportunities to hear their music performed while they're in school (or in the past, when they were apprenticing, which often involved them copying out parts from a score, which taught them a lot). So the answer is **experience**. _____ Now, with that said, there is a certain amount of "general" knowledge available and most instruments can actually play a lot of stuff as long as it's in range and just not ridiculously jumpy or fast or whatever. If you've got a friend who plays Flute, and you don't, if you write a basic melody using typical note values and rhythms, in a typical scale, as long as it's within its average range and gives them time to breathe, it's going to sound OK. IOW, you could take "Mary Had A Little Lamb" and play it on every single instrument out there (well, those we're most likely talking about). It's when the music gets more complex - at the extreme ranges of the instrument, ridiculously fast, no time for breath, things that are just physically unplayable such as huge intervals in one hand on piano, things like that is where knowing a little more about the instrument comes in. ___ Of course now, people use DAWs and MIDI Mock-ups to get an idea of what the music is going to sound like on real instruments and that is extremely helpful too. But it still boils down to experience. Which many get through actual training and study. ____

  4202. musictheory 2019-05-23 05:48:18 reckless150681
    Aha! The key here is trial and error, backed with experience. Or, is it experience backed with trial and error? You decide. As an amateur composer myself, when it comes to idiomatic writing I start with my experience in the orchestra. What parts do I remember from which pieces? How does each instrument sound in certain contexts? The next step is to consult textbooks. Yes, textbooks. There are a number of great books out there on orchestration and instrumentation - Blatter, Rimsky-Korsakov, Adler, etc. For the most part, they teach you the science of orchestration. That is to say, xxx instrument can play these notes, yyy instrument can play these notes, zzz instrument can play these notes. If you really study the mechanics of an instrument, you can actually understand quite a lot without even playing it. The final step is to check with an actual musician. For example, the Blatter book says that brass players can perform lip trills across any two partials. While this is true, it becomes easier the higher you go, and for trombonists it's better to have these trills in positions that are close together. Do you know Tchaikovsky's first piano concerto? Well Tchaik didn't actually play piano at all - he had to constantly consult with his pianist friends. If you're looking to start with orchestral scoring, you can think of the orchestra as a quartet, with each section being an "instrument". So you'll have the strings, the winds, the brass, and the percussion. Note that you shouldn't literally score the same part for entire sections, but it's not a bad way to have this idea of sections relating to sounds. As you become more familiar with individual instruments you can start cross-voicing (i.e. putting a part that's shared in the bassoon, viola, and horn, for example). You can also start with a small ensemble like a string/brass/wind quartet or quintet, or maybe a Pierrot ensemble, or just ask five random people for five random instruments. Lastly, remember that instrumentation is both an art and a science. On one hand, you need to know what instruments are capable of playing, but on the other hand you can't be afraid to jump into the deep end and see what sticks. Feel free to PM me your exercises - I can help point out good orchestration, issues, and impossible parts.

  4203. musictheory 2019-05-23 08:07:29 Xenoceratops
    >Of course now, people use DAWs and MIDI Mock-ups to get an idea of what the music is going to sound like on real instruments and that is extremely helpful too. No guarantee that it will playable or actually translate to an acoustic environment. A flute in the first octave being heard above a string section, yeah right. And I've seen some pretty egregious "French horn" parts in MIDI music.

  4204. musictheory 2019-05-23 10:11:31 65TwinReverbRI
    Yeah, there's this thing called the "missing fundamental" principle, and basically if you hear some overtones without their fundamental, your brain kind of fills in the fundamental. Since the the Perfect 4th is the first interval in the series that doesn't include the fundamental as it's lowest note, that's the first one you'd hear that may exhibit this phenomenon. A second, related issue is called "difference tones" and any interval can actually produce a difference tone - if you've got a 330 wave and a 440 wave (which would be E and A - a perfect 4ths) the difference is 110 and that produces a fundamental tone of A. If you use distortion on guitar these are really pronounced sometimes. You can even bend each string a but and hear the difference tone move sharp or flat! And yeah, tuners "hear" these things too and if it's really pronounced it can mess them up. It can depend on where the overall starting point is (a difference tone below roughly 20 Hz will just "pulse" rather than make a discernible pitch).

  4205. musictheory 2019-05-23 10:59:44 SH0774
    Each fret is a semitone (e.g. open top string is E, first fret is F, F#, etc.) The dots are just there so you can more quickly get to where you need to play and make less mistakes (e.g. hitting 11th fret instead of 12, 12 has double dots)

  4206. musictheory 2019-05-23 12:37:02 smk4813
    > ...but are the intervals between the dots on the neck of the guitar a certain type of chord... No. They're intervals like you said. From low to high, the first dot is a minor 3rd from the open string (E to G or A to C). All the others up to the 9th fret are a major 2nd apart (G to A or C to D). The twelfth fret is double dotted to show the octave (low E to middle E). The dots are visual markers put there so your eyes don't get lost trying to count fret spaces. They're reference points. And yes, you can use them to help make riffs if you so desire.

  4207. musictheory 2019-05-23 17:45:54 Larson_McMurphy
    As others have pointed out, the dots are meant for reference, but by coincidence, they do outline some pentatonic patterns, so that is probably what you are experiencing as ease in riff making. The E string and it's 1st dot, 2nd dot, 3rd dot, then the 2nd and 3rd dots of the A string, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th dot of the D string, and the 3rd and 4th dot of the G string give you 2 octaves of E minor pentatonic.

  4208. musictheory 2019-05-24 01:42:11 electon10orbit
    Anyone here know of resources for writing for 'synth-orchestra', where it's true to it's own capabilities, and not just trying to ape orchestra music? The tutorials seem to be either DJ like (not orchestra oriented, but drum beat oriented), or film score composers who are orchestra oriented. (Sound effects in a movie are often more interesting than the music.) Part of the pallet is instrumental sounds (live e-piano I play, and a few choice instrument patches), but also, of course synth sounds of many types. An interesting addition to the sound palette, that doesn't exist in an orchestra, is 'eerie electroacoustic sounds', which you might here as sound effects in a film, like re tuned string like sounds, occurring octaves below their original pitch, like the Fairlight did. (See YT video on music/sound effects to Terminator 1 and 2.) Or maybe I have to write this manual, though interested in any input.

  4209. musictheory 2019-05-24 04:21:17 Jongtr
    OK, it took me a few minutes to make sense of that. Firstly, your root notes (with correct enharmonics) are C Bb Ab G. Harmonising them all from C phrygian dominant (5th mode F harmonic minor), the chords would be C major, Bb minor, Ab augmented, G dim. Adding 7ths would make them C7, Bbm7, Abmaj7#5, Gm7b5. Secondly, I suspect your tab is upside down: looks like you have the bass string on top, because then the notes all make sense as belonging to F harmonic minor. (The timing isn't clear because it's not proportionally spaced.)

  4210. musictheory 2019-05-24 04:35:13 expiredvegetable
    It likely isn't A min, the E major is functioning as it often does in this context, as a secondary dominant to get to A minor. However, notice how the end of this string of chords lands via the perfect cadence to C, thus emphasising C as our tonic. Were A min to be emphasised, it could well be in A minor. It is not. Hope that cleared that up.

  4211. musictheory 2019-05-24 08:27:03 DreamSequence89
    Rap and hip hop are vocal based music. The lyrics are the main focus. The secondary focus is percussion and bass. If the drums and bass are the rhythm section, synths and samples act as the “guitars.” However, musically speaking hip hop music focuses on making the most out of what’s available to you. Using samples and drum machines was a way for people to create music without needing a band or lots of equipment. No ever made a rap song on a drum machine a thought “ I’ve broke the mold!” It’s just an end to a mean. It was never meant to replace musicians, just to kind of substitute them. The beautiful thing about rap music is the simplicity of it. There doesn’t need to be a chord progression or different songs sections (chorus, verse, bridge, refrain, etc.) it’s just a background for a story teller to help paint a picture. Hip hop can be made with one person, a band, a choir, an orchestra, a drum circle, it doesn’t matter! I like to compare the work of Brahms to hip hop, it’s very simple, repetitive, with an easy catchy melody. Some of the more hardcore rap music is more like horror movie soundtracks. Eerie drone sounds, dissonant melody, lots of space and intense percussion. Basically find a vamp, loop it, put drums on it. It’s rap! But there are no rules, you can bang on the table or write parts for a quartet of string players and create something amazing!

  4212. musictheory 2019-05-24 23:28:03 Verifiable_Human
    In seriousness, there's not a lot that MuseScore doesn't do. There's no limit to instruments (that I've reached), it can transpose, it can do chord symbols, it can do TAB, it has a huge library of articulations that can be added, you can add whatever tempo/time signature/key at any point (including making your own), there's no measure limit, it's got position numbers for string players, and it has formatting options where you can easily change the size or font of anything and make the page look nice. That's all off the top of my head, the only serious drawback I've encountered is that the MIDI playback is low quality. Now I'm not trying to start a fight or anything but I'm not experienced with Finale or Sibelius (although I have used both) and wondering what features they offer specifically that MuseScore doesn't.

  4213. musictheory 2019-05-24 23:36:20 theredwoodcurtain
    If they’re singing a little flat, they might be exciting the B string, and the tuner is picking up an F# overtone.... this seems unlikely to me

  4214. musictheory 2019-05-25 05:30:32 CellularAtomaton
    For what its worth, I learned and internalized more about music theory between age 35 and 40 than I did as a musician from age 12 to 35. The biggest difference was that I learned how to practice effectively, identify weaknesses and improve in a very deliberate way. There are uncountable dimensions to musicianship (whether you are a composer or improvisor), but you can only focus on one at a time. Some dimensions can be put on autopilot while you work on others. The trick is in identifying the dimensions that are holding you back and turning those into exercises which physically internalize the concept and commit it to mechanical muscle memory. Theory as a purely cerebral exercise almost always fails me. The approach of transforming the cerebral into the physical, where you can actually feel and experience the concept, is what has always made it stick for me. As a concrete example, from age 12 to 35 I was pretty much exclusively a guitar player. I had spent years trying to replicate the abilities of the greats (Reinhardt, Christian, Zappa, Garcia, Rice, Anastasio, McLaughlin, and everywhere in between). I was failing for many reasons, but the number one thing that I noticed when studying these different genres was that they all had specific right hand techniques which I had been discounting as having already learned early on in my journey. Going back to the fundamentals with the picking hand (cross picking, rest strokes, sweeps, dynamics, string skipping, hand position/anchoring, tremelo etc) I learned how much of an amateur my picking hand was compared with my fretting hand. I had to go all the way back to the beginning and relearn how to pick, free up my hand from anchoring, develop more power from my elbow, more pick control,etc. The result was (after 5 years of hard work) a night and day difference in my playing ability. My fretting hand ability was totally transformed by the work on my picking technique. I now no longer had to stress about where my pick was even with multiple string hops, and I could effortlessly exercise the full dynamic range of the instrument. I had no idea that all of these problems existed because I was so focused on the fretting / harmonic / melodic side of things. Once the picking technique became automatic, my brain was freed up to focus on the cerebral parts: what is the current chord / progression and where are the triads on my instrument, what colors am I trying to accentuate, how do those fit into a modal context, how does the melody relate to that context, etc.

  4215. musictheory 2019-05-25 06:03:42 ILoveKombucha
    Man, I feel you about that rich student of yours. I've had a generous handful of really well off students (my longest running student of nearly 8 years now... is a multimillionaire). One dude was JUST like your guy. He would bring a different guitar every week... fancy stuff. And he sucked! He could somewhat do his open chords... but didn't know how to play any songs, couldn't even get past the first page or two of Hal Leonard Guitar method (ie, here are your notes on the E string!). He just wanted to talk all lesson - even longer than the hour session (but he paid me extra). Talk about his favorite bands, or about the technical aspect of instruments (he had some engineering background). Maybe he just wanted a friend. I guess his wife started giving him heck for having 5 or 6 fancy guitars, so one day he comes in with a Dean Z set-neck guitar (I estimate worth about 800 or 900 bucks new) and says "how about I trade you this guitar for one month's worth of lessons (4 lessons). HELL YEAH! This guitar that he practically gave to me was way nicer than any of my guitars (I had one classical, one cheap ass acoustic, and one low-mid level electric). Years later, that Dean Z is still my main electric guitar. Rhythm... jeeeeeeezus. I've seen some horrible things. I have a long running student who is beat-deaf. I even made the questionable decision of telling him that he is likely beat deaf (like... you don't want to discourage people, but you also don't want to lead them on forever). He's still stuck around. But yeah... can't play anything but straight quarter notes to a metronome. Sometimes he can EVENTUALLY sync with a metronome on 8th notes and stuff, but if you tap it up or down one click... it'll take him sometimes 2 or 3 minutes to sync up again. He's beat deaf. I couldn't do some of the shit he does even if I tried! Like, he can be nodding his head to one tempo, tapping his foot to a totally different one, and playing something totally unrelated to either of those two things! It's like he's doing some crazy 3 tiered polyrhythm. But in his mind, he's playing perfectly in 4/4 on some basic 8th note pattern. But what are ya gonna do? He wants to keep taking lessons. At the end of the day, I may not have his rhythm difficulties, but... I also don't have his 2+ million dollars, or his 100k+ per year salary. It is what it is. Some people are just super weak in rhythm. The best thing I've found to help it is making them count out loud while they play. But it is so un-romantic for them, and most people won't stick with it for more than a week or two before they say "fuck it, I'm gonna just go back to my old habits!" It's like they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink. I tell my students what they should try to do to improve, but I know fully well that they will all ignore 90% of my advice. But I get paid either way. The fun life of a music teacher! :)

  4216. musictheory 2019-05-25 16:43:00 PJBthefirst
    I used to dream of amazing orchestral/string/vocal pieces and melodies when on the edge of falling asleep when sleep deprived. That's what made me get into music 8 years ago, I wanted to be able to get those out into the world some day.

  4217. musictheory 2019-05-26 02:43:01 17bmw
    In addition to all the amazing and thorough responses already, may I talk to you today about our lord and atonal savior, Arnold Schoenberg¹? He wrote this really lush and yummy string sextet, [Verklärte Nacht](https://youtu.be/vqODySSxYpc), that features instances of inverted *ninth* chords. The Vienna Music Society didn't think inverted ninth chords *could* exist which made it hard for him to get the music performed; it's impossible to play something that doesn't exist right? This disdain for a completely wonderful piece naturally irked Schoenberg, so, in his [Theory of Harmony](https://www.schoenberg.at/index.php/en/onlineshop/product/23-arnold-schoenberg-theory-of-harmony-paperback), he considers ninth chords, as well as other extended chords). He details their constructions, histories, uses, *and* inversions. I know I sound like a broken record, but please, please, please read the text (and it's follow-up, *Structural Functions of Harmony*) if you want an excellent look into this subject. Also of note, the act of chordal inversion (and not other kinds of inversion) is super relevant to non-tonal musics as well. Elliot Carter was fond of uses pitch-class sets with unique intervallic and inversion properties. The [grandmother chord](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-interval_twelve-tone_row#Grandmother_chord), for example, is an arrangement of all 12 pitch classes such that all 11 intervals occur within the chord *and* subsequent inversions of this structure retain the all-interval quality. It's really something special. Chordal inversion is an amazing topic so I hope this response helps you on your quest. Take care! 1.) Oh no, not me lavishing praise on [Schoenberg](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7c/82/6e/7c826e094099a1519822fbeeace45af9.jpg) again? In case you're wondering, I'm never going to stop riding Schoenberg, best believe!

  4218. musictheory 2019-05-26 02:45:10 NothingWhenILived
    On a specific instrument, yes. I know exactly what an open E string sounds like on a classical guitar or an electric base guitar, and I know what C4 on apiano sounds like thanks to using that as a reference note when practicing intervalls. But "pseudo perfect ptch"? No, and like professor says, playing music is worth more than practicing developing a pitch.

  4219. musictheory 2019-05-26 03:42:40 ben_jamin_2514
    If you've played any musical instrument for an extended period of time you will start to subconsciously learn the timbre characteristics of different positions on said instrument. For guitar for example, the way an open string sounds is a lot different the way a fretted string sounds. Though these timbre differences are subtle and someone who hasn't played guitar won't know these subtle differences. The same can be applied for all instruments. So for example if played trumpet for an extended period of time, say 3 years for example, and learn everything by ear, you will have developed a memory to the timbre qualities of the trumpet. Adam neely explains it a lot better than me in his most recent Q+A video on YouTube.

  4220. musictheory 2019-05-26 07:10:18 yarnwonder
    I can do it with an A after years of playing violin in orchestras. Once I get the A I can tune every other string on a guitar too even though I can only play three chords.

  4221. musictheory 2019-05-26 20:14:54 Snowblinded
    Consider the fact that people like Pythagoras or Bharata did not have accesss to any kind of chromatic tuner. Try to imagine how you would go about devising a tuning system for a pile of dried sheep intestines or a tube with semi-regular holes drilled into it. You don't have any theory handbooks or previous ideas to work with, so you gotta figure this all out from scratch. Well, to start with, somebody probably noticed that, assuming your strings were of identical length (by, say, having created them from the same length of intestine), if you have exactly double or exactly half that same length of string, this creates octaves. Thus you could take a length of dried entrails and repeatedly double/halve them and make a series of octaves from it. At some point, likely by different people in different cultures, somebody realized that you could do this for other ratios as well. Somebody realized that if your entrail string was one and a half times the length of the other one, it makes something that sounds really nice. It is not that difficult to measure out an entrail to one and a half the size of another piece of entail, so you could keep doing this and use your ears to compare it with other strings and create a series of instruments that are in tune with each other. That one-and-a-half-length-of-entrail ends up working out into a perfect fifth (3:2). By contrast, the next most consonant intervals are the third and fourth, which are %:4 and 4:3 respectively. These intervals would be much harder to figure out by just working with doubling and halving a bunch of sheep intestines, so across the world we see this pattern of using fifths to build the entire scale.

  4222. musictheory 2019-05-26 23:41:38 Jongtr
    >Try to imagine how you would go about devising a tuning system for a pile of dried sheep intestines or a tube with semi-regular holes drilled into it. You don't quite need to go that far. According to legend, Pythagoras developed the theory of 5ths from the weights of metal bars. Supposedly he heard a blacksmith's hammers ringing in harmony, and discovered that their weights were in simple proportion. Hallelujah, God must be a mathematician! ;-) Once you do have reliable stretched strings - and the Greeks certainly did - then it's easy enough to perform experiments with string length, and also with the same string lengths under different tension (by hanging weights on the end). This [Renaissance engraving](http://www.peterfrazer.co.uk/music/tunings/pythag.jpg) (from 1492) sums up their view of the Greek system of proportion.

  4223. musictheory 2019-05-27 05:06:58 vornska
    > According to legend, Pythagoras developed the theory of 5ths from the weights of metal bars. Supposedly he heard a blacksmith's hammers ringing in harmony, and discovered that their weights were in simple proportion. Right, but physically it doesn't work like this. As part of the birth of empirical science, Vincenzo Galilei (Galileo's father) tested this legend & discovered that it's nonsense. String or pipe length gives you a nice way to measure frequency ratios; but tension & weight are way more complex.

  4224. musictheory 2019-05-27 07:59:22 RichardPascoe
    The C major scale is fine for creating extended complex solos using various approaches. One common approach is to break the C major scale down into triplet interval skips. That is how guitarists create those super sounding long scale runs. You know - the ones where they never seem to run out of fretboard. So using a triplet count of "1 - and - a" you play C - D - E for the first triplet then start the second triplet on D so D - E - F and then the next triplet starts on E. And so on up the scale. It is called a triplet interval skip scale because after each triplet you skip a note back to start the next triplet. You also have to learn to play it backwards. Do the same triplet interval skip with the minor pentatonic scale (with or without blue notes) and you will find it very useful for the blues. If you know the A minor pentatonic scale from the 5th fret low E string then try this. Play the scale backwards starting from the 8th fret on the high E string. Use the triplet count and the interval skip and voila - instant Muddy Waters, Hendrix and Led Zep.

  4225. musictheory 2019-05-27 08:56:28 TwoFiveOnes
    What do you mean by “classical”, exactly? Do you mean the specific period in the common practice era known as “Classical” which manifested in Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven? Or maybe you want your music to sound Baroque? Romantic? Then, which instrument plays your melody? Is it a single one that always does so, such as a vocal piece, or is it shared across different instruments such as in a string quartet or symphony? If the first, likewise what instruments form the accompaniment? If the second, is there a distinguished instrument as in a concerto, or are all instruments given the same significance? Or is this solo piano? These questions need to be answered first, before you can start thinking about harmonic choices. For instance, if it’s Baroque then you should be thinking less about chordal accompaniment and more about counterpoint, and if it’s Classical or early Romantic then your harmonic choices are already subject to a specific set of choices based on your melody (also true in Baroque).

  4226. musictheory 2019-05-27 11:32:49 the_sylince
    I keep it equal tempered and OCCASIONALLY lower the E string a few cents everyone now and again

  4227. musictheory 2019-05-27 11:53:23 BlindPelican
    Are you planning on resetting the frets or something? Even if you tune various strings to different root pitches, the ratios between notes will be the same on that particular string.

  4228. musictheory 2019-05-27 12:14:01 65TwinReverbRI
    What is it you want to compose? Some people use the word "compose" very broadly to mean more like "songwriting" or "beatmaking" which is different than what others mean - they mean "compose" to me the more traditional act of writing music down on paper for themselves and others to perform in a "concert music" setting, like orchestral, chamber music, and vocal genre forms. The first thing you need to do is listen to tons of the music you want to compose. The second is to learn to play as much of it as you can. The third is to analyze the music - tear it apart and see what it's made up of, and learn what the elements are and do so if you want to create similar sounds you can use those same devices. Fourth, you should pick pieces as models. If for example, you played Classical Guitar, you'd want to pick something like maybe a basic arpeggio type Etude like you'd find in Carcassi's method book, and try to write something similar to that. If it's a pop style, you'd want to pick a basic song and try to write something similar in terms of chord structure, form (verse, chorus, bridge, etc.) and even things like groove and strumming patterns and so on. However, I should mention here that most pop players do not "compose" like classical composers - they don't typically write things down specifically. They'll write lyrics, and maybe the chord progression, and sometimes for more advanced styles they'll write down melody lines and maybe riffs and so on, but a most of the time the vast majority of pop forms are written by rote and to some degree recording (of course many people write in a DAW now so they "record" as they go). Fifth, you have to start simple. Sorry. Everyone wants to start with a Symphony or String Quartet, or write something "Epic" (yawn). Even the greatest composers of all time started with very basic pieces. And today, one of the primary reasons that most people on the internet on forums like these have trouble writing music is that they simply haven't learned to play well enough to write very much, and/or don't have very much exposure to the music they want to compose (you would not believe the number of people who are out there composing a string quartet who've actually never even heard one or listened intently to one!). Many people get super frustrated because they're trying to write things they just don't have the skill set to write yet. It's a good thing to want to write great stuff, and it's important to be self-critical enough to help yourself improve, but you also can't set totally unachievable goals and beat yourself up for not being able to reach them! Finally, get a teacher! Even the greatest composers had teachers - often great composers themselves! You may just want to write for fun, and that's OK, but having some instruction and guidance will help you develop faster and again prevent you from just getting frustrated. This could come (and typically would come) in the form of Piano or Guitar lessons, where your teacher not only worked with you on the instrument itself, but would also help you start creating your own music. In pop music, especially in forms like Jazz where improvisation and reharmonization is part and parcel of the style, you'd be given the instruction necessary to do those things which lead naturally into writing your own pieces. For other pop styles, or classical music, you might have to express your interest in writing to your teacher, but they can help you work towards those goals if they know that's part of what you're after. Obviously, you can also just kind of "do it on your own" but in the end you'd spend a lot more time doing that than with the help of a teacher - you'd accelerate much more quickly with instruction. That may not matter to you, but again it can become frustrating if you don't have the guidance to help you set realistic goals and to give you criticism and help you improve. Otherwise you're just shooting in the dark. HTH

  4229. musictheory 2019-05-27 17:26:27 Da_Biz
    If you learn to tune the C6 chord by ear you will naturally find just intonation, not 12TET. Then bar chords will all be better in tune, but other chords may be much worse off and everything will sound out of tune relative to each other. For example, if you modulate from C6 to E6 the E on the second string will sound much sharper than the E previously played on the third string. You're much better off tuning each string relative to the corresponding fret of the previous string or using a tuner, 12TET isn't arbitrary there's a mathematical reason we use it.

  4230. musictheory 2019-05-28 02:43:23 demieert
    I will have to disagree with you on the description of Berg's works for string quartet. Particularily his Lyric Suite. He based his structure largely the "Berg"/"Fuchs" Hexachords, even going so far as making sure the lenght of each section fit the numerical values he assiged each note of the hexachords/tone row. This is most apparent structrally in the allegro misterioso where, even though we see the appearance of a Trio, hinting at the classical string quartet form, the Trio serves the Berg/Fuchs structure, rather than the opppsite way. I would also like to know where you see the paralells between the Bartók and Beethoven quartets. Can you name which Beethoven quartets you're thinking of? For me, the 3rd, 5th and 6th fall out of line too much to see the connection.

  4231. musictheory 2019-05-28 10:44:59 QuasiQwazi
    I feel your pain. I barely made it through my first year as a music major and then quit because I was so bummed out by my useless ear. It seemed that everyone else in my class could do what seemed almost impossible to me. That was years ago. Now there are many cool apps that will help you but there is no way to speed up a natural, unfolding process. For example it took me an entire year to go from 50% to 98% doing seven string intervals using GoodEar (IOS). My advice it to workout your ear at least twice a day with intervals of several hours between. If your are managing to get by then you can buy yourself the time you need for your ear to unfold. Keep at it and by this time next year you’ll be much better. This is going to take months, not days or weeks. Accept it and do the work. Good luck!

  4232. musictheory 2019-05-28 15:44:24 Octangula
    The instrument being used can also play into ease of reading. Music for pedal harps is usually preferred to be written so that the note head's letter indicates which string it should be played on, even if this would not be the correct enharmonic.

  4233. musictheory 2019-05-28 16:39:58 furnavi
    A different way of approaching sight reading is through intervals. Instead of looking at each note on its own, try reading the difference between notes. For example, C to D are right next to each other on the staff, so you can just think to move up a note in the C major scale. To be totally honest, I couldn't tell you many notes on the staff for a long time yet was still capable of sight reading well in a string quartet setting (no small feat!). I relied on the differences between notes and finger patterns to get by. Reading is all about practice and getting used to the patterns of music. It's really tough as a beginner, but you just have to trudge through it. If you can and your instrument allows, I'd highly recommend joining a beginner orchestra or band. It's a great place to get consistent practice reading with the support of others.

  4234. musictheory 2019-05-28 20:00:41 almoraima
    - Open string voicings - slowly sweep strings from high to low on an open string voicing and let it ring - this chord: 024100, or the minor version 024000 - harmonics - the music will also matter here, use smooth voiceleading e.g. Don’t go open shape Emaj to 5th fret barre Amaj or shit like that - do walking tenths between 6th and 3rd string Idk that’s off the top of my head

  4235. musictheory 2019-05-28 21:32:43 Jongtr
    Fingerstyle of some kind seems the obvious answer, or at least arpeggiated chords. Try a mix of fretted notes with open strings, especially with the fretted notes above 5th fret. Bert Jansch is your go to guy for steel-string acoustic technique., especially inventive chords higher on the neck. Check [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MRKPPprQQ) out. That's mostly pretty tricky, but tune to DADGAD and there's lots of easy stuff you find that sounds really good.

  4236. musictheory 2019-05-29 02:18:40 Jam--
    That's the major seventh. The sixth is A which is 2 on the third string; makes an add 9 chord which is also nice.

  4237. musictheory 2019-05-29 05:33:50 kieran_c_b
    Read scales, read arpeggios, read songs you know how to play (like Mary Had a Little Lamb). It's suuuuper helpful to just look at same basic stuff on the stave and relate what the note looks like to how it feels on your instrument. Others have recommended sight singing, which is helpful, but it can be pretty difficult when starting out. Definitely sing what your playing as you play it, if you have a chance. &#x200B; I read sheet music for like two years before I started playing violin, but once I started playing, it all clicked together for me. There was an actual context for the notes. Luckily, as I was starting out, I got to read some pretty basic stuff (like scales and string crosses). If you can find some pretty basic stuff that will help you establish a physical relationship to the notes you're reading, that will help A TON.

  4238. musictheory 2019-05-29 13:30:11 pigwig66
    My immediate thought is the range that instruments have, I come from a sax background so I'm used to the idea of transposition, but I don't think that would work so well when it comes to things like string instruments which are all in concert pitch but have different clefs due to the range. I would assume that it would lead to some instruments having awkward and uneven leger lines, but I'm not certain on that since I really only know wind instruments.

  4239. musictheory 2019-05-29 14:48:47 electon10orbit
    You mean, the low cello-like thing at the beginning? Sounds like a bowed low cello type sound, but with voice been part of the sound. I use Omnisphere (learning it), and 'bowed voice' type sounds sort of matches that. Though a big movie studio probably also using Vienna instruments...though it has something added to the low string. The melody then morphs into more conventional insturments/sounds. I never watch game of thrones, but those first few bars are nice.

  4240. musictheory 2019-05-29 19:18:02 VenusHellfire
    Cellist here! I love tenor clef! I change clefs regularly. It’s not bad. SIDE NOTE: when Dvorak writes treble clef for cello in orchestral or ensemble pieces he means treble down one octave. See serenade for strings or his American String Quartet. Not really a problem. I believe the system is wonderful, intuitive and beautifully crafted.

  4241. musictheory 2019-05-29 21:47:30 jtizzle12
    I’m not sure what particular era you’re looking at when you refer to an era where improvising declined, but nowadays that is certainly not the case. It is true that after Mozart/Beethoven the decline of the composer/performer was a thing. Although you still had many such as the great pianists Chopin, Liszt, etc. There were definitely less improvisors. However, part of it did have to do with how complex music was getting. Bach could improvise easily, but music was a lot more defined. There were a set number of voices that were required to do specific things, so if you knew the rules and had a good technical facility, you could improvise. During and after Beethoven’s time, a lot of the rules had been broken and it wasn’t as easy to try and improvised a fully fleshed out piece, which is what I’m sure a classical musicians goal in an improvisation is. Anybody can noodle around but when it comes to improvise, they understand it as something following and completing a concept. Now the thing is, because you’re putting on a spotlight on history you get to highlight all the great improvisors at work throughout the years. When you’re comparing that to the present, you get to also see the millions of people that are failing (and how many of those existed concurrently to Mozart? Just to put that into perspective). So, maybe you’re not looking in the right places, but many of today’s great musicians are great improvisors. If you go to a random place in the midwest and you see that the orchestra members are “Juilliard graduates”, it’s very possible that they are the Juilliard graduates that couldn’t make it in New York or LA for example. It’s not necessarily the truth with everyone but that’s usually what tends to happen. If you look at the great performers working in New York’s contemporary music scene all the time, these are also guaranteed to be the great improvisors. ICE (International Contemporary Ensemble) has some of the greatest improvisors out there in any style, and I’m not kidding. Peter Evans, trumpet player and Cory Smythe, pianist, are equally active in the NY jazz scene as they are in the contemporary classical scene. Peter Evans has a few groups he leads. Cory collaborates with many avant-garde jazz musicians including Ingrid Laubrock, Stephan Crump, Craig Taborn, Steve Lehman, and is a member of Tyshawn Sorey’s trio. Tyshawn is also a very ambiguous figure, as he’s a prolific composer in his own right, but additionally came up as a “jazz” drummer and is literally the greatest one out there. Other great improvisors include Conrad Tao, Dan Lippel, Ian Pace, and members of the Jack string quartet, Kreutzer string quartet, Arditti string quartet, etc. Many composers also write for improvisors, such as Michael Finnissy, Karlheinz Stockhausen (deceased), Jason Eckhardt, and many more.

  4242. musictheory 2019-05-30 01:12:19 driftingfornow
    I can play them on guitar and on trumpet, I am transcribing my own melody that I improvised. The problem is that I don’t think I could listen to this rhythm and reverse engineer it because my background on trumpet, sight reading, and playing with a band is predominantly classically oriented with a bit of jazz, but nothing like what I did at all in the slightest. If it were regular eight notes and sixteenths it wouldn’t be too bad but I think I started using a lot of triplets and pentuplets and stupid string playing out/ in of time. I don’t know. It’s also confusing to me because I think I spent too long in a single session and started overthinking notes that I should feel. Honestly I just started writing everything in eighth notes unless it’s clearly something else and making notes pointing to how to feel the rhythm and have been more successful with that.

  4243. musictheory 2019-05-30 02:52:14 purestate
    I hadn't considered church organists at all, so this is interesting , and perhaps an embarrassing oversight given that I mentioned Bach in the question! I guess I was picturing a member of an experienced string ensemble, although the question was motivated by my encounter with a very good classical pianist a couple of decades ago and a recent conversation with a jazz musician who had encountered the same phenomenon on his travels (also a pianist).

  4244. musictheory 2019-05-30 05:45:22 thisistotalkshit
    Cello and strings in the intro, then they add something that sounds like a synth acoustic steel string guitar and a viola or violin.

  4245. musictheory 2019-05-30 09:17:34 TheOneCosmos
    There's not a whole lot going on with this tune, and sometimes that can make it more difficult rather than less difficult to hammer it down strictly to certain theoretical ideas. In this case, the main harmonic element of the track a single bass line which repeats for the entire track. The bassline goes - G Db Eb, and it lingers for quite a while on the Eb at the end of each repetition, so I'm inclined to set the Eb as the root note of the chord. With respect to the Eb, the first note, G, is an interval of a major third, and the Db is an interval of a minor 7th. The most common chord which contains these notes is an Eb7 (Eb dominant 7) chord. Essentially, the bassline is just an arpeggio of an Eb7 chord, but with the perfect 5th eliminated - it's pretty common to eliminate the perfect 5th from a chord, since it doesn't really tell us anything interesting about the chord - it's to consonant with the root note to be of interest, whereas the major third tells us the minor/major quality of the chord and the minor gives us that dominant chord feel. The rest of the harmonic content of the tune consists of sparse electronic/guitar noises to add some texture here and there. Some theoretical info: 1) The synthy/string noise that comes in about 0.31s is playing/emphasising the root note, Eb. 2) The rhythmic synth noise at 0.47 plays the perfect 5th of an Eb7 chord, Bb. 3) Fade in string part at 0.54 plays the root note. 4) Until 0.45, the vocals are simply repeating the root note. 5) After 0.45, the vocal line generally goes Db, Eb, Eb (an octave down), Eb, Db, etc, etc, now and again (like at 0.58 with the lyrics "and consider") it moves to Bb F#. That F# is really the only note that's not part of the chord arpeggiated by the bassline, because it's the minor third instead of the major third (G). But, it's very brief, and the vocalist also sort of "bends" the note up about a halfstep so that it's sitting between the F# and the G. 6) The "break" at 1.28 essentially moves to a F# note and sticks with it for a bar or so before resolving back to the G which begins the original bassline. So, in summary, the entire tune is a single bassline arpeggiating an Eb7 chord, some synth parts which emphasise notes from that chord, and a fairy simply vocal melody that also emphasises the notes from that chord, and then a break which moves to an F# now and again, which is a nice leading tone back to the G to repeat. Interesting questions: 1) What key are we in? Well, that's not quite so straight forward, mainly because there's so little harmonic content. If you know major scales, then you should know that when we harmonise it into 7 chords, we have maj7, min7, min7, maj7, dom7, min7, min7b5, so normally when we come across a dominant 7 chord, we can move 5 notes back in the scale and that would give us the major key centre. In this case, since the 7 chord is an Eb7, this would suggest the major key as Gb major. But it would be pretty odd to say the tune is in the key of Gb major when the note Gb is literally never played. So I'd be more inclined to say it's in the key of Eb major (but then the Db from the bassline and the F# from the break both step outside that key), or Eb minor (but then the G from the bassline steps outside that key). 2) Generally speaking, dominant chords are rather "unsettled" in their sound and feel. They resolve very strongly to the key centre major chord, but because this song never actually plays that chord, the entire song just feels quite "unsettled", and that's also what makes it difficult to nail it down to a particular key with there being caveats.

  4246. musictheory 2019-05-30 15:59:57 dal-niente
    I think at :45, that is a hammered dulcimer playing. I’m talking about the one at :09. I thought it was a cello with some reverb but there’s something in the back of my mind saying it might be an ethnic string instrument...

  4247. musictheory 2019-05-31 05:48:50 leonardearl
    I think it's entirely the myth that's coloring your judgement. Musically, I don't see anything particularly depressing about this song compared to other famous sad jazz-ish songs like "Autumn Leaves". If this is suicidely depressing, than what is Gorecki's Third Symphony or Schostakovich's Eight String Quartet?

  4248. musictheory 2019-05-31 17:26:14 PlazaOne
    In the pythagorean tuning system your most important intervals are those with a simple ratio - 2:1 is an octave (in our modern naming system) and 3:2 is (what we now call) a perfect fifth. You can stack a bunch of consecutive fifths - C-G-D-A-E and produce a range of two-and-a-bit octaves. Identifying the halved or doubled frequencies between those pitches would enable you to build and tune a 13-string lyre: C-D-E-G-A-C-D-E-G-A-C-D-E

  4249. musictheory 2019-05-31 22:58:02 real_mark
    Third string

  4250. musictheory 2019-05-31 23:44:26 Sihplak
    If you mean "Trio" its just a section in the piece. If you mean the "3______", my guess is that it would be in third position on the viola (in terms of hand positions) though I'm not entirely sure as I'm a percussionist and not a string player.

  4251. musictheory 2019-06-01 00:17:49 Whycantiusethis
    When I played cello, I occasionally saw that notation, and it meant to keep that finger down, so in this example, it would be hold the third finger down. I'm assuming that the high B is on a different string than the high G, in order for this to be correct.

  4252. musictheory 2019-06-01 00:30:32 Viola_Buddy
    The 3__ means hold down your third finger on the D string, even when you go to play the B on the A string, so that it's still there when you go back to the G on the D string.

  4253. musictheory 2019-06-01 00:37:07 Wein_und_Brot
    I think it means that you have to play g with third finger in first position on D string and keep your third finger on the string while you play h with your first finger on A string.

  4254. musictheory 2019-06-01 01:04:08 chromaticgliss
    It's a G on the D string, which would be third finger in first position. It's just telling you to hold down third finger while grabbing the B with first finger on the A string so you can string change back without having to place the third finger again. Unusual to mark that explicitly, but it does happen. I don't think it's third position like many are saying. That would be marked either with a roman numeral "III" (see that usually in beginnerish music) or more likely with a "1" for the finger to play that pitch with (far more common). Oooor, sometimes roman numerals are used to indicate which string to play on... i.e. "sul IV" to stay on the lowest string. Arabic numerals aren't used to indicate the position number usually. (Source: former violist become violinist with 20 years experience who played competitively and things when I was younger... and still pick up the viola on rare occasions)

  4255. musictheory 2019-06-01 01:32:50 rharrison
    Hold 3rd finger down. Is this an etude? You're likely only going to see this type of thing in study books, not in many "real" pieces. However, many editions of repertoire have fingering suggestions, bow direction, and articulation marks in them. I've never seen a technique reminder (you should almost always be leaving fingers down if you can) in repertoire. Position markings are usually roman numerals. More often I see "sul G" and a line or whatever, instructing you to play on only that string.

  4256. musictheory 2019-06-01 02:50:53 tF_D3RP
    I'm also a viola player and I can say that it means to play the G with 3rd finger and to hold it down while playing the B on the A string. Unless the G was a G sharp, there would be absolutely no point playing it with the 4th finger unless the music says to play it in half position.

  4257. musictheory 2019-06-01 03:25:24 Whycantiusethis
    The way I interpreted it when I played cello was to keep the finger pushing down on the string.

  4258. musictheory 2019-06-01 03:52:25 Pec0sb1ll
    It's denoting to hold the third finger in third position on the A string on a violin. Is how I read it.

  4259. musictheory 2019-06-01 04:08:13 tF_D3RP
    Third finger in third position is an F. Third position on the D string would be B

  4260. musictheory 2019-06-01 04:17:57 cbarebo95
    An Arabic or Roman numeral under the staff usually refers to the string number! I play bass and for me, it’s 1 for the highest pitched string and 4 for the lowest. It’s probably the same for viola. Fingerings usually appear above the individual notes. Side-note* usually it’s Roman numerals for string number (I-IV) and Arabic numerals for hand-positions (:

  4261. musictheory 2019-06-01 18:32:37 Jazuhero
    One quick fantasy music "hack" that comes to mind, is an arpeggio of a major triad with an added sharp 5th, just going up and down in evenly spaced notes. This helps create an otherworldly and mystical feel to act as a background, and is used, for example, in the Fellowship of the Ring's soundtrack for the elven city of Rivendell. So basically you just have something like a harp or a string ensemble play (this example is based on the C major chord for simplicity): 6/8 | C E G G# G E | C E G G# G E :|| For maximum ambient feel you can just sit on the same chord with the arpeggio, but you can also experiment moving to a different chord and doing the same arpeggio there.

  4262. musictheory 2019-06-02 05:03:29 65TwinReverbRI
    The D# chords should be Eb. This is not how keys work. Key is all about the CENTER - which chord is the "home chord". And that happens through **musical emphasis**. The only emphasis in a string of chords is first and last (or first AND last if they're the same). All of the chords might be from the same key, but, depending on where the musical emphasis puts the tonal center, it could be any one of SEVEN modes if it uses only diatonic chords. When it uses chromatic chords, it opens up the possibility of other things depending on how many they are and whether they're emphasized or not. And, music does not have to even be in a key to begin with. It can not be in a key, it can shift keys, it can be in a key with a few chords that are not in the same key as long as there are not so many that disrupt the sense of key. And that sense of key is from musical emphasis. And there doesn't have to be any musical emphasis which would make it intentionally ambiguous - people do that as well.

  4263. musictheory 2019-06-03 06:35:22 expiredvegetable
    Hi SethKT, I remember you from your previous post. The passage isn't too busy, there's a few instances of poor voice leading & the parts don't seem to be independent. Voices leave for too long and for seemingly no reason. This creates a rather undeveloped texture. It feels bumpy. Realistically, you can't jump into writing a contrapuntal string quartet without first mastering elementary counterpoint. I think you would benefit from a study focused on counterpoint. I recommend the book 'Counterpoint in Composition'. Fux's 'Gradus' is also good. They differ slightly in the flexibility of 'rules', and the former goes well beyond species counterpoint. Keep composing, but perhaps do so for fewer voices. This is an improvement from the previous effort so I have no doubt you will continue to develop. All the best.

  4264. musictheory 2019-06-03 09:02:26 65TwinReverbRI
    > I'm so sorry to ask a question again but what kind of teacher/course to be specific? > > I live in a country where music teachers tend to focus on classical (related to my country) stuff :( Yeah, that can make things tough. I'm thinking Keyboard Lessons, but from someone that can help you string together chord progressions and add melodies rather than study Bach or something. Granted, beginning piano lessons really focus just on the basics, so you could take for a year and not continue past that and have most of what you need.

  4265. musictheory 2019-06-03 09:38:50 ak_gamedev
    >I'm thinking Keyboard Lessons, but from someone that can help you string together chord progressions and add melodies rather than study Bach or something. Granted, beginning piano lessons really focus just on the basics, so you could take for a year and not continue past that and have most of what you need. I see. I was already thinking of learning the keyboard for a while now so there's that. Anyway, keyboard lessons it is (for now) Thanks again!

  4266. musictheory 2019-06-04 04:40:06 BillGrahamMusic
    R 3 7(or 6) and R 7(or 6) 3, on the bottom 2 string sets.

  4267. musictheory 2019-06-04 04:46:12 ttd_76
    The 6 in the Dmin6 is B. So you could play that as an inversion-- Dmin6/B. If you were to play through that sequence of chords with root in the bass, except for the Dm/G as notated and the Dmin6/B you just made, then look at what the movement of your bass notes: It goes D -> G -> C -> F -> B -> E -> A. It's moving by a fourth each time. Then when you wrap around, the movement from A to D is another fourth so it completes a cycle starting from D all the way back to D by fourths. When you play it, you can hear it. It's just that the way they spelled out the chords, the movement isn't as apparent because you tend not to think about the G in a Dmin/G or the B in Dmin6. If we respell those notes as chords not as inversions but as chords with G and B as the root the movement is more obvious. It's just that if you do that, you end up with funky chord spellings. Most guitarists can play Dmin in several different ways so it's not hard for them to figure out (if they don't already know) how to play Dmin/G by playing a Dmin somewhere and add a G on a string below. But they probably don't know how to play some kind of whacky G9 thing off the top of their head. If you are trying to show someone the movement in fourths, you'd opt for the crazy chord spellings so you could see it just by looking at chord roots. But if you were just trying to tab this out for to play, you'd tab do it the way they did.

  4268. musictheory 2019-06-04 08:22:24 electon10orbit
    These sound great on electric guitar! Free atonal works, by both Schoenberg and Stravinsky at this time (1910s), is very interesting. My favorite chord in your excerpt is G-(B)-Eb-Gb-Bb-D: 2 augmented triads (on G, and Gb) stacked on top of each with, some regular triads embedded in there; and most interestedly, the chord is very dissonant, but with no tritone! His affinity for augmented triad has been noted. A different harmonic vocabulary by Stravinsky, but with lots of overlap with this Schoenberg piece, is a Stravinsky piece like Three Movements for String Quartet, especially the Cantique (orchestral version is popular: https://youtu.be/9rS9iIFG4Gg Both pieces show these 2 great composers pushing tonality to its max, but in different ways, before the 1920s and the paths they took then (codified 12 tone, neoclassical; Stravinsky waited decades, for Schoenberg to pass away, before he went 12 tone! Not sure if that's completely true:)

  4269. musictheory 2019-06-04 09:19:22 65TwinReverbRI
    >I understand the theory that a chord progression that strictly follows the circle of fifths will be strong. Do you? Because that's not necessarily true. Not to be snarky, but I'll say it yet again: **The Circle of 5ths has absolutely nothing to do with CHORD PROGRESSIONS** (but read on dear readers before wadding your panties). It is merely a "listing of **KEYS**" arranged in a circle to show one particular attribute that Keys exhibit, which is those that are a 5th away in either direction differ by only one accidental. And that is the exact reason that most songs progressions "jump around" that circle. Because they have nothing to do with the circle. It's more a coincidence that sometimes, some chord progressions move by 4ths - which just happens to line up with the Keys represented on the circle. But the Circles is about KEYS, not chords progressions. OK, SOME chord progressions do in fact take advantage of the same aspects the order of the Circle exhibits - especially a string of Secondary Dominants. But, vi - ii - V - I isn't really "moving around the circle" (because to do so, the keys would be Major). That movement though is "up a 4th" (so I always say, "Cycle of 4ths" rather than Circle of 5ths) and that is in fact considered one of the strongest ROOT MOVEMENTS. The "more general theory" - well, it's actually more specific - it's Functional Harmony, or Functional Chord Progressions. That is where your graph is coming from (though it's honestly a bit excessive). Basically, chords fulfill a role, and one role for example is Dominant. The Dominant chord's role is to lead to the Tonic. There are two chords with Dominant Function in a Key: V and vii^o . We generally consider the V-I movement "strongest". Where that comes from is counterpoint and voice-leading. In a V-I movement, the tonic is surrounded by two tones that "lead to it" an "collapse on it". In addition it has that strong root movement of an upward 4th. It also contains one tone that's common to both chords. Another common root movements are up a 2nd (like C to Dm) which is kind of "stronger", but, since none of the notes are common it's also very "drastic". Another is down a 3rd but it has TWO common tones. What this means is there's more "similarity of sound" between the two chords. So it's kind of like Goldilocks - up a 2nd is too drastic, down a 3rd is not drastic enough, up a 4th is just right (combination of commonality, movement, and strength). But all of these progressions are common in music, and even ones that go the "wrong way" (retrogression) are not unheard of. It just so happens that some of them are a 4th apart, which so too are Keys listed on the circle (I could add (I just did!) that the movement up a 5th is actually a "bad" progression - it's a retrogression, so "moving by 5th" is only good counterclockwise!!!). Graphs like that, are not generated from "rules". They're generated from observation. We looked at countless songs and saw what they did. Here is the common Functional Harmony progression chart for Common Practice Period music: https://photobucket.com/gallery/user/Schecterwhore/media/bWVkaWFJZDozNzQ3MzQ5OQ==/?ref= It may be handwritten, but it's right ;-) The one you linked to is more for Jazz. Use the Circle of 5ths for Keys. Not chords. Cheers

  4270. musictheory 2019-06-04 11:18:56 65TwinReverbRI
    Common Practice Period. I think if most people heard this fugue, they might not even realize it's a fugue, because the music is very much like typical classical period string quartet writing (which in the hands of a master like Haydn can still be very contrapuntal). It sounds like imitative counterpoint, but otherwise, the whole vibe of it is more like typical functional chord progressions - and making the melodic motives bend to that. Here's a Romantic Period one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVOf0Kr2nUM Now, of course there are melodies, and melodic motives, but I mean that, for example, the Grieg does some of that more typical Romantic Period chromatic harmony which makes the melodic bits take on chromatic/sequential lines rather than the Subject itself "demanding" that (though Bach could certainly write a Subject to make the harmony do that - that's what I mean by the harmony "resultant" of the melodic lines). With Bach, it's more of the typical "perpetual motion" and "unfolding" whereas the Haydn and Grieg can be more rhythmic and sectional. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6vF9owrxMo Much of it is just stylistic difference too, but there is a general trend through the CPP from Baroque through Classical into Romantic where harmony is more "resultant" of independent contrapuntal lines in contrapuntal forms to melody being more resultant of harmonic moves later (in contrapuntal forms). So it can be subtle, and vary from piece to piece in addition to composer to composer and time period to time period, but that's just a general trend.

  4271. musictheory 2019-06-04 19:17:39 HashPram
    Depends what you mean. I'm a very basic pianist (grade 5 at best) and a diploma-level guitarist. I find it easier to pick out sung melodies on the piano because the notes are arranged linearly and vocal lines don't tend to leap about that much. I find it easier to pick out guitar solos on the guitar because they were written on the guitar using familiar guitar patterns and doing that on the piano can be a bit of a nuisance (no string bends on a non-prepared piano). If there's a strings-based harmony, anything more involved than "here are two guitars and a bass", or it's something involving synths I often find it easier to work that out using the piano. OTOH I find it easier to accompany myself on the guitar because I'm very familiar with chord shapes and most songs follow familiar patterns and my ability to play different chords on the piano on demand is really terrible.

  4272. musictheory 2019-06-04 23:44:24 driftingfornow
    Yes you tension or detension the drum heads. Same principle as a guitar string, but on a plane instead of a line.

  4273. musictheory 2019-06-04 23:45:29 Godette502
    I love Three movements for string quartet!! My next chord video is definitely gonna be Stravinsky voicings, I already have 5 of them just gotta make the video now. And I love that voicing too, I figured out a potential name for it could be Ebminmaj7/G. And yes I had 10 voicings and narrowed it down to 5 and there were definitely augmented triads all over the place, listening back I can definitely hear how much of the augmented sound is present in his 12 tone music. Thanks a lot for watching!

  4274. musictheory 2019-06-05 07:56:22 Zak_Rahman
    The stuff I play, I do on a standard tuned 6-string guitar or piano library from my DAW.

  4275. musictheory 2019-06-05 09:55:03 65TwinReverbRI
    If the key truly is G, we could say the Ab chord (G#) "comes from" either the Phrygian Mode, or is a Neapolitan chord, or maybe a nod from a Jazzy Tritone Substitution (incomplete). It "works" because these are all things you've heard before and just never really noticed or thought about. It could be other keys, like C Major with mode mixture. But all you've given us is a string of chords. No rhythm. That's SUPER important. Does the "G#" last 4 beats, or just 1 beat, or a half a beat? That makes a huge difference. Popular music is full of "Chromatic Passing Chords" and they don't necessarily affect the key nor do they have to have any impact on the melody. And furthermore, what kind of melody are you going to write? One note per chord? Two notes per chord? You could "logic it out" and say that G goes with the G, Ab with the Ab, and A with the A, and your melody could be G-Ab-A-Ab and just follow the roots of the chords. If you want that kind of sound, that's fine. But, you could probably actually make an F or F# work with all three chords! I agree with u/dirtyb1616 - loop it in the rhythm you want, then noodle over it until you get what you want.

  4276. musictheory 2019-06-05 21:03:15 TrebleStrings
    My primary instrument is violin. I started playing as a child, 27 years ago. I am still working on my intonation and ear training. It's an ongoing process. Not only does it involve all you describe, but it also has to be adaptable, especially if you play classical, to adjustments on the instrument while you are playing. Classical pieces are longer, which gives the instrument more time to go out of tune as friction warms the strings. You have to be able to both hear that difference and adjust your hand frame, and you have to do so before anyone else notices. Orchestral string musicians learn scales for each key individually. F# and Gb are not the same. Cb and B are not the same. C# and Db are not the same. So, we learn seven sharps and seven flats across three octaves of major, natural minor, harmonic minor, and melodic minor scales. That's 15 key signatures each with 12 different scales, or 180 different scales. That's not including broken thirds scales, double stop scales, pentatonic and blues scales if you branch out from classical, and the numerous bowing variations we pair with scale practice. For me, that's not even the hard part. The hard part is when you are working with a pianist or guitarist who not only doesn't get it but has a bad attitude about it. Pianos are never really in tune, which means violins accompanied by pianos sound out of tune if they don't adapt. For some reason, some musicians get irritated when the violinist wants to tune each string to the piano individually rather than just taking the A for reference as they do in orchestra or using an electronic tuner.

  4277. musictheory 2019-06-05 23:53:38 FwLineberry
    Intonation concerns aren't exclusive to the string players. Every wind and horn instrument has to tune as they go. The obvious candidate is trombone, but you can't just blow on a flute or clarinet and play in tune.

  4278. musictheory 2019-06-06 02:24:39 metalliska
    yeah the intro has tom fills. It's possible the drums and guitarist worked together to achieve this. It's part of composition if you take differing notes into account from not just a string player (vocals, drums, piano, bagpipe...)

  4279. musictheory 2019-06-06 02:36:18 beaumega1
    Standard guitar tuning includes a break in pattern. Whereas strings 6 5 4 and 3 are all the same interval apart (a perfect fourth), the interval from string 3 to 2 is a major third (G to B). If you are learning scale patterns that traverse four strings, then playing whatever scale pattern from the sixth string will be different than if you start the same pattern from the sixth string. Essentially, you will have to play up one fret when you reach the second string in order to get whatever pattern to work on that string. >How can I tell which string the root note is on from scale to scale? This question might be to specific/loaded for you to get a good answer. Take for example, the E major scale. You can start this scale on the open sixth string (E), play F# and G# on the same string, then A B and C# on the 5th string, then D# and E on the 4th string. Alternatively, you can start on the 7th fret of the A string (another E) and execute the same pattern from there. It's still an E major scale, but it's just played starting an octave up. Another possible way to play the E major scale is by doing so only on the first string (high E). From there, you could just move up the string to outline another possible E major scale.

  4280. musictheory 2019-06-06 02:37:07 vehementshred
    So, fortunately for us, guitar patterns don't really change. They can be moved around. If you are looking at scale charts, they should indicate where the root note is for a major/minor scale. There are 7 three note per string shapes that are a good starting point. Better advice would be to start learning the note names all over the fretboard, and learn to build your major/minor scales. This way, YOU know where the root note is, and you don't have to rely on patterns. As for your question, it's a strange one. The root note being on a certain string isn't why the patterns are different...or rather that's a very roundabout way of putting it. Guitars are tuned a certain way. We use patterns to navigate/memorize where our fingers need to go. Why these patterns are what they are, and where they are is governed by music theory. Take something simple like the C Major scale and plot out the notes on the neck. Then look at your patterns. It will make a lot more sense.

  4281. musictheory 2019-06-06 02:52:11 65TwinReverbRI
    The variations of the soundwave! It's the "shape" or "form" of a "waveform" - which is what we usually call it (though some people say waveshape). The most basic, "smooth" oscillation you can get is a "circle", but when you lay out a circle in time, you get a Sine Wave. A Sine Wave produces a sound kind of similar to a Flute, Recorder, or Organ Pipe, etc. But, whenever you vary the wave - change its shape, it produces different sounds - we call those differences "Timbre" - because, all other things being equal - the Amplitude of the wave, the Frequency of the wave, this change of shape does make different sounds (this is why sometimes people say the 3 basic qualities of sound are volume, pitch, and timbre). A Sine wave is a "Simple" wave. There are also "Compound" (or Complex) waves. That means that there are multiple waves that make up the note. In music, to make a note of determinant pitch - one we can listen to and say "that's an A" or "that note is higher than this note", the waves need to be Periodic and Harmonic. The less periodic they are, and the less harmonic they are, the harder it becomes to determine a specific pitch. Fourier discovered in the 1800s that the motion of a period oscillation is made up of multiple (infinite in fact) Sine Waves. To understand this, think of a guitar string that is fixed at both ends. When you pluck it, the string vibrates its entire length. But, it turns out that it is a Compound wave, and vibrates not only its full length, but in halves, in thirds, in quarters and so on. So, while the string is moving "up and down" the two halves of the string are also moving up and down at twice the speed and half the amplitude! At least that's what happens in a perfect mathematical model. But musical instrument sounds are not always perfectly mathematical (in fact, they never are - with rare exception possibly). So the basic definition of a Periodic, Harmonic wave form is that it vibrates in multiple integer (whole number) ratios, with the amplitude being the inverse of what partial it is (these vibrating "parts" are called partials). So if a string has a fundamental frequency of 100 vps (vibrations per second, the same as Hertz or Hz) that is Partial 1 which has an amplitude of "1" (whatever value we assign). The 2nd Partial is 2x the frequency, and 1/2 the amplitude; the 3rd partial is 3x the frequency and 1/3 the amplitude, the 20th partial is 20x the frequency and 1/20 the amplitude and so on. This makes the frequencies look like: 100 - 200 - 300 - 400 - 500 - 600.....n(100) and the amplitudes look like - let's say we pick a value like 1000 to represent our amplitude value: 1000 - 500 - 333.33 - 250 - 200 - etc. In audio (and electronics) this produces what we call a "Sawtooth Wave". Check this out: http://onlinetonegenerator.com/ You can see that a Sawtooth waveform is different visually than a Sine, and you can hear it as well. "How they look is how they sound" - I don't mean that literally, but what I mean is that if the shape changes, so does the sound. You'll notice there are also Triangle and Square waves there. These are other mathematical models - one has an amplitude that falls of at the inverse *square* (1/X^2 instead of just 1/X) and both have only the ODD partials. So they sound different. Waveforms can also be Asymmetrical, and have varying Periodicity and things like that - once you get pretty random you get "noise" and a White Noise waveshape is just totally random - equal energy in all frequency bands. And when you have "inharmonic" compound waves - ones who partials aren't integer relationships, you can get things that sound more "clangy". So I want to reiterare that these "mathematical models" of Sine, Square, Saw, and Triangle are rarely found in real instruments in that perfect a state - in Synthesizers they're much closer because you can generate them electronically. A Flute is somewhat close to, but not exactly a Sine Wave Saws are closer to Trumpets and Violins Square is more like a Clarinet Triangle is more like a French Horn. IOW, if you wanted to try to create a Clarinet-like sound in a synthesizer, you'd want to start with a Square wave and modify it, rather than the other waves as the Square is already closest (and we can analyze actual clarinet waves and see this). But the more and more out you get from these mathematical models, the less of an identifiable pitch the sound has - it either has multiple pitches fighting to be heard as the most prominent one, or it just sounds "warbly" or out of tune with itself, or it has a lot of "noise" or "hiss" or "buzz" in the sound and so on. If you have a program like Audacity (free) you can actually record a Sine Wave from a synth and zoom in and see the actual wave shape. People actually do this to see how accurately a particular Synth models a given waveform. You could do it with an acoustic guitar or electric guitar note, and so on to see what they look like (and find examples online). ________ So what we can say is that Timbre is created by the number of partials present in a vibrating body and their relationship to each other, which ultimately determines the shape of the resulting waveforms, which we perceive as difference in tone quality. Timbre is what makes a Clarinet sound like a Clarinet, and a Flute sound like a Flute, even if they're playing the exact same note at the same volume. And Timbre is different between those two instruments because the waveforms that create the sounds are different shapes, because they contain different numbers of partials in different ratios to each other. HTH

  4282. musictheory 2019-06-06 02:59:25 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, you should learn where your notes are on each of those strings (this will help with chords too!) If you're going to play a C major scale, there is a C on the 6th string at the 8th fret - so you'd play the form that starts there, and there is a C on the 3rd fret of the 5th string - so you'd play the form that starts there. You can think of it like this: There are 2 components when playing a scale (in this manner): 1. Knowing the Pattern that provides a Major, Minor, etc. scale. on the 5th and 6th string roots (I say root here because it's relevant to chords as well) 2. Knowing where your notes are on each of those strings. For example, if I ask you to play a D Major Scale, you have to know how to play a Major Scale from BOTH the 5th string and 6th string, AND you have to be able to find a D note on either string. Then you can choose which if the two places you want to play it. One may be more convenient than the other depending on what else is going on, or, by knowing both, you can shift between positions to access higher or lower notes than the other position allows.

  4283. musictheory 2019-06-06 03:46:16 iknide
    Try messing around with fretflip.com Look at the scale as a whole across the entire fretboard. You'll see root notes (1) on each string. You can start anywhere and play around any root note. The things/shapes you're probably looking at else where are focused on a single "position". This means you keep your hand in one spot, usually playing 1 fret per finger, and can use those patterns to play up/down (across each string) without moving your hand up/down the neck. Patterns in one position are certainly useful but don't limit your knowledge to just that. If you learn where your root notes are and learn the general shape to play around if, you can move to anywhere on the neck and play, the only catch is that when you from G to B string the pattern shifts down a fret

  4284. musictheory 2019-06-06 09:18:13 TrebleStrings
    No, it's not annoying to tune to the piano. I learned to tune vocally, singing the correct pitch while I adjust the string to match. Electronic tuners were discouraged back then, but I use one, now. Anyway, I tune to the piano the way I tune to my voice except that I press the keys on the piano instead of singing, so it's pretty much the same. As long as there isn't someone sitting at the piano who acts like my tuning process is an imposition, than we are good.

  4285. musictheory 2019-06-06 09:58:33 ellblaek
    haha i get it i meant is it like a pet peave or foes ot sound particularly bad in any way to your ears? i realize tuning to a piano is as technically easy as tuning any ol string instrument

  4286. musictheory 2019-06-07 23:11:28 Jeronimo112
    I knew a synth person would weigh in. Interestingly enough, pipe organs also utilize detuned frequencies-- in the form of *Celeste* and *Unda Maris* stops. These pipes are usually made to imitate a "string" sound, and when paired with their unison rank-- produce some of the most beautiful sounds in the organ. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYKyqYb3QRE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYKyqYb3QRE)

  4287. musictheory 2019-06-08 00:35:41 65TwinReverbRI
    >the time signature of 9/8 represents a loop of 9 eighth notes. Is that correct? Not entirely correct. Yes, it is a string of 9 8th notes, but that's NOT how music is made. "Time" if you like, in music is made up of BEATS (and I don't mean what "producers" call songs) not "8th notes". Beats are further "divisible" into binary or ternary groups. 4/4 Meter is 4 BEATS per measure. Each beat can be (or is, really) divided into TWO equal parts. So it would be somewhat correct to say 4/4 is a "loop of 8 eighth notes" but that's not the way music is made (and why we don't really use 8/8 as a meter, except people who don't know what they're doing). It is **really** a loop of FOUR BEATS. Each beat in this case has "slots" for other notes - 2 per beat. These are called the "Division" (or Division of the Beat). If the Beat is a 1/4 note, then the division is the next level down, and 1/8th note. But if you say 4/4 is 8 8th notes, all you're really doing is talking about the amount of divisions is has. We could say it has 4 1/4 notes, 2 half notes, 16, 16th notes (which is called the Subdivision) but all that's really saying is that there are that many of that note possible within the meter. What's more musically important to musicians is the number of BEATS. __________ Now, here's the tricky part: The beat is not a specific note value. 4/4, 4/8, 4/16, and 4/2 are all 4 Beats per measure. If the **Tempo** is 60 BPM, then they're all going to sound exactly the same. What's different is the note value that is "assigned to the beat". In 4/4, a quarter note is going to fall on each beat - each second - one per second. If it's 4/8, the BEAT is still 1 per second, but now it's an 8th note. 4 8th notes will take 4 seconds. This makes the meters "scaleable" so you can use different note values. It seems kind of silly but it's a remnant of the evolution of time signatures and note values. But, for example, today, many composers who want a very slow moving piece will not only give you a slow tempo, but put it in an X/2 meter - because it will have more whole, half, and quarter notes (and even double whole notes!) most likely and will there for just "appear" slower to most musicians (kind of a psychological thing too). By contrast, something like 4/8 is going to have more 8ths, 16ths and even 32nds, so it's going to "look" faster on the page. Still, 4/2 and 4/8 at the same tempo are the same speed. But, composers don't usually pick 4/8 and a tempo of 48 BPM for a slow piece. Instead they'd want to use 48 BPM and use maybe 4/2 because that visually and psychologically reinforces the "slow feeling" of the music. (an interesting historical aside - these use to be the opposite - X/8 meters could be slow, or slow movements used more 32nd notes, and X/2 meters used to be faster!) _______ 9/8 is called a Compound Meter. In Compound Meters, the numbers don't mean what you think they mean. 9/8 is actually THREE **beats** per measure. In Compound Meters, each beat is divided into **three** parts rather than 2. If you think about 3/4 and play triplets on each beat, that's what 9/8 sounds like (or should sound like). Jimi Hendrix's "Manic Depression" has a 9/8 feel to it - it feels like 3 Beats (ma-nic-de | pres-sion-is | touch-ing-my | soul - - | - 3 syllables per measure that go along with the guitar part. But, if you listen to what the drums are doing, he's playing 3 notes - 3 divisions per beat. Here's a version without singing, but you can hear the drums pretty clearly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll7w7Q1uIAk Now, he could be playing triplets in 3/4, but it's so consistent throughout the song that it's probably better notated in 9/8. So 3/4 is simple meter - 3 beats per measure, each beat broken into two parts, and 9/8 is compound meter - 3 beats per measure as well, but each beat broken into **three** equal parts. We call them "Triple" meters because they have 3 beats (beats, not divisions, or 8th notes!). 3/4 is Triple Simple (or Simple Triple) and 9/8 is Triple Compound. So if we were to take all the common meters, we'd have: 2/4 = 6/8 - both Duple, first Simple, second Compound 3/4 = 9/8 - both Triple, ditto 4/4 = 12/8 - both Quadruple, ditto To count these, if it's 3 beats per measure, we say "one, two three" on the beats. In fact, we (and you should) always put the "number" on the beat. The division then gets some syllable that works. For simple meters we usually say: One and Two and Three and But a compound meter would be One la le Two la le Three la le (some use "ta te" and you can see someone below uses something else). If we had 3/4 at 60 BPM, you would count "one two three" at the rate of one "word" per beat. If it was 9/8 at 60 BPM, it would STILL be one word per beat! But in 3/4, each of those beats are broken into 2 divisions per beat, and in 9/8, 3 divisions per beat. _____ This is why, the super common question, "isn't 6/8 the same as 3/4, they both have 6 notes". But its not about the notes. It's all about the Beat!

  4288. musictheory 2019-06-08 06:55:46 pretend_shower
    Film music is rich in that stuff. Listen to “Tie Fighter Attack” from Star Wars Episode IV. Each wind and string run between the repeats of the “Rebel Fanfare” are diminished scale runs starting on semitone differences I believe. It’s a small example but the sound is all there

  4289. musictheory 2019-06-08 07:04:29 jazzadellic
    I wouldn't say "required", it certainly helps though. I used to solo pretty decently before I knew my arpeggios. I probably used my ear to guide me to chord tones without knowing it though. A good melody usually is comprised of both chord tones and non-chord tones. So don't forget those other notes. >I don't have any chords memorized. If this is true, you better get cracking. You don't only use chord forms to play chord progressions, you also use their shapes to create melodies and create solo guitar arrangements. I use chord shapes to help me sight read better too, and memorize difficult solo guitar repertoire easier. I refer to chord forms constantly as I am improvising up the fretboard as well. The way I memorized the notes of the fretboard was exactly by working on chord construction & chord formulas. You first have to have a bunch of stock shapes memorized up the entire fretboard. Then you start trying to locate all the extensions - 7ths, 9ths, 11ths, 13ths, etc... and all the dom7 alterations. Do that for long enough in all keys and from every possible root, and you'll just start remember where all the notes are. You could also just practice naming the natural notes up each string, forwards and backwards. Having the natural notes memorized makes it easy to find the accidentals in relation to the natural note. It takes time man. Keep practicing, keep memorizing, keep at it. Have achievable goals for each practice session instead of just noodling around, and you'll get there eventually.

  4290. musictheory 2019-06-08 09:35:45 65TwinReverbRI
    >Also, do you eventually just connect the note with the key/position on the instrument rather than thinking what note it is? Yes. So there are two things here - knowing what note it is when you see it on the staff. And knowing where that note (all of your notes) are on the instrument. Using guitar as an example, think of it like this - if I ask a student to play a C chord, they will go "ok, C, that's this finger here, this finger here and this finger here" and then they'll strum the chord. But it can take 15 seconds to a minute or two for them to get it. Then next week, they come back and it's no better - or worse, it's worse!!! You can't think, "ok, let me think, what shape is a C chord, oh yeah, that's the one that's all three fingers in a row, like so" and then put the fingers down one at a time. The trick is getting to the point where you see the "C", your brain knows the shape, and your fingers have the muscle memory to make that shape in one motion. Then you can actually change chords in a song without stopping to place your fingers one by one, and any additional time for "oh crap, I knew that one last week..." This all comes from PRACTICE Now, sight-reading is a form of practice and it can help reinforce the notes. But, so can many other exercises. Ideally, everything you play, you should just be naming the notes as you go. You need to get it to the point where you see a note on the middle line and go "that's the 2nd string open, and that's B" - all at the same time. You will, but you have to practice. The translation issue can be slowing you down somewhat. I wouldn't say you'd need that, but, because your materials are in English, you probably need to treat it just like other words - learn the English version. And just like that you have to practice it too.

  4291. musictheory 2019-06-08 12:33:59 himcognito
    Is this about Asus4 on guitar? Pushing a pinky into your G string doesn't make you gay.

  4292. musictheory 2019-06-09 22:39:42 dslybrowse
    Harmony is the whole; It is the interaction of all of the individual notes into clusters that our brains hear as one unified 'place'. The melody is the part; A line that we can trace through the harmony. At its most basic, harmony is what you get when two or more pitches interact, whereas melody is the idea of a string of successive pitches. Two different melodies playing alongside each other produce harmony in their interaction. An arpeggio on it's own can indicate (ie hint at) harmony by outlining a chord or scale but without simultaneous notes being played it's more of a 'virtual' harmony.

  4293. musictheory 2019-06-10 00:49:33 NLG99
    The song I'm describing has 8 sections and the general tonal center is E Major, with the middle sections being in E Minor. Sections A, D and H are the only ones with lyrics, the other sections are instrumental with section C and G having a choir in the background The A section is a slow piano ballad that is accompanied by strings in the second half. Key is E Major. The chord progression is I - ii/I - V - IV - I - II7 - IV/V - V. This V chord leads us into the next section by being resolved into Em. The B section is a fast rock section in 7/4 time. Key is E Minor. It is driven by a riff that is repeated in a 4 bar loop. The riff consists of the first 3 notes of the E Minor Scale except for it's variation that occurs on every 3rd repitition (this variation is a walk-up and consequent walk-down the E Minor scale up to the fifth; it is also harmonised with a second guitar playing a diatonic third lower). Percussive instruments include a drumset as well as handclaps. This section also has a prominent guitar solo that has 'the lick' in it, albeit probably not by intent. Chord progression is i - i - VI - i. The next section stays in E Minor but switches back to 4/4. It is characterised by orchestral hits as the main source of harmony. Switches back and forth between Em and Dmaj. In the second half, the choir joins in and doubles those chords. The D section takes the instrumentation of the first section but changes up the harmony by going back and forth between the I and the bII, giving it a tonally ambiguous feel. It is by far the quietest section of the song. The E section is a slow build up, using piano as well as brass as its most prominent isntruments. This section uses the progression i - VII - i - IV - i - VII - VI - VII The F section features a prominent melody in the string part and is also rather slow. The G section is comparable to a disco song, using the 'disco strings' as well as a transition lick every 2 bars that is played on harpsichord. The chord progression is i - i - VI - iv - V. The H section is basically like the A section, albeit slightly louder. It ends on a melody that's repeated 3 times through three different keys. It ends with an EMajor chord. It's also a one-hit-wonder song from the 70s if that helps

  4294. musictheory 2019-06-10 01:29:44 dat_cellulite
    [The Climb - Flying Lotus and Thundercat](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=8hcv3q7vNTY) &#x200B; Anyone wanna take a stab at the main chord progression in The Climb, a Thundercat song off Flying Lotus' new album? So far I've got Gmaj7 - F#Min - Emin - ? - Dmaj7 - Cmaj7 - Bmin7. &#x200B; Trying D#maj7 where the question mark goes doesn't feel right. &#x200B; Also, if anyone has any clue as to voicings on guitar that might work, that would be helpful. I've been playing the bar chords with the root on the A string. For some reason they only work when I play the A D and G strings--when I add the higher strings it doesn't sound right.

  4295. musictheory 2019-06-10 04:08:37 vornska
    "Harmony" as it exists in tonal music is one of the weirdest phenomena in music--which is something most people don't usually appreciate unless they study Schenkerian analysis. You're asking a great question. &#x200B; Every *moment* in a piece of tonal music has a collection of notes that "belong" to the moment. (And other notes, by implication, *don't* belong. They can still happen, but only by obeying certain other conventions, such as playing a scale.) That collection of notes *is* the harmony of the moment. Sometimes all the notes of a harmony are literally sounded at once by a "harmony" section of the ensemble, like the left hand of the piano or the lower 3 instruments of a string quartet. Sometimes they aren't sounded all at once, but it's close enough to be clear, like in the oom-pah-pah accompaniment pattern of a dance. Sometimes they aren't sounded all at once and part of the fun is listening *for* what harmony is implied. (For an example here, think of the easy piano pieces from Bach's Anna Magdalena Notebook, like the famous [Minuet in G major](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqSAGwa49MM), where there are usually only 2 notes happening at once.) [Sometimes there's literally just a melody](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwDn8eqtinw). I might compare it to speed limits in driving. Every stretch of public road conceptually *has* a speed limit. Sometimes the speed limit is clear because there's a visible sign; or because you have a GPS that tells you what it is. (That's maybe like having a lead sheet where the chord symbols give you a rudimentary analysis.) Sometimes you just know from experience. Sometimes there's no sign, but in principle you should know because the law says stuff like "Country highways have a maximum of X; urban residential districts have a maximum of Y" and so on. The speed limit exists continuously, even if the obvious signs of it are only sporadic. People may speed or drive under the limit. That doesn't mean the limit doesn't exist: it just means that those vehicles have a non-default relationship to the limit. (This is like playing non-chord tones during a harmony.) Are speed limits an objective part of physical reality? Well, no, not really. They're a *social* fact, not a physical fact. But they're built around physical facts (e.g. "A car traveling above this speed can't make this turn safely). The same is true for harmony. (Why, after all, *would* the difference between melody & harmony exist in physical reality?) Melody has a close relationship to harmony. One job of melody is to communicate the harmony. It does this by emphasizing the tones of the harmony and by restricting its use of non-harmonic tones to specific conventions. The clearest melody-harmony relationship is when you have an arpeggio: the melody simply leaps between different tones that belong to the moment. That's actually basically the definition of "arpeggio": a melody that purely expresses the harmony. In classical music, a scale isn't an arpeggio because a scale can't be a harmony. In jazz, a scale isn't an arpeggio of a 13th chord because that's not the simplest explanation. A scale is the simplest kind of melody, so that's clearly what's going on. (The simplest kind of arpeggio gives the harmony's notes *in order*. A scale gives the root, then the 9th, then the third, then the 11th, and so on, in the wrong octaves. That's seriously disordered as an arpeggio: a possible but convoluted explanation, so apply occam's razor.) &#x200B; A lot of your confusion seems to come down to the fact that different styles have different rules for how harmony should be structured & how melody should relate to it. Musical styles can differ by allowing different sorts of note combinations to "belong" as a single harmony. In baroque & classical music, basically only triads and seventh chords were possible. (Although suspensions allowed thing to get a little more complicated.) In jazz, all sorts of weird chord symbols are now allowed. Musical styles can differ in terms of what chord-to-chord motions are allowed within the harmony. (For example, the whole notion of "functional harmony" from classical music.) If you know the style's chord grammar, this helps you interpret the implied harmonies when they might otherwise be ambiguous. ("Well, that re & fa *could* imply a ii chord, but that would make no sense after vii^(o7) / V, so I bet this is actually V^(7).") Musical styles also differ in terms of what melodic patterns are allowed; how melodies should relate to the underlying harmony. In classical music, these are the various types of "embellishing tone" that you study in theory classes (like chordal leaps, passing tones, appoggiaturas, and so on).

  4296. musictheory 2019-06-10 18:20:28 Jongtr
    That's worded slightly oddly. I guess you mean you put a capo on fret 2 and tune to EADGBE there. Take the capo off, and you then have D G C F A D, commonly known as "D standard". Drop C means tuning the 6th string down one more whole step, to give you C G C F A D.

  4297. musictheory 2019-06-11 02:58:55 RushAgenda
    Of course, you're right! And I totally messed up the chord. The C 13-chord would be the C on the A-string, muting the lower E-string. And then barred the five strings C G Bb D A (with the pinky on the A note.)

  4298. musictheory 2019-06-12 01:31:34 ChuckEye
    For guitar we call a tuning "standard" if it has the intervals between strings of P4 P4 P4 M3 P4. So E Standard is EADGBE. D Standard is DGCFAD. C Standard is CFBbEbGC. Etc. We call a tuning "drop" if you lower the lowest string a wholestep so the intervals between strings are P5 P4 P4 M3 P4. Drop D is DADGBE. Drop C is CGCFAD. Drop Bb is BbFBbEbGC. Etc.

  4299. musictheory 2019-06-12 10:00:38 Xenoceratops
    Music theory is hard to do in purely audio format and without some kind of active engagement with the listener. It's just too abstract. However, I can recommend some music history/appreciation materials. Check out Robert Greenberg's lectures with The Great Courses. The one on [Beethoven's string quartets](https://www.amazon.com/String-Quartets-Beethoven-Professor-Greenberg/dp/1598035924) is good and has some decent aural analyses. Leonard Bernstein has some stuff too: [Young People's Concerts](https://www.amazon.com/Leonard-Bernstein-Peoples-Concerts-Philharmonic/dp/B0002S641O/), [The Harvard Lectures](https://www.amazon.com/Leonard-Bernstein-Harvard-Lectures/dp/B07D58DD3S/), [Greatest Symphonies](https://open.spotify.com/album/3WfAU0AK2Fc1ME4RlvI4Fr).

  4300. musictheory 2019-06-12 11:17:37 keyslouise
    I must say I’m I little confused by your question. But let’s say you capo on fret 1, tune to “standard” tuning (EADGBe), which will involve you timing every string down one half step. Then if you take the capo off you will be one half step below standard. So Eb Ab DB Gb Bb Eb. Are you asking about something else that I am missing?

  4301. musictheory 2019-06-13 07:19:34 KudasaiFripp
    Ok so I just did the test(bloc 1 **93%(28 / 30)**bloc 2 **88%(21 / 24)**bloc 3 **67%(16 / 24)** total **83%(65 / 78)**). If anyone is thinking about doing it I would say spend 20 minutes on something else. Firstly the only tone related thing is the first block (There are 3 blocks of exercises). The second one has to do with rhythm and the third one made me slightly angry(They make you point out which note is 'bad'). I really do not agree with the third block firstly you can't really say when a note is 'out' of course there are obvious examples but I think this is a wrong way to approach music. When you listen to BeBop you hear often 'out' notes which get resolved or actually have harmonical relation with the chords that go along, that doesn't mean they are out...they are out and in at the same time if you wanna make it philosophic. It's about perspective. Now to your question. I don't know and I don't think this test does a good job of telling you. If you play an instrument try to hear a note, sing it, then play it on the instrument. This is not an easy task if you are a beginner or just didn't do this before, it is an acquired skill. If you attempt this and fail multiple times and get the feeling that you don't really have a relation with the notes it might be a problem. Start with notes that are well in the vocal range of a normal person like the notes on the E and A string of a guitar. Cheers.

  4302. musictheory 2019-06-13 13:41:06 siddthekid208
    Learn the notes on the E and A string. Using octaves you can easily find the same notes on the D and G and B strings

  4303. musictheory 2019-06-13 15:15:06 SimplyTheJester
    That's how I started, but I would suggest doing it on the D and G string (middle strings). That way transposing up and down an octave to the other strings is easier. Wish I began that way. I take everything from the middle as "home base" now instead of starting at the bottom and working up.

  4304. musictheory 2019-06-13 15:25:07 SimplyTheJester
    Music theory to instrument is a bit different than going to piano. Especially when you consider the tuning (finger spacing of chords) and distortion (harmonics created can muddy up chords in the low end). I'd suggest learning your triads on the D G B string. the M3 (instead of P4) tuning from G to B helps with the fingering and being higher in range can help smooth out the harmonic effect from distortion. Nail that down and you can start spreading the chords out. For basic scales (Major and the 7 modes), learn the pattern on just 3 strings instead of across all 6 (or more) strings. You will notice how the pattern repeats easier if you zero in on that essentially one octave pattern. Here, the G to B string tuning variance might trip you up at first. But basically the patterns usually have a 1 - 2 - 4 fingering, 1 - 3 - 4 fingering or an every other fret fingering (you can do that 1 - 2 - 4 or 1 -3 - 4) If you play two 1 - 2 -4 on the first two strings, you know an 1 - 3 - 4,, 1 - 3 - 4 is coming up for the next two strings. If you play two 1 - 3 - 4 s, then you know the "every other fret" is coming up for the next 3 strings. If you play three every other fret patterns on three strings, you know two 1 - 2 -4 patterns are coming up (which completes the cycle). With that under your belt, you will be able to learn all the other scales with slight alterations such as (Scale Name) #4.

  4305. musictheory 2019-06-13 18:57:10 Jongtr
    IMO, you're overthinking this. As you say, it's a common enough sound, and you had the term for it with "modal interchange". Firstly, the key is *major*, because the tonic chord is major. It just borrows the others from E minor. If there is any thinking behind this - a reason why it's so popular in rock music - I think it's because the diatonic major key is too "bright" for average adolescent tastes. (Rock is adolescent, right?) They like the "dark" minor key sound, but the minor key tonic is too "weak" - major chords are "strong". So, a major tonic is favoured (or a distorted power chord, which has a M3 as a strong overtone), but supported by those other funky major chords taken from the minor. Thought no.2 (a practical, ergonomic one): This almost always happens in the key of E. A little less often in A. The major chords E, A, D, G, C are the basic "cowboy" chords every beginner guitarist learns. The E chord is great because its root is the lowest open string - so it sounds more "rooted" than the others. Beginners rarely learn much theory, and find that those other chords sound good together with the E. They learn a lot of classic rock songs which use those chords. So the tradition continues for that simple (double) reason. It's a common sound, *and* it's easy to achieve. Thought no.3: Rock springs primarily from blues. Blues has a minor 7th and a neutral 3rd - moves around between minor and major. Conventionally, blues is played with major I, IV V chords, but with a minor pentatonic vocal melody. It's not a huge leap from there to put major chords on the 3rd and 7th of the minor pentatonic, and add those to the I, IV and V. In E, that gives you E, A, B, G and D. You get both 3rds (G, G#) and both 7ths (D, D#). What's not to like? Aside from the B, the chords are all easy to play. The only other chord you need is that C chord (also easy), to give you the dramatic C-D-E cadence. The other preferred cadence is the plagal A-E and the double plagal D-A-E. The perfect B-E is not popular: too conclusive, too "pat", too cute for most circumstances. Perfect cadences can kill a groove stone dead. The *groove matters.* Seriously, forget picardy thirds, and anything to do with classical music. You can't use any of that to make sense of rock music. Rock's main concept of tonality is there needs to be a strong and consistent *tonal centre*. Modulation is rare, at least in basic and heavy rock. But "major" and "minor" are irrelevant distinctions - artificially separate. The tonic chord may well be chosen as one or the other (and the "key" named accordingly, if they care), but other chords can come from either the major or minor scale of that root note. And of course even the tonic can be made ambiguous by using a power chord. Common chords in the rock key of E major: E, A, B, G, C, D, Am. Sometimes C#m, F#m a little less often. Common chords in the rock key of E minor: Em, Am, A, D, G, C, Bm, B. Not much difference, right?

  4306. musictheory 2019-06-14 00:37:31 LetMeGetMyAbacus
    Without getting technical, it's the number of frets between the notes if they were to appear on the same string of your guitar. Every interval has its own sound that you can hear regardless of what the actual notes are. Scales are determined by intervals, but you can start anywhere. This is why all major scales sound the same. They are the same scale, the same intervals, the same idea, the same thing, just transposed. If you don't believe me, jam out a pattern on your low E string, then jam it the same on the exact same frets on your A string. (Bonus points if you do a scale pattern.) It'll be the same jam because the intervals are identical.

  4307. musictheory 2019-06-14 04:40:12 GETitOFFmeNOW
    Yeah just paying attention to where the intervals are always going to be in the form helps all the things click together. That relationships is always a 6th, or a 4th, etc. There's no reason anybody shouldn't be able to jump in on a common progression in a common key. But with strange keys playing forms in odd places can be exciting, too, making you use that 5th string penta form where you usually play one that's 6 string based...etc.

  4308. musictheory 2019-06-14 07:23:16 Conrad59
    > I created a bass line and melody on my guitar, but I’m unsure how to create a matching chord progression that sounds “nice” with it. There's no simple universal technique; it depends on your bassline and melody, which we don't have available to look at. One simple technique is: If your bassline and melody are in a key, then try chords which: 1. Are in that same key 2. The bass note and melody note are notes of the chord That doesn't mean the chord progression will actually sound good. A "good" chord progression typically uses patterns which make it sound like it's "progressing", not just a string of chords one after the other.

  4309. musictheory 2019-06-14 07:39:41 sandic
    quoting my favorite indian classical music resource > > > The simplest drone consists of a sin­gle note repeated indefinitely. When only a sin­gle note is used, > it must be the Sa (tonic) of the piece. a sin­gle note is all that is re­quired to define the modality of the piece. > > More complicated harmonic ef­fects may be pro­du­ced by having two notes in the drone. Indian classical music tend to use the first and the fifth (Sa and Pa). Occasionally, drones are even more comp­lex. For example, five, six, and even seven-string tanpuras are available that provide far more than a simple Sa-Pa drone, but it must be used judiciously; otherwise the performance may be­come muddy and the modes indistinct. > > Note the secondary drone is up to the artist but must be part of the raag, > usually its dominant (Pa) but if Pa is not present Subdominant (Ma) is used. > if the Subdominant is sharp, the Mediant (Ga) or Submediant (Dha) is used. https://chandrakantha.com/articles/indian_music/drone.html

  4310. musictheory 2019-06-14 18:11:02 Jongtr
    This is an excellent post, but it throws up so many questions. In the main, you're totally ignoring the effect of orchestration and tempo. OK, to be fair, most of your examples are fairly equal in that respect - big string arrangements, no strong rhythmic content, average kinds of tempo. But the problem is that the orchestration is already emotive in itself, aside from whatever else is happening. I think my main objection is that the details you're listing (chord changes or melodic intervals) that supposedly give the effects stated may not be the significant elements. They are all supported (enhanced) by the orchestration, but many - if not most or all - of those examples could easily mean something different in a different context. I.e., I think this stuff all works, but only up to a point. In many of them I don't get the effect claimed, or I only get a very vague hint, or I get it from the arrangement and not the melody or harmony. As the most obvious example, the Gladiator one - "alarm, danger" - is all about the orchestration, its intensity and dynamic, practically nothing to do with the "*5 #4 5"* melodic movement. You're surely not saying that a mere 5 #4 5 melodic movement is always a reliable indicator of alarm or danger? Moreover, you could insert almost any melodic motif into that sound and it would still communicate alarm/danger (perhaps even more so in some cases). I take on board all the unwaveringly positive comments you've received (and deservedly so for the work involved), but I detect an "emperor's new clothes" factor at play. There's a *lot more and less* going on here than you're saying. Some of it works, but mostly not for the reasons given. IMHO. Essentially, the emotional meanings of music can't be pinned down in this way anyway. You're pinning down some relatively trivial elements, and pinning some approximate emotional meaning on to them. IOW (again) music certainly can communicate the kinds of effects you're listing, but it does it by far more sophisticated and complex mechanisms than mere chord changes or melodic motifs. Those changes and motifs may commonly occur in music which communicates those things, but the cause-effect relationship is not clear. After all, they occur in music which does not have those effects. And music which has those effects may not always include them. Right? I'm fully prepared to see this post downvoted, if not ignored amongst all the adulation.... ;-)

  4311. musictheory 2019-06-15 00:09:52 melophobic
    I [this 10 years ago for my wedding](https://soundcloud.com/brian-delaney/string-quartet-no-1-ii-adagio), it is only a three part mensuration cannon, with a fourth free voice. I thought of it as 2:3:6, but I guess you could reduce it to 1:1.5:3. It starts a little weird, with two voices and honestly I can't remember the exact details, because I wrote it in 2007, but the voice entrances are pretty far apart because this was written for the processional, where the bridesmaids/groomsmen are walking down the aisle. It gets a little more exciting when my wife was walking. This coincidentally, since it was written form my wife, the whole string quartet is probably one of the most tonal things have ever written.

  4312. musictheory 2019-06-15 00:38:39 SilentStrikerTH
    Wow, that sounds really cool! The voicing on the string synth sounds really nice, the secondary of six worked well, and I'm pretty impressed with the ending too, very unique and creative! Thanks for sharing and awesome job!

  4313. musictheory 2019-06-15 00:39:32 fretflip
    Don't worry, just play the marked notes over an open A string. If you need guidance regarding scale degrees, I just sent you a PM with a short write up on the subject.

  4314. musictheory 2019-06-15 03:35:12 vouwrfract
    > This is not accurate, unless you are using the term in a non-standard way. I'm using the word overtone as it is used in physics, as notes that are integer multiples of the frequency of the base frequency. So if you play a note of x Hz, notes with 2x, 3x, 4x... Hz are overtones of the base note. Usually any naturally vibrating body also produces small amplitudes of its overtones unless artificially restricted to one frequency. The drone as such always plays x, 2x, and 1.5x (the lower octave of 3x), and the purpose of the drone is to keep your pitch in check. While it is certainly the case that any and all musicians, especially string-instrumentalists, that they can naturally produce overtones of very small amplitudes due to the way strings behave when reasonably free, it is more to do with the nature of sound production and quality of instruments rather than anything to do with the music theory at all (i.e., overtones produced on a Tanpura, Veena, or Sitar, naturally, are contributors to their timbre, but the music theory itself, not very much). In general, the theory exists independent of anyone's ability to produce overtones from a vibrating string / the lack thereof, and therefore is only relevant when you get a bad instrument. You don't strive to ever manually induce overtones by singing octaves or fifths at the same time. ----- In modern practice (when I say modern, I mean last 100-120 or so years since recordings have been available), the common usage of the drone is such that it's only audible to the performer and not to the crowd unless everyone is silent. Often it's also turned off during Graha-Bheda (similar to playing 3rd-3rd in a minor scale to make it deceptively sound like major, sort of thing (which isn't possible in a just-intonated octave because the intervals aren't the same, interestingly, which points to Carnatic, at least, drifting to 12-TET in general)).

  4315. musictheory 2019-06-15 11:16:56 fireantstep
    E minor pentatonic shapes on a guitar that is tuned to C standard will be C minor pentatonic. Look at it like this. Standard tuning is sometimes referred to as "E Standard". Therefore anything you know as an E shape inherently relates to your lowest playable note on the 6th string. Then use that knowledge when you know what you have your 6th string tuned down to

  4316. musictheory 2019-06-15 12:19:42 kvlopsia
    Dillinger escape plan played almost all their songs in E standard, and they're one of the must brutal modern metal bands. But I feel you, I have a 7 string, an 8 string, and a baritone guitar as well as my standard tuning guitar because I mostly play metal

  4317. musictheory 2019-06-15 12:39:13 kvlopsia
    Look up Ne Obliviscaris, they're probably more your thing then, and they use standard tuning, or sometimes more recently standard 7 string tuning

  4318. musictheory 2019-06-15 12:46:01 MarsBarWithFiveStars
    hmm that sounds more of a song structure prob then your music theory, all that i think is really gonna help figuring that out is telling you to practice putting it together really. but ill give the qs a shot. usually to make a melody really catchy or repeatable i set 4 or 8 bars for the melody to progress and then loop, so its usually not very far reaching and goes back down a little before it loops, also for melody adding rhythm is VERY important i'd say you can play dissonant notes all at once and they sound bad, but string them out and they sound more interesting, a good plan for extending a melody i use is keep in the same scale but with the same pattern as the last bar just with different notes. If you want a good example of this my most recent song, called "coming up on 80" (link below if you wanna listen) has a very repetitious bass and a melody with the same pattern repeating over but it gels well (i think at least). Don't underestimate how important drums are tho for your music, they set the rhythm the most i think, and really make your music pulse, syncopation between the bass, drums, and chords/repetitious melody is probably the most important aside from good melody. &#x200B; [https://soundcloud.com/mars-bars-709489614](https://soundcloud.com/mars-bars-709489614)

  4319. musictheory 2019-06-15 13:02:49 Thats_what_i_twat
    That's because you dont have a bass accompanying you. I play on a 7 string in drop A and when I write my own music I basically play it like a standard tuned guitar with a lowered fifth harmony. If it sounds corny, it's your playing, not the tuning.

  4320. musictheory 2019-06-15 15:30:17 Robot_Embryo
    I think you're confusing notes with positions or frets. When you're in standard tuning, your 6th string (and 1st string) are in E, so your third fret is a G. If you drop everything down 2 whole steps, which from E to C is 4 chromatic notes, your 3rd fret isn't a G anymore, its a D#.

  4321. musictheory 2019-06-16 01:20:23 butterbcharm
    NO! not at all. it’s up to the guitarist to play that D7 or not. doubling the minor seven could help emphasize the one that’s being played in the bass, so it’s entirely how the b7 is being used and if it should be subtle or brought out. BUT, I’m a gigging solo act and i play that bass inversion in stuff all the time. for instance, C/E, I’ll play a C chord and include the low E string (and usually try to add more punch to the E to bring it out intentionally).

  4322. musictheory 2019-06-16 01:47:36 knowledgelover94
    Let’s say you’ve got a C minor scale (Aeolian). If you then begin the scale off D, it’s locrian, Eb Ionian (Major), F Dorian, G Phrygian, Ab Lydian, Bb mixolydian. Think of a scale (really a “pitch class set”) as a string of intervals that can start at any point in the sequence, each starting point making it a different mode. C minor- (+2122122), D- (+1221222), Eb- (+2212221), F- (+2122212), G- (+1222122), Ab- (+2221221), Bb- (+2212212) These interval patterns (in semitones moving upward) are the same pattern, only the starting point changes in each mode.

  4323. musictheory 2019-06-16 04:39:03 17bmw
    Oh, no the condensed score is fine! I just wanted to see the bar that comes after the V6/4 so I could see the resolutions! But thank you for posting the full thing anyway; it actually made deciphering plenty of the lines a fair bit easier...although tranaposing instruments are still my one mortal weakness T_T. But yeah, that Eb chord right before rehearsal number seven looks and sounds like a voice leading chord. Many of its chord tones are a direct consequence of stepwise chromatic motion between the notes in the surrounding chords. I have trouble calling it a 4-5 retardation because Bb, not A is in the previous chord and it never resolves how we'd expect a retardation to resolve. The spelling of the E (and not Fb) is weird but I think we should still consider E a chord tone and not an appoggiatura because a.) It sounds like a seventh chord in third inversion even if it isn't spelled that way and b.) This E doesn't behave like a non-chord tone. A few reasoms to spell it as E instead of Fb. One: Most people don't like looking at or thinking about the note Fb. Two, string instruments play accidentals differently based on context (The Gb in the root of the chord is slightly different than the F# as a chordal third). Perhaps this spelling is to force a specific tuning. And, three: if you ignore the voice leading chord for a moment, the bassline moves from E to C to F. It ultimately resolves up which how a leading tone would behave. So in Roman numerals I might analyze this as IV - N4/2 - bVII - V6/4 - V+7 - I and add a note about the funky behaviour of the bVII chord, maybe using figured bass or some such. It's worth noting that using +6 chords this way isn't uncommon and a lot of times they are just considered weird "I-can't-believe-that's-functional" passing chords. But that's the best analysis I can come up with. I hope it helps and take care!

  4324. musictheory 2019-06-16 05:47:57 Guitar_Santa
    Harmonic Mechanisms for Guitar by George Van Eps. It will take you years to get through that series, but the first section of Vol. 1 is literally just harmonized scales in triads - adjacent string sets, broken string sets, all inversions, 12 keys, major/harmonic minor/melodic minor/mixed minors. There's no real theory to speak of; it's more of a dictionary of exercises aimed at giving you mastery of the fingerboard.

  4325. musictheory 2019-06-16 08:50:58 knowledgelover94
    That’s called a #9 chord or split third chord (some sillies call it the Jimi Hendrix chord but many used it before him). It’s a dope chord; I’m not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. I can give you all sorts of descriptions like the intervals in it. Perhaps you can tel us why you’d think it’d sound terrible? Taking that half step dissonance of A and A# and voicing it as a major 7 is key to making it sound good. In other words, it won’t sound good if A (m3) is below and A# (M3) is above; the M3 should be below the m3 and dom 7. I suppose the answer to your question is that there’s lots of consonant intervals that make up the chord. If you play guitar you’ve gotta start using this chord. Essential for funk. It can be used as a dominant, but I’ve hear it used plenty as tonic. Might I add a further suggestion to bar with your pink to the E string (add a D pitch up top) making it a #9 b13. Pretty much ***the dopest chord***.

  4326. musictheory 2019-06-16 09:22:56 Conrad59
    The notes in any major scale, and therefore in any "mode" (because any mode uses the same notes as its "source major scale"), can be arranged as a string of perfect 5ths. E.g., the notes in the C major scale, or any "white-key mode", can be laid out: F C G D A E B The first and last notes in this string always from a tritone. Since those notes are at the ends of that mode's string of 5ths, they are the "character tones" for that mode.

  4327. musictheory 2019-06-16 17:41:54 Jongtr
    It's not tuned close enough to western pitches to identify a scale in western terms. It's not exactly pentatonic, at least. There are notes very close to the western Bb, F, C and Eb (all of which seem relatively stable) but there are microtonal swoops in the Db-D area, the Ab-A area, and F#-G (all very approximate). There's no sense (to my ear) of any note intended to be the tonal centre (the video cuts off before he finishes, so there's no clue as to what might be a modal "final"). IOW, the characteristics of the sound - to uneducated western ears, that is - are the microtonal pitch bending, the lack of any obvious keynote, modal root or drone, and the occasional ornamentations; not to mention the somewhat harsh timbre (for ears used to mellower western bowed string conventions). The instrument, btw, is what the Chinese call an er-hu - a two-string instrument no doubt performing the same role here as the Cambodian tro.

  4328. musictheory 2019-06-17 00:19:00 65TwinReverbRI
    >Is it possible to learn music theory completely by yourself? No. That is, if you mean "completely" as in "all there is to know" because there's more than any of us could ever learn! If you mean "completely" as in "exclusively", then yes, it's possible to learn "some" music theory. >I play the piano, I am self taught. The thing I want to do the most is compose, I have made a couple of compositions however I think that If i knew music theory my works would reach their true potential. It could also really speed up the creating process itself. Everyone's looking for a shortcut - an easy way out. You know what will actually speed things up? Taking lessons. But everyone online is like "I'll do *anything* to speed up my abilities" and someone says "take lessons" and then it's "except that". You need to learn to play music by others. That's how composers learn. Theory will only give you the "terminology" behind the concepts, but you need to encounter the concepts in actual music to be able to have a reference point to work from. Look, EVERY (with extremely rare exception) "Classical" Composer took lessons - they learned to play an instrument (or many) under the tutelage of a professional musician and mentor, and they studied composition as well. They often (and closer to the present, typically did) study at some kind of academic institution. If you want to do what classical composers did, you need to do what they did! They didn't "self teach" (by that I mean, receive absolutely zero instruction - most of them got tons of instruction but of course were able to study on their own to learn even more). They also didn't run around worrying about studying music theory. That came with the lessons and while learning their craft. You can absolutely do it, but what you do is sit down and learn to play pieces you want to emulate, then tear them apart and see how they work, then use them as a model and try to recreate them yourself. And again - the shortcut thing - you know, Mozart (just as an example) is considered by many to be the most gifted composer ever and his mature compositions are "amazing". But, here is Mozart's first *published* (or so we believe) Composition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avvRNEInDSE It's not a Symphony, or a String Quartet, so some massive opera. It's a very basic Minuet (but we can admit that him writing this at 5 years was more advanced than many of us were at 18). IOW if you think you're going to "teach yourself some theory" and then write your Magnum Opus next week, it's highly unlikely (let's just say it's not going to happen because if you had that ability, you'd already be doing it). There are no shortcuts other than putting the time in and getting help from other professionals who can provide information and experience you won't get wasting time roaming around the interwebs. Learning to compose music (well) is a lifelong process, but most Composers spend a fair amount of time becoming excellent players on an instrument and then start putting ideas together based on what they've learn. Some of course have a knack for putting things together without necessarily being a virtuoso performer, and today, Composers can work in fields where instrument proficiency is less of an issue, but still, most "come to composing" through playing first. Usually with formal training (and in the old days, Apprenticeships - even the film composer John Williams apprenticed as an arranger/orchestrator before he got his big break). "Learning theory" is not going to do any this. It certainly is useful, and it's a great tool - but it's one of many tools you need, not the solution. HTH

  4329. musictheory 2019-06-17 15:22:48 Landeplagen
    Watch demo videos for these string libraries, and see how they do it: 8Dio Adagio Violins Orchestral Tools Berlin Strings LA Scoring Strings These have quite good legato patches I believe. It is important to use CC1 and CC11.

  4330. musictheory 2019-06-17 16:01:12 Scatcycle
    First off, strings are notorious for being the most difficult orchestra instrument to program. Secondly, u/landenplagen has good advice, I strongly recommend Berlin strings. Dynamics are difficult to program because when you write it in, the system really just fades in and out of different samples. That's why using expression , which will only affect the volume, is important to get you that smooth flow, whereas only relying on modulation might have you hearing the change between two dynamic points too easily. Also some libraries just do a really bad job on fading between different dynamics. Maybe people mix chamber strings (Berlin strings, spitfire sable) in with their bigger string libraries, to get that finer detail up front. Ideal is an actual soloist, but that's a prerogative most of us don't have. I would add portamento on significant steps or leaps upward. Don't go crazy with it though. It has a time and a place. Retardations up can almost always benefit from portamento. Don't portamento down. It's also worth nothing that in a lot of today's soundtracks, the strings are backed by some subtle pads in the background. You can use these to thicken up your strings if you're going to cinematic route. If you're working with percussion or other instantaneous attacks, offset your midi so the legato happens before the note is actually supposed to sound. Especially if you're using a portamento. Legato samples take time to reach their destination, so if you place your midi on the same beat as your percussion, the strings are going to begin their legato as your percussion hits; they'll be late. And lastly, listen to pieces that utilizing flowing strings. Time by zimmer is a good one. Try to hear what's going on with the strings. Then replicate it. But at the end of the day remember that strings are incredibly complex and string samples will never sound like an actual performance. Just do your best.

  4331. musictheory 2019-06-17 23:54:40 MooseBurgers511
    Guitar isn’t that bad, next string up is either P4 or M3

  4332. musictheory 2019-06-18 02:07:21 17bmw
    *F - Dm - Edim - E - Bb7 - Dbm?^1* The first thing that jumps out to me here is the suspicious lack of any dominant chords, or at least, any dominants used as such. It's hard to really *confirm* a modulation without a dominant. Don't get me wrong, it's totally doable but why make it any harder for yourself? For example, Bb7 could easily go to some flavor of Eb chord which in turn, practically begs to go to Ab, the dominant of Db.^2 You also have the Edim chord; if it was a fully diminished chord, it could easily resolve to D, the Neapolitan of Db, which sounds delicious going to Ab.^3 Or it could go to F, the mediant of Db and you could have a falling fifths progression down to Db.^4 I also don't see much in the way of modal mixture. F minor and F major are easy enough to swap between, as are Db major and Db minor. It also happens that F minor and Db major are closely related keys. Why Bb dominant instead of Bb minor, a chord found in both Fmin and Dbmaj?^5 Even just going directly and immediately to Fmin gets you to Db quickly and smoothly.^6 There are plenty of other ways to modulate from F to Db but these are just some that jumped out to me at first glance. I've made some sample progressions^7 for you to play through and experiment with below. I hope this helps and take care! 1.) Strictly speaking, we might prefer to talk about going to C# minor instead of Db minor because the former is less of a headache to spell. 2.) F - Dm - Edim - E - Bb7 - Ebm - Ab7 - Dbm 3.) F - Dm - E°7 - D - Ab7 - Dbm 4.) F - Dm - E°7 - Fm - Bb7 - Ebm - Ab7- Dbm (you could easily have a nice string of secondary dominant here. I gave the Bb7 as an example). 5.) F - Dm - Edim - E - Bbm7 - Dbm - D7 - Dbm (I'm using a tritone substitution of Ab7 to make the point that there are plenty of dominant function chords to choose from) 6.) F - Dm - Edim - Fm - Bbm7 - Ab7 - Dbm (you could calso go to F7 and tonicize the Bbm chord for a nice sequential idea.) 7.) F - Dm - Edim - E - Bb7 - Bm - C°7 - Dbm (one more for fun. This time, the Bb7 resolves deceptively to Bmin followed by a leading tone chord to Db. It needs respelling but the chromatic motions are groovy.)

  4333. musictheory 2019-06-18 20:11:23 ResidentPurple
    The string hit by the piano when you press the A4 key (A above middle C) vibrates at 440Hz which is another way to say that the string vibrates 440 times per second. If you don't take the time to understand this core concept, you're going to get lost on the way to learning that the frequency of an E5 is 660 Hz which is a 3:2 ratio to that A4. A4 to E5 is a perfect fifth. Now you'll have to forgive me as this is a little bit simplified.

  4334. musictheory 2019-06-18 20:39:13 Yeargdribble
    Piano hands down. I play several and piano wasn't even my primary in college (trumpet). Piano is just one of the most capable instruments all around. Just looking at this all objectively, you almost have to pick a harmony instrument because any monophonic instrument is just less capable of doing things on its own. Guitar is limited by the range within the grasp of one hand. Accordion has much better range, but is lacking some facility in the stradella bass and is practically limited to the range of an octave and there are certain chords that are completely impossible to play with the left hand alone. Organ has a huge advantage by adding your feet... but the lack of true dynamic control or ability to vary attacks is really lame. Accordion has that , but lacks the facility, so those who probably come out as a draw. Meanwhile, piano has *most* of the strengths and few of the weaknesses. The only real limit to an *acoustic* piano is that there is no sustain, or at least not one you can truly control. But a stage piano and lots of sample options give you unbelievable options with sustain, aftertouch, etc. I mean, I guess you don't have *true* vibrato control like you do on a wind, string, or voice, but once again, that's a relatively small thing to give up for the absolute range, essentially unlimited harmonic capability, and a fairly robust range of both dynamic and percussive options. --- There's a reason piano is compulsory in most music schools. I don't think another instrument even comes close in terms of allowing you to visualize and conceptualize theory concepts. So much of what I do on other instruments is vastly enhanced by piano. I more efficiently chunk harmonic concepts together on trumpet because of it despite having spend significantly more time overall in my life playing trumpet. I couldn't imagine putting together complex jazz chords on the accordion's stradella bass without theory knowledge that came from visualization on piano. Within piano, guitar chords would likely just be random hand shapes where I have no frickin' clue what note is even sounding on a given string or the possibilities afforded to me by simply moving a given finger up or down a fret within a pre-existing shape. Piano just wins as a musical instrument. It's the allfather.

  4335. musictheory 2019-06-18 21:09:13 Jongtr
    A musical pitch actually consists of many partial vibrations - known as the [harmonic series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music)). The main pitch we hear is called the "fundamental", and all the harmonics or overtones are what gives the note its tone or timbre. It's why a flute and a violin sound different when both are playing the same note. The harmonics are all simple multiples of the fundamental. So a pitch of 110 Hz (cycles per second), which we hear and define as A2, also contains frequencies of 220, 330, 440, 550 and so on, getting increasingly fainter. Every time the frequency doubles, it's an octave up. So 220, 440, 880 and so on are all A notes (as are 55 and 27.5, the lowest A on piano). The other harmonics represent different notes. 330 Hz, for example is E4 - an octave and 5th above A=110. This is where the 3:2 figure for the perfect 5th comes from. E=330 is a perfect 5th above A=220. You get the same effect by stopping a string (on violin, guitar etc) at 2/3 of its length. On guitar, for example, the A string is 110 Hz. 2/3 of the string is marked by fret 7, which is an E at 165 Hz. E=330 is up at fret 19, 1/3 of string length, meaning the string vibrates 3 times as fast there. The fly in the ointment here is *equal temperament*, which is the western standard of tuning which makes every semitone an equal 12th of an octave. This means that every note deviates slightly from the simple interval fractions. The tuned E is not exactly 330, but 329.6, a very tiny (imperceptible amount) flat of the "pure" 5th above A.

  4336. musictheory 2019-06-18 21:28:50 gopher9
    Sure, read this: - https://pudding.cool/2018/02/waveforms/ - http://www.jezzamon.com/fourier/index.html 3:2 is a ratio of frequencies. Or a ratio of string lengths (assuming the same string mass and tension).

  4337. musictheory 2019-06-18 21:29:36 ResidentPurple
    There's no reason to memorize the frequency of every note. You can memorize the ratios instead, like perfect fifth = 3:2, major 2nd 9:8, major third 5:4 and so forth. If for some reason this is important to you, you can make some flashcards and study those ratios or study the actual frequencies. But like I said, I oversimplified things a little bit. Most commercial music is made with something called equal temperament, where the ratios are actually approximations. Some are very close, some are less close. 3:2 is one of the very close approximations. The concepts of temperament, tuning theory, stretched tunings, and so forth have a lot of depth and a fair bit of math. If you want to learn more, you can do a search for 'equal temperament', 'stretched tuning' and so forth. It's also going to be important for you to learn about the harmonic series with regard to a vibrating string.

  4338. musictheory 2019-06-18 21:36:45 harpsichorddude
    There are 12 notes in an octave, which is where that comes from. The physics perspective would be the harmonic series, which I think was outlined in another commenter's post. Wikipedia's explanation is ok there---a string can vibrate twice as fast if it's steady at the midpoint and vibrating on either side of it, as in the picture at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music)#/media/File:Harmonic_partials_on_strings.svg

  4339. musictheory 2019-06-18 22:11:57 Xenoceratops
    Thanks, that's helpful. >I want to become good enough to be able to make my own music that sounds decent and be able to easily play other songs by listening to or reading the sheet music Just so you know, this will take years. Barre chords are invaluable for guitarists. Learn them, learn the notes on the E and A strings, and go to town. If I ask you to play B♭m, you should know two ways to play it. ([x-1-3-3-2-1] and [6-8-8-6-6-6], where those positions correspond to the strings [E-A-D-G-B-e] and 'x' means to mute that string.) I highly recommend you go through the content on [musictheory.net](http://www.musictheory.net) and [Seth Monahan's YouTube channel](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6X9nEsddMpYNyxr3ZckjLg/videos?view=0&sort=da&flow=grid). Git gud with the basics of harmony and exercise your analysis chops. [IMSLP](https://imslp.org) has a ton of public domain scores for you to download and pick apart.

  4340. musictheory 2019-06-18 23:04:55 Jongtr
    What I understand by "nodes" are the points on a string which are at exact fractions of the string length - and where you can produce harmonics from the string. I.e., if you touch a string at a node, and play the string, the string will vibrate in those fractions, not at the fundamental frequency. On a guitar string, for example, touching the string over 12th fret (without fretting it) stops the whole string moving, but allows it to move either side of the node. It vibrates in halves, at twice the open string frequency, producing an octave higher - the 2nd harmonic or 1st overtone of the string. Touching the nodes over fret 7 and 19 prevent both the fundamental and its octave (2nd harmonic) occurring, but allow the 3rd harmonic, which is a 12th (octave plus 5th) above the open string. Notice the number of the harmonic is the same as the string fraction which produces it: 1/4 string length (fret 5) = 4th harmonic; 1/5 string length (frets 4, 9 or 16) = 5th harmonic. AFAIK, nodes are also produced in wind instruments - by holes in the tube, or overblowing - but I think the science is more complicated there (columns of air in cylindrical or conical tubes, rather than stretched strings).

  4341. musictheory 2019-06-19 01:25:16 jazzadellic
    Just to repeat a couple, and add to the list, here's some Brazilian composers that guitarists like to play or just listen to (because we can't play that good!): &#x200B; * Villa-Lobos - mandatory for every serious classical guitar student. * Aníbal Augusto Sardinha (Garoto) - popular with both Brazilian & classical guitar players. * Dilermando Reis - more standard repertoire for Brazilian & classical guitar players. * João Pernambuco - standard repertoire for Brazilian & classical guitar players. * Baden Powell - Brazilian guitar virtuoso - hard to find an accurate transcription online, so I usually end up doing it myself. * Raphael Rabello - another Brazilian guitar virtuoso who preferred a 7 string guitar. * Egberto Gismonti - he's so good he needed a 10 string guitar. * Yamandu Costa - he will melt your face off with his 7 string guitar. The last three mentioned guitarists I haven't been brave enough yet to attempt a transcription. My excuse being I don't own a 7 or 10 string guitar, but even if I did I'm not sure I'd be up to the task.

  4342. musictheory 2019-06-19 02:15:33 expiredvegetable
    Piano, because I don't have the ability to play counterpoint for three or four voices on other instruments. And visibly stringed instruments, when a string breaks, scare the bejesus out of me. I don't need those little bursts of adrenaline.

  4343. musictheory 2019-06-19 02:18:21 ResidentPurple
    It sounds like you're talking about learning top-down vs bottom-up. Learning the shape of an F# major vs understanding why an F# major contains the notes it does. One is more immediately practical, but they are both valuable in different ways. If you spend too much time on the most basic of building blocks, you may end up being able to calculate the frequency of any notes before you learn how to pluck a string or press a key. If you spend all your time just learning how to play songs from an instructor, you won't know how to read or might not know how many eighth notes are in a quarter note. Everyone is somewhere in the middle, but it's hard to tell how far in the middle people are if they don't have a degree or have videos breaking down their thought process. This is a theory subreddit, so people are here largely because they'd rather err on the more theory side.

  4344. musictheory 2019-06-19 05:26:27 powersurgeee
    Yes, but the benefits only come when you study it *extensively*. By extensively, I mean to the point that it becomes a reflex, to the point that you can hear 4 voice (and beyond) harmonic and contrapuntal textures in your *mind.* The goal of studying harmony and counterpoint is to cultivate the ears sensitivity to consonance, and especially dissonance. Studying harmony and counterpoint also builds a melodic/structural sense that transcends style. People always ask "how do I write a good melody/progression/line/motif/etc." If you study this stuff seriously (always searching for the most beautiful and elegant solutions), you'll start to just know where a line needs to go, regardless of what style you're writing in. The fact is, most people just apply the voice leading rules (without actually thinking of the music they're creating) and think they've "learned" how to write good counterpoint/progressions. If it were that easy, we'd have a lot more great composers... It's hard to explain, but once this stuff gets in your ear, you start to build musical instincts that let you tackle/understand even non-CPP music*.* There's a reason Ravel continued his counterpoint studies well after writing his monumental string quartet, and he definitely wasn't following the "rules" in his music...

  4345. musictheory 2019-06-19 12:38:57 TaigaBridge
    Main comment I have here is that *you gave no indication what register*. For instruments like the flute, english horn, and bassoon, I'd give wildly different answers if it's playing in the low, middle, or top registers --- *more* difference between a high and low note on the same instrument, than between that instrument and a similar one. I mention it as a possible confounding variable. You aren't so much measuring "the" sound of a flute, as *which* flute solo I imagined. So the differences you measure might mostly be due to "piccolos are stereotypically way up high, violas are stereotypically grinding away on the C string." At least with english horn there's a safe bet most respondents imagined the low register.

  4346. musictheory 2019-06-19 14:15:54 skribsbb
    My guess is because it's easy. The KISS principle. No, not the band. "Keep it simple, stupid." You have 5 notes to play with, generally 2 notes per string (assuming you're on a guitar or bass). The patterns are a lot easier to remember than a 7-note scale. &#x200B; I think it also works, because by eliminating two of the notes, you play less "wrong" notes when playing over other chords in the scale. For example, if you're playing over a chord progression that is Em, G, Am, C, you can play any of those 4 pentatonic and everything fits. The natural A, C, D, E, and G notes are in all 4 of those scales (the only difference between all four is a single sharp, which does not appear in the pentatonic versions of any of them). &#x200B; So I can play Em pentatonic over the whole chord progression, and I'm using all the right notes. Or I can play G major pentatonic. Or Am pentatonic, or C major pentatonic. It will sound decent in a slow progression (where the chord should carry the scale) or fast (where the key should carry the scale).

  4347. musictheory 2019-06-19 14:22:45 sackblabbathrowaway
    However, afaik the only articulation you get is the three pedals, and loud/soft. No non-digital string bending (sounds fake and unnatural anyway when digital), muting, hammer-ons, or very many tone changes unless the piano is prepared, etc. But it cant be beat for its range

  4348. musictheory 2019-06-19 18:31:56 orein123
    Depends on how different you want to go. I always look at it as a series of steps away from what I know when I'm considering picking up a new instruments. Every instrument falls into certain categories and every step out of a familiar category is something new you need to learn. To start, there is the obvious string/woodwind/brass/percussion. Each might seem more or less unfamiliar, but for all intents and purposes, no matter which you pick, you are only taking one step away from what you're familiar with. Out of all of the choices you need to look at, this one is the least important for a string player. Wind players, both brass and woodwind, do need to take this a little more into consideration, as swapping between two wind instruments can really screw with the quality of your sound if you're not careful. but you obviously doneed to worry about that. Pick whichever one sounds fun. You also need to consider the genre of music you would be focusing on with that instrument. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you play in an orchestra since you're a violin player. Well, do you want something that can still play in an orchestra? What about a concert band? Jazz? Rock? Again, no matter what you pick, it's still just one more step into the unknown. Now you need to consider what role the instrument serves in the chosen genre. Is it mainly a melodic instrument like violin, flute, or trumpet? Is it a bass instrument like a tuba or contrabass? Is it a harmonic instrument like violas and french horns? While any instrument can be used in any role, certain options will tend to fill certain roles. If you pick something that is outside of what you usually play, that is once again something new you need to learn. Even beyond the specifics of the instrument, you cannot use the same phrasing on a bass instrument as you would on a melodic instrument. Harmonic instruments need to make sure they are loud enough to be heard without overpowering the melody. Rhythmic instruments need to be played perfectly in tempo. This is probably the hardest part of mastering any instrument. As a violin player, you might find it easy to pick up a flute since they play similar lines. You might find a tuba really hard just because you're not used to playing a bass line. Or, it could be the other way around. Certain positions are naturally easier for some people. Maybe you might find that you just know the perfect volume for a french horn countermelody. The only way to know for certain is to experiment. The last thing you need to consider is by far the simplest and the most important. What sounds fun to you? Not easy, fun. If you are truly dedicated to learning a new instrument, none of them will be easy. Some might be easier than others, but truly learning even the easiest instrument take a lot of practice. It is more important that you enjoy whatever you pick, regardless of how hard of an instrument it may be. Now, if you're still with me after that wall of text, feel free to answer a few of those questions in a comment or a pm and I can recommend a few choices based off of what sounds good to you. Remember, each thing different from what you already do is something more you have to learn, but it doesn't necessarily mean it will be that much harder. Like I said, certain things just click for some people, and you will never know until you try.

  4349. musictheory 2019-06-20 18:13:34 17bmw
    Omg, Schoenberg, my fav, my king, my icon! Okay, where to start, honestly? First, and perhaps the biggest bestest thing you can do to "get" Schoenberg is to listen to his music in chronological order. Tons of authors will talk about the evolution of his musical language but I find listening to still be the best (and funnest) way to really grasp how much he changes. Even just hearing his four string quartets in chornological order illuminates a ton. Then go through his biography. I know it might be cliche to say this but the man's life informed his music and vice versa. His center an excellent [run down](https://www.schoenberg.at/index.php/en/schoenberg-2/biographie) on his life and times and there's also the *Schoenberg Reader* by Joseph H. Auner. Next, for the theoretical specifica of his stuff, Ethan Haimo really lays it all out for you in his book *Schoenberg's Serial Odyssey.* It's quite technical but the features of Schoenberg's music that Haimo describes are integral to any good analytical understanding of his music. George Perle also writed the ever faithful *Serial Composition and Atonality* which addresses some of Schoenberg's earlier Expressionist works and also analyses of Berg and Webern's styles. Perle also has plenty of other writing on 12-tone composition and the Second Vienese School; rewarding to read through as well. As a general analytical note, Schoenberg, for all his musical zaniness, was a Classicist through and through. You'll need to be pretty familiar with Classical and Romantic musical forms and structural organizations to make heads and tails of what Schoenberg does half the time. From there, tackle the main man himself. Schoenberg spilled plenty of theoretical ink which continues to be a gift. Few composers have their own thoughts, outlooks, and approaches to music memorialized in writing and fewer still to the level of detail as Schoenberg. *Style and Idea* remains a treasure to me because he thoroughly describes his feelings about the then musical landscape. Finally, no Schoenberg journey is complete without checking out what other people (musicologists and composers alike) had to say about him and his music. Stravinsky, Adorno, Boulez, Taruskin all write about him. No matter how anyone felt about him or his music, Schoenberg and his ideas had to be addressed by everyone who followed him and the way they address him is often fascinating in its own right. From there, you can check out his teaching method in Ashley J. Barrett's book *Training the Composer.* Or you can check out his equally awesome paintings and what Kandisky had to say about them. Also, simply typing in his name in the search bar of many journals yields [piles on piles](https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=013708290434383557582%3Ahil9i0cwk5i&ie=UTF-8&q=Schoenberg&siteurl=www.mtosmt.org%2F&ref=&ss=4608j3205578j13&oq=Schoenberg&gs_l=partner-generic.3..0l10.2326.6407.0.6935.11.11.0.0.0.0.114.1059.8j3.11.0.gsnos%2Cn%3D13...0.4607j3202017j13j1..1ac.1j4.25.partner-generic..0.11.1057.dPTLAKJgxk0) of analyses. Lastly (for real this time!) you can find recordings of some of his UCLA lectures around the web with a little legwork. Like this one [here](https://youtu.be/c_4LnBU8e_w)! Schoenberg is one of my absolute favs so I'm always down to analyze and discuss a few bars here and there. I'm overjoyed there's another Schoenberg-lover in our midst and I hope this helps. Take care!

  4350. musictheory 2019-06-20 20:01:59 Atheia
    There is a lot going on in this poorly worded and formatted post. Frankly I don't even understand what you are trying to get at. But there are a lot of things wrong or deserve clarification in here, so let me try to clarify things. >keyboard players usually at the time had 12 note keyboards and thought notes like d# and eb were enharmonic but they weren't, due this fact keyboard players couldn't play in tune with non keyboard players, which differentiated d# and eb. Enharmonics in quarter-comma meantone are not at the same pitch, true. It is not true that keyboard players could not play in tune with vocal and string players. The notes of the keyboard are fixed; vocal and string parts adjusted their tuning to the keyboard. >Due to this keyboard players thought that keys like f minor was really sad and expressed melancholy and death, and what gave it it's flavor is it's d flat and a flat that was usually tuned to a c# and g# instead It is my understanding that "key color" was a notion that began to be brought up in the context of well temperament, where all 24 keys were usable, but the widths of the major and minor thirds varied as one traversed the circle of fifths. In quarter-comma meantone, there are only two widths of the major thirds: that which is just, and that which is about 41 cents sharp (useless). I have thought about this a little and have come to the conclusion that referring to "key color" in meantone can only refer to something very limited. To demonstrate this, consider a thought experiment where you were playing on an organ tuned to quarter-comma meantone, and say you were playing a piece in F minor. Music in this key on such an organ will probably sound terrible, because as you point out, Ab and Db are tuned as G# and C#, respectively, forcing you to use these much lower tones whenever the notes Ab and Db are written in the score. Now, say that the organ has G#/Ab and C#/Db split keys. Would you use the Ab and Db over the G# and C# while playing the piece? Most people would, because then the F-Ab and Db-F intervals becomes much closer to pure, and one can now play good Ab and Db major chords without worrying about a wolf. The i, III, and VI chords in the home key, after all, are very important. The purpose of the split keys is to make a greater number of chords accessible to the player. This implies that a chord with the "wrong" third is really regarded as being out of tune. That is the opposite of what key color asserts - that no third is especially out of tune, but each is playable, and hence no split keys are needed. Split keys would defeat the purpose of most well temperaments. >and also if you calculate a major second from c in 1/4 meantone in cents, and then compare it from a major second from g you realize it's the same interval in cents That is a property of meantone temperament. But equal temperament has the same property. I don't see how this is anything special.

  4351. musictheory 2019-06-21 07:08:34 scrote_mcgee
    I'm pretty sure the first chords are a F# maj7 and a F# add 9. The second set of chords I think are a D# min 7 and a D# min sus 4. However, you can memorize these chords easily by recognizing their shapes If you move the F# chords down to the first fret, you'll notice it looks just like a C chord. Same thing with the D# chords, when moved to first position they look just like an E min 7 (e min without a finger on the D string)

  4352. musictheory 2019-06-21 09:02:23 Weslovebacon04
    Thank you for the well thought out reply and I would love if you could give me a recommendation. I am the worst at rhythm so that knocks out percussion. Also I would like to get away from string instruments. Therefore woodwinds and brass seem to be the best choice for me. You are absolutely right and I play in my high school all string orchestra. Unfortunately, that’s the only orchestra available and only string instruments are possible for the orchestra. However, the school does offer a symphonic and jazz band. The latter is audition only and I doubt I’ll become good enough to audition for that. The symphonic band is a possibility and I thought about trying it for half a semester. Harmonic and melodic are my two personal favorites. However since I already do the violin I guess I might be leaning more toward harmonic. Finally as to what instruments seem the most fun I would say the flute, oboe and saxophone. My mother however has basically shut down the flute. Once again thank you and I’m sorry for the late response.

  4353. musictheory 2019-06-21 13:21:22 orein123
    No worries about the late response, I'm always happy to help a fellow music nerd. Before I really can recommend anything, I would like to know just how serious you are about learning a new instrument. What level would you like to take your playing to; amateur, intermediate, or professional? How much work are you prepared to do to get yourself there? I know I said not to worry about what seems hard and focus more on what sounds fun, but a certain few instruments are just so hard to learn that they aren't worth your time if you are not deadly serious about learning them. I ask this because oboe is one of those instruments. The [oboe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJhax7Jmxs) is an absolutely beautiful instrument. While I find that I hate working with it as a composer, because its sound doesn't blend very easily with other instruments, it is by far my most favorite soloist instrument. Nothing else quite captures the emotion that an oboe can put into music. However, oboe is arguably the hardest wind instrument to play. It is almost impossible to keep in tune; even just holding a steady pitch requires an even steadier jaw. The reeds are expensive, easy to break, and really, if you want a good sound, need to be made specifically for the person playing them. Every professional oboe player makes their own reeds, and most oboe teachers will make reeds for their students. Despite all of that, the hardest part for new players is getting used to the amount of backpressure simply sounding the reed produces. Every instrument creates some sort of backpressure when you play it. For strings, it is the resistance you feel when you draw your bow across the string. For winds, it is the resistance caused by blowing into the instrument, which is then transfered to your lungs and stomach. Oboes probably have the strongest backpressure out of any wind instrument. Excuse the crude analogy, but it is not unsimilar to that tightness you get when you are incredibly constipated and you are trying to use the restroom. It will take you a while to get used to it, and it will quite literally give you headaches. I don't say any of this to scare you away from the instrument. Like I said, it is one of my favorites, and so few people play it because of how hard it is. I say this as a warning, because if you commit to learning the oboe and are not prepared for the challenge, it can and will destroy your love for music. &#x200B; Moving into lighter waters, saxophone can be a great instrument for someone starting on woodwinds, as well as for learning a number of performing styles. Saxophones are incredibly versatile instruments that can play in any genre and fill any role in a band. The best way to think of them in a concert or symphonic band is as an equivalent to the string section in an orchestra. As a rule of thumb, saxophones are easy to learn but hard to master. They are by far the easiest woodwind instruments to just pick up and start making noise. Making the noise sound good takes a lot of hard work. There are three commonly used saxophones: alto, tenor, and baritone. There are also soprano saxes, which see use pretty frequently, but they aren't so much a main instrument as something that one of your more advanced alto players will pull out when it is needed. Bass saxophones also exist, but I have only ever seen one once in my life. * [Altos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukW1Wd-XwVY) are the violins and violas. They are commonly either melodic or harmonic instruments, depending on the piece. They play in roughly the same range as a violin (a little lower and note quite as high), but their tone allows them to be used however the composer wants. If I had to choose a drawback, it would simply be how common of an instrument they are. If your band is actively keeping certain numbers of each instrument, it might be hard to find an open seat. * [Tenors](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7RVpN9Km1I) probably have the widest range of roles, as they are the cello equivalent of the sax family. Their beautiful tone means they get the melody rather commonly, though they might have to fight the french horns or trombones for it at times. Most of the time, tenors fill a more harmonic role, supporting and lifting the sound of the altos. Occasionally they can also take over the bass line, though usually that is left to the baritones. * [Baritones](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlGzhkSpfUM) are the basses, with a bit of cello on top. Their dark, fat sound can very easily hold the weight of the entire band above them. Baris are probably the hardest instruments in the sax family, as it takes a lot of practice and an iron fist to keep the thing under your control. If you aren't careful, baritone saxes go from a rich bass instrument to the horn of a big-rig truck. &#x200B; I noticed you didn't mention any brass instruments, so I'll just do a rundown of the ones that might interest you from what you've said. Brass playing in general is nothing like string or woodwind playing. Strings and woodwinds are the marathon runners and acrobats of a band or orchestra. You can give them massive jumps and wild tumbles and expect them to keep on marching along. Brass instruments can't keep up with that; they're the sprinters. You can get more power out of a brass section than any other section except ***maybe*** percussion. Maybe. That being said, they are also some of the easiest instruments to start learning, though as I said with the saxophone, that just means they are all that much harder to master. * [Trumpets](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb5MSJcBb9o) are primarily melodic instruments. They are the cavaliers of the band, leading the charge with a heroic call. At the same time, they can tell a story so sad and heart wrenching that it will bring grown men to tears. Out of any brass instrument, trumpet would probably be one of the closest to what you're used to, but that isn't saying much. * [Trombones](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7fYjSwyodI) are a mix between bass and harmonic instruments. They are probably the singular most powerful instrument in common orchestral use today, as one trombone can easily make themselves heard over the entirety of the rest of the ensemble. For most people, swapping to a trombone can be difficult because they do not have any definite valves or keys to use, just one long slide. As a string player, that could make it much easier for you to learn, as you're already used to listening and adjusting your pitch on the fly. * [Euphoniums](https://youtu.be/Aqw8v1ILB2g?t=65), or baritones as they are occasionally called (there is a difference, but I wont go into that), are basically a brass instrument equivalent to a cello. They have that same beautiful warm tone that cellos get and quite frequently get all of the cello solos in a band arrangement of an orchestral piece. They use the same mouthpiece as a trombone, so often times if you play one, you play the other. * As much as it hurts me to speak ill of my own baby, [french horns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG6w2lkRcjw) fall into the same category as oboes. If you are up for the challenge, they are one of the most rewarding instruments you can learn to play, but they are by far the hardest brass instrument. Tubas come close, simply due to the sheer amount of air you need to put through them, but horns are definitely on top of the brass difficulty list. The reason for this is partially the same as the oboe; horns are incredibly difficult to keep in tune, but for a completely different reason. French horns have the smallest mouthpiece out of any brass instrument, and naturally play higher on the overtone series. Think of it like trying to draw a perfectly straight line between two dots less than a millimeter away from each other. On top of that, you have your hand sitting inside the bell of the instrument to help produce the right tone and keep the pitch steady. As the joke goes, the french horn is the most divine instrument because man blows in and only God knows what comes out.

  4354. musictheory 2019-06-21 14:35:31 Xenoceratops
    I just don't see why we need to worry about simultaneity. Schoenberg's mission, in part, was to break from the practices of the past. There are seven centuries of European liturgical and classical music concerned with simultaneities from before him. Schoenberg opened the path to music based on other systems of organization. And I wouldn't say that he doesn't care about simultaneities and tonal relationships. Rather, he reimagines them. Take, for example, the harmonic areas used in so many of his works (notably the woodwind quintet Op. 26, the fourth string quartet Op. 37, and the string trio Op. 45). I pointed out [in another thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/composer/comments/c2zrcu/serialismtwelve_tone_row_composition_question/erolahd/?context=10000) that he uses certain segmentations to create partition symmetry as well as set-class symmetry. His harmonies (and those of Berg and, to a lesser extent, Webern) are motivic. It's not dissimilar to how chord-scale relationships are thought of in jazz. Stravinsky's approach (using verticals from rotational arrays) is good and valid, but it's not like there was no twelve-tone harmony before him.

  4355. musictheory 2019-06-22 00:28:42 yyio
    Well you gotta make it resolve to the e minor chord if you want it to be in E phyrgian. The thing with experimenting in different modes is that oftentimes the tonic unintentionally becomes another chord, so your song just ends up being minor or major. For example, composing in Lydian is difficult because the tonic youre going ends up actually resolving to the dominant. I just did a song in E Phyrgian Dominant yesterday, and I'd say thats probably the easiest "exotic" mode to compose in because theres always such a strong pull to the tonic. However, you are limited to a few chords when composing in these modes. In Phrygian dominant, I, II, iv, vo, and vii are safe to use. In lydian, you want to shy away from V unless you manage to get a really string pull to the tonic with the chords, melodies, or other harmonies youre using. Try Imaj11 (which includes a #11 in lydian), ivo (which starts on the augmented fourth), or vii (#5, this one is also sorta difficult to use). Also, locrian is out of the question since you cant harmonize io. But the easiest modes to work with hands down are Dorian and Mixolydian (and Phyrgian if you stay within the few chords I stated). In dorian, IV > i is an extremely strong and common cadence. Also in mixolydian, I > VII is another extremely common progression that works well (in mixolydian, thats I > bVII)

  4356. musictheory 2019-06-22 01:32:18 electon10orbit
    > And how do you know it's not the other way around? That major/minor connotations come first as a result of culture, and afterwords people justify it by appeals to cognition and other scientific ways of formulating the "human nature" argument I was reading some material by Richard Parncuttt, and Dian Deutsch, but couldn't find the passage I was looking for. I think you're using the wrong terms. You ask if, what if, because of culture, a certain tonality is considered sad. Then later, it's justified by 'human nature'..which is the same thing, really, as culture. You continue to completely exclude the acoustic/psychoacoustic element. There is a long continuous tradition of the physical aspects of sound and how that effects how we hear and use music, ie, Pythagoras number ratios, Zarlino string lengths (harmonic ratio is minor, arithmetic is minor, something like that!), Rameau theory about chord roots, and so on. So the element you're not even including is the physical nature of sound (acoustics), the nature of hearing, and how we perceive it. And that's even before you consider the cognitive and cultural aspects. That's probably too many departments for a music program!

  4357. musictheory 2019-06-23 07:55:54 daicurious
    Just because the E is skipped away from, doesn’t mean it’s not a pedal tone. In theory, especially in contrapuntal writing, we learn about the idea of compound lines, these are multiple lines that due to restraints of the instruments are merged into one. Yes, technically the E moves up to an A, but the intention of the composer is clearly a pedal tone. A microanalysis does not work here as the low E is so prominent before and after its disappearance. Especially given the fact that that low E on the guitar is an open string, and at any tempo will be still be heard as the upper A is played. If this were scored for strings, the low E would be held by perhaps cellos while the upper part were taken care of by the violins/violas.

  4358. musictheory 2019-06-23 10:11:18 Larson_McMurphy
    I actually love Ravel and Debussy. I've been listening to Daphnis et Chloe obsessively lately, and I love their string quartets. The thing is, harmonically, there is a lot going on in those compositions, a lot of dissonance, a lot of octatonic and whole tone stuff, but the melodic material is so strong and natural, and sing-able, that it makes it all so very musical to me. I just don't get that out of Schoenberg.

  4359. musictheory 2019-06-24 06:02:06 FwLineberry
    You can't unless you re-tune the string. You have to find a different location to play the note. What are you trying to play?

  4360. musictheory 2019-06-24 06:04:49 MyDadsUsername
    If, for some odd reason, you absolutely MUST flat an open B while in standard tuning, you can do it by lowering the pitch a half-step with a whammy bar or a pedal that accomplishes something similar. In most cases, if you want a B-flat that sounds a half-step below your open B string, you can play 3rd fret on G, 8th fret on D, or 13th fret on A.

  4361. musictheory 2019-06-24 06:05:18 TheKrazyPianist
    You can’t make a note on a string lower than the open string note itself. Its because an open string note is the lowest note on a string without retuning

  4362. musictheory 2019-06-24 06:30:12 rainwaterz_II
    3rd fret G string

  4363. musictheory 2019-06-24 08:17:55 unicornblender
    You don’t need to strum all the strings. Find out which notes that are the important ones in your chord. Guitar players easily get locked into using standard chords they’ve learned from diagrams in books, but often the chords can be split up or flipped around. By not playing all the strings you leave room for the other instruments like bass and keyboard and things won’t as easily get muddy from multiple instruments playing notes in the same frequency range. My best tricks for progressions that involve Gmin and Bb chords are to place your picking hand pinky between B and E string to avoid hitting them, when strumming. It takes practice. If it’s to hard and a chord switch that has to happen fast, I cheat and do a quick 5 chord, arpegiate some of the notes in the chord or use hybridpicking to make sure only the notes I want to be heard rings through. I do this a lot. You can often do this and return to the rhythm strumming pattern on the next chord change, without the listener actually noticing it. Think of it like using leading tones. Notes that doesn’t fully belong but are being used as a step in the right direction to the next one that is much more important. If you need the sound from open strings and notes that are doubled, there is no other way beside either transposing or re-tuning either all strings or start getting into open tunings. This is great if you play alone only on one acoustic guitar, and when you don’t have the other instruments in a band to cover you when you cheat. I use open tunings a lot for backing and regular for lead overdubs.

  4364. musictheory 2019-06-24 22:12:58 Abysswalker_8
    Drag it past the nut and you're dampening the strings, eliminating any accidental open string noise.

  4365. musictheory 2019-06-24 23:47:37 metalliska
    > So where, exactly, do you get off telling me that you have some kind of privileged access to information on a higher plane about my, or other violinists', limits? You're simply reading too much into it. My point is if I wanted to call you dumb, I'd call you dumb. You're not dumb. But I will suggest that by sacrificing learning to play Tuba or flute, for instance, your lungs simply won't be able to push the necessary air through these instruments. So that's a limit that requires practice with which to expand. Your piano playing, too, might need a little more practice with your bow-hand than that of your string hand. These are simply the physiological limits of string players; I'm not calling into question your upbringing or studious experience. A tuba player can extinguish a candle across the room with their breath. A string player might be able to flick a wave through a garden hose more refined. > in the examination of myself and my limits and my goals. This is vital. You should feel proud about these examinations and improvements. Yes I the 36-year-old-white-american-man-who's-been-practicing-since-age-11 have my own stories and influences about which pieces I was instructed upon and which performances were uplifting and which bombed. I'm a keyboard warrior on one of my work pcs, and I go home and practice at night. >a century and a quarter before their time. It's also important to show how little to me a timespan matters. An analogy here might be involving Martin Luther and how the Catholic Church doesn't have "extra special lines on the page" just because it was the most predominant set of theological interpretations for "hundreds and hundreds" of years. It's still just the same text. >And being a native speaker of a language confers expertise in that language, That's not true. My children are native speakers yet I don't look to them as experts. >Mozart was a titan of a composer, leagues above his father. Leagues, huh. Must've been extra special sperm. Remember, he lived only 4 years of his life without his father. If he was a Leagues-Titan, why did he not teach his father to step up his game from 1743-1780. from wiki: >Leopold Mozart's music is inevitably overshadowed by the work of his son Wolfgang, and in any case the father willingly sacrificed his own career to promote his son's What I suspect is that you're simply captured by awe or aura of dead white men. > If you don't, it would be more humble of you to consider your own inadequacy in that regard rather than raging against a system which has prevailed for something like half a millennium. Translation: "The past can never be improved upon and whatever old dead white men thought up should never be challenged". How dare someone suggest improvement upon ink on paper to convey changes in notation. >The proof (as you ask for it) is in the pudding. Then go ahead and critique crappy writing. You don't seem to be doing that, only lauding praise on particular phrases (like your don Giovanni reference). This, to me over the internet, indicates that you might not have a balanced taste. In the same vein of "never meet your heroes", you're taking my pot-shots at (dead_white_men) as if it's a blemish against *you*. It's not. That's one of the main differences between *publication* and performance. Publishing a work, Science Paper, Op-Ed in the local newspaper, whatever, is meant to draw out critiques and contrary opinions. You seem to be getting mad at me for doing this. I really don't think people *actually* roll around in the grave when something negative (or positive) is said about one of their publications. >But all of that is secondary, for a composer, to having something important to say. See here is where you're not an idiot; it's actually quite refreshing. You'll have a much better time convincing me to take your side in an argument about how to make music better (or greater breadth of composition experiments) by highlighting these aspects. >That's why I love to play Prokofiev, and Bartók, and Kurtág (whose work I photographed above), and other composers who had something important that they wanted to get out of the violin which makes it work the physical struggle of mastering their work. I assume you mean "makes it worth", indicating you get a lot more out of hearing it as you do in mastery. I can suggest to you that by the mere fact that you can identify these aspects *should* indicate that these people broke an institutional mold. They *revealed* an institutional failure (which carried on for hundreds and hundreds of years). Failure is not a "blemish" ; it's more like a blind spot like you alluded to with Mozart. >There's nothing especially challenging there rhythmically. Look a line later, at the bar marked 337. I was doing 336. 337 (bottom 2 voices): Tah, Tah, Tah-Ki-Dah; Tah, Tah, Tah-ki-Dah; Tah, Tah, Tah-Ki-Dah; Tah, Tah, Tah, di; from here, top voice goes (I've broken it down into 4 quarters' worth of triplets, and the bold is the note said or played ): (**REST**) va ki di **DA** ma ta va **KI** di da ma **TA** va ki di **DA** ma ta va ki di **DA** ma bottom voice same measure (keeping the low A Naturals on the whole notes): **REST** ka di **mi** **Ta** ka di **mi** **Ta** ka di mi Ta ka **di mi** I'd familiarize myself with 2:3 polyrhythms in the right hand first (with constant 2:3) counting, then add in any syncopation. The syncopation is sometimes easier for people to subdivide after the basics are effortless.

  4366. musictheory 2019-06-25 01:02:16 whirl_and_twist
    It's an necessity for 7 string guitars and the like, or when you're gonna piano tap the whole thing. It really muffles the sound with no more EQ needed. You can go even further and put some foam down the strings to make the difference even more drastric (great for recording as you don't get as many noise leaks, bleeding harmonics and the like).

  4367. musictheory 2019-06-25 07:08:33 peduxe
    bingo, it literally blew me away when I learned this method. just don’t recommend using it all the time, at least, depending on what kind of music you play. using open strings is needed for a lot of situations, just use it as mainly as a tone modifier. it might also build bad strumming and fretting habits - consider cases where you have string skipping strumming, string muting or the likes.

  4368. musictheory 2019-06-25 15:40:11 17bmw
    Ultimately, finding certain kinds of music compelling, emotional, or elegant is a matter of individual taste and preference. Atonal music *can* express the whole gamut of emotions that any other kind of music can. I would certainly encourage anyone to try to listen with open ears but they may never actually like the stuff. And that's okay. What helps however is listening to masterfully and carefully constructed music, stuff where we can here the thought and effort put into it. As for stuff that personally gets me going check out the following: Alban Berg's [Lyric Suite](https://youtu.be/GU_HIvMXSM8). The first movement in particular is the exact soundtrack I imagine will play the first time I fall in love. The description of the video has a link to a nytimes article giving some background on the piece. Perhaps my favorite biome, I can't think of a better way to capture the desert's serenity than Elliott Carter's [first string quartet](https://youtu.be/WTR1vnBeXzA). Shamefully, I admit to not being the biggest fan of bowed strings when I was younger but this piece gave me a nice slap across the face and showed me how stupid I was. Then there's the pure, uninhibited spellcasting of Kaija Saariaho's [NoaNoa](https://youtu.be/y5VKG8lQwB4). The flute, extended techniques, and live electronic manipulation go into making a breath taking piece. Few people understand color the way Tōru Takemitsu does in his "[And I knew 'Twas Wind](https://youtu.be/ROYtlYHzk7w)." Not to mention, that like Webern, Takemitsu is incredible at knowing what moments to leave silent. Anton Webern's song "[Herr Jesus mein](https://youtu.be/uzkJ2Gh-Vqw)" is everything I could ask for. Tender, devotional, and sublime, a world unto itself. Many of Webern's songs were settings of the poet Hildegard Jone. Worth hunting down translations if you can. I also can't resist the magic of Unsuk Chin's [Violin Concerto](https://youtu.be/B3N65659RKU). The play between the orchestra and the violin's harmonics gets me everytime. It feels like a song without words; Mendelssohn better watch his spot. There's plenty of incredible music I'm missing. Check out r/classicalresources for some curated playlists of breathtaking music since 1900. I hope this helps you feel where us atonal music lovers are coming from. Happy hunting and take care!

  4369. musictheory 2019-06-25 23:13:22 Xenoceratops
    "Cantata" is a genre. ("Genre" means something different in musicological terms than in pop music vernacular. Basically, genre = what kind of instrumentation is required for the performance of the work, i.e. string quartet, jazz trio, solo guitar, kazoo orchestra.) A cantata is typically a work for choral and solo singers with instrumental accompaniment. "Serenade" is a musical form, or rather, can refer to a number of musical forms. (Or it can just be a name that somebody uncritically slaps onto a composition.) A serenade can be performed by any ensemble, really.

  4370. musictheory 2019-06-26 19:49:04 AnasterToc
    On the guitar you can also do natural harmonics at the 7th, 9th, and 5th fret (in that order) on a single string to get the intervals of the jingle.

  4371. musictheory 2019-06-27 01:48:04 65TwinReverbRI
    Let me put it this way: If you had a long string of notes: n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n You couldn't tell where the beat was because they would all be the same. There are various types of musical accents - volume, duration, pitch (agogic accent, tonal accent, etc.). If we just made one note louder: N n n N n n N n n N n n then we'd consider that to be some form of triple meter, because now those "beats" are grouped in 3s. Musicians will actually - in many instances, accent beat 1. So yes, if you were to play like a living musician, rather than a computer :-) you'd want to increase the velocity on beat 1. However, volume is not the only type of accent. Once a beat and meter are established, composers can absolutely go against that to provide rhythmic interest - "syncopation" is the act of "shifting" the musical emphasis so it doesn't coincide with the beat, or the strong beats (there are actually strong beats, and strong parts of beats). This actually happens with students in my class sometimes - they'll come up with a musical pattern that's actually in 3, but leave the DAW set to 4/4. This means when they play against the metronome, the accented beat in the metronome doesn't line up. Since most of them ignore that anyway they've learned if they just stay on the click - loud click or not - the music will still come out in time. Where things start to become a problem is if they go to edit by bar and try to loop patterns and what not - because they'll end up off a beat or 2 each measure when they try to cut a pattern - it's 6 beats long but they can only select 4 or 8 - then it drives them crazy. This is why it's so important for modern musicians to understand meter - because those DAWs are "computer mathematical" in a way and have do to things certain ways (you can over-ride them, but you have to know what you're doing for that as well). So it's not just "the same thing" to play a pattern "in threes" in a 4/4 meter, because things won't line up. It *might* be OK if no editing is needed that causes any problems, but that's typically not the case. Cheers

  4372. musictheory 2019-06-27 11:13:59 pianolit
    The explanation here is found on the harmonic sequence: When a string vibrates all of its small parts vibrate independently and at the same time as the whole thing does, this is just nature. Half of the string vibrates together with the whole, as well as 2/3, 3/4, and so on. If you make a series of each section you get this 1: the whole string give you a note. 1/2: half gives you an octave above that note 2/3: gives you a 5th above 3/4: gives you another octave 4/5: gives you a major 3rd And so on... The first different note we hear on the harmonic series of a vibrating string is the 5th. This explains why this interval is so consonant, almost perfect. When music theories were developed, theorists recognized the 5th not only a perfectly consonant interval but as a foundation and the building block of harmony. Where is the 4th? Flip a 5th upside down and you find the 4th (C-G is a 5th, G-C is a 4th). Gregorian Chants were all sung in parallel octaves, 5ths and 4ths for that reason. Any other interval was thus considered dissonant and not pleasing to our ears (yes, that included the 3rd). Keep moving a perfect 5th up from any note and you will find all 12 notes on our keyboard today, which is exactly how they came to be. This is why we say perfect 5th, perfect 4th and perfect 8th. These 3 notes are structural to any key and should not be changed without losing the balance of the key/chord itself. All other intervals are not consonants so there is no “perfect” state to them, major/minor will suffice. What if we want to raise or lower a 5th or 4th? Theorists called them diminished and augmented instead of minor and major for lack of better words. At least we still have the important distinction between the perfect intervals (4,5) and all other “imperfect” ones (2,3,6,7). The 8th cannot be lowered or raised since it is the root of the key, so it is just called perfect 8th. It was only later, during the 14th and 15th centuries, that the 3rd was adopted as a consonant interval and included as a structural part of a chord. This quickly spread into the Germanic states and from there to the rest of Europe. By the 16th century making chords with a tonic and fifth alone was already a thing of the past. Triads as we know today (tonic, third and fifth) became the norm and all of what we call “classical” music was built upon this. Did that make sense?

  4373. musictheory 2019-06-27 16:08:36 Jongtr
    The problem with apparently simple questions is they tend to have complicated answers! Let me try a slightly different tack. Essentially it's about math (how are you with math?). As you're a metalhead, I'm going to assume you know something about guitars - maybe you even play one? Take a guitar string. In fact take a couple and imagine them tuned to the same note (and the same length of course). The sound of both together is a "perfect unison" - the strongest "consonance" ("together sound"). Now divide one in half. This half-way point on the string is marked by 12th fret. Play both strings together and that's a "perfect octave". The lengths of each sounding note are now in a 2:1 ratio, and the vibration of the shorter one (12th fret) is 2x the full length one. Now divide that one in three. The 2/3 and 1/3 points on the string are marked by frets 7 and 19. (You might be getting some clues now...) Play the open string with the one fretted at 7, and you get a "perfect 5th". The frequencies are now in a 3:2 ratio, same as the string lengths are. (Fret 19 would be an octave plus a perfect 5th) Now divide by four. 3/4 string length is at fret 5. (1/4 would be at fret 24, if your guitar has one.). The 4:3 ratio of string length gives you a "Perfect 4th". So what you have now is a guitar string showing one octave (frets 0-12) divided into 5-2-5 sections by those "perfect" intervals. Those are the prime divisions of all the common scales in western music. (Lydian mode skips fret 5, but that's extremely rare. Locrian skips 7 but that's not really used at all.) When you divide up the 5 fret sections, you have a couple of (common) ways of doing each one. You take that 2-fret step between 5 and 7 and clearly you can get two and a half of those into each 5-fret space. The two additional notes in each gap can each go in one of two positions: lower (minor) or higher (major). As follows: FRETS: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 INTERVALS: 1 <-2-> <-3-> 4 5 <-6-> <-7-> 8 P m---M m---M P P m---M m---M P The various choices of minor or major positions for those other four notes give us all the common scales and modes in western music. Major (ionian), minor (aeolian), harmonic minor, melodic minor, mixolydian, dorian, phrygian. Neat, huh? "Octave", btw, just comes from the latin for "8th", which is a sign of how old this seven-note scale system is. And "unison" comes from the latin for "one sound". The missing note at fret 6? That's either an augmented 4th or diminished 5th - the most *dissonant* ("separate sounding") interval, aka the "tritone" (because it measures three tones, or six semitones). As I mentioned, lydian employs the #4 (instead of 4) and locrian the b5 (instead of 5). They're rare, but the tritone does occur between notes in very common chords, such as dom7s. If this is still all way over your head - like neruokay says, just forget about it! You don't *need* to know it. The more you learn about music, the more all the explanations here will start to make sense. But if the math angle does appeal, try [this.](http://www.peterfrazer.co.uk/music/tunings.html)

  4374. musictheory 2019-06-27 17:37:01 Jongtr
    It's a very seductive arrangement. The guitar is low (normal 6-string but in an unusual open tuning) and close-miked (capturing those intimate finger squeaks on the strings), with a luxurious degree of reverb. Reverb adds a sense of artificial space, but here it contributes a sense of warm *enclosure -* although the warmth is more down to the EQ, which preserves the low frequencies. There's probably a lot of compression too, helping the notes sustain. The open tuning also adds resonances you wouldn't get in standard tuning. All of that stuff comes *before* any "music theory" stuff. The "music theory" element would include the steady arpeggiation in 8th notes, the 3/4 metre, the melody which seems to emerge mostly in the middle of the chords, occasionally springing out from the upper notes. The chord types too, such as the opening Emaj13 (low 6th with a maj7 above) - a result of the tuning - which has a dark complexity without being dissonant. There is a suggestion of lydian mode, thanks to the second chord. I.e., if the first chord is the tonic, then the second is a lydian II. It's not strong however, as there are later G#m and B major chords which could each claim the tonal centre role. I.e., overall I hear more of a B major key vibe than an E lydian one, although the ambiguity is part of the appeal. IOW, all these elements combine to produce the mood of the piece. Music theory describes the notes and how they are put together, but the production values are critical too - and just the sound of the guitar in that tuning. I.e., if there's one thing I'd say was special, it's the unusual tuning: E B C# G# B D#. Tune your guitar to that (with nice new steel strings on it), and you have the essence of the piece, I'd say. (I just tried it, and yes it works...)

  4375. musictheory 2019-06-27 18:06:47 roldarin
    They are also the two rational Pythagorean means of a note and his octave. The fifth is the arithmetic mean (3/2), and the fourth (4/3) is the harmonic mean. And a fifth plus a fourth (3/2 x 4/3 = 2) is the octave. So from a mathematical point of view, they are the perfect octave division! Music is related to mathematics (harmonics, frecuency of a string...) so I suppose it comes from this.

  4376. musictheory 2019-06-28 00:57:34 Equiarius
    Thank you so very much for explaining all that! I apologize if it really isn’t music theory that makes this special and if I’ve put it in the wrong sub. there’s a few terms I’d definitely need to look up but the tuning I think I noticed being a bit odd. And those string squeaks, I know they got from the beginning! I’ve listened to another version of this song that seems to have a few violins and have a further away mike, that just doesn’t at all feel the same. I really can’t thank you enough for the insight.

  4377. musictheory 2019-06-28 08:34:10 cowboysfromhell_2005
    Okay let me get this straight. The only reason why there are ‘perfect’ notes in theory is because of a a simple ratio. In this case a fifth is 3/2 from the root. Because their both their hertz are 3/2 apart that goes the same let’s say in string theory 3:2 away from the nut (the fundamental to the 5th harmonic tone) in other words if we used this rhythmically the right number of taps on a metronome can produce some sort of tone or sound. In this case in string theory the more the fundamental is being divided the rate of the vibrations become faster ultimately making sound. What they can do vs their place on a scale may or may be different. No ones gonna use a fifth all the time when composing music it’s just there to add notes to the composition. The only reason why it’s ‘ perfect’ is because of a characteristic that they have, not necessarily are musical necessity. They can be blend in a song solo or whatever because it’s just a note. A note is a note not a cheat or the secret ingredient of the krabby patty formula. But what separates the lamb from the sheep is that the sheep is perfect and the lamb can be bad or good. A 2nd can be major or minor no matter what. It changes with every key (minor, major, augmented, or diminished) but 4ths and fifths stay perfect because they are the same note no matter what ( still kind of confused on to how to distinguish other notes from perfects though)

  4378. musictheory 2019-06-29 02:29:16 sup3rcunt
    i think you’re really massaging perspective onto the piece here. days gone is totally an instrument driven melody as is rain song. you said it yourself; it was supposed to be an instrumental. the vocal melody kind of floats on top and plays a counter point to the guitar. also, if you analyze them as instrumental driven melody based tunes, you can see how they are constructed much more simply than they seem at first glance. Rain song is just a cycling reuse of shapes that lend themselves over and over to DGCGCD tuning that chase melody notes on the B string and high D (if i remember the tuning correctly). i’m not really here to argue, though, nor really post an opinion... you asked the question. my answer is basically: it’s much more simple than that, and HAPPENS to be nameable in the way you described in the post.

  4379. musictheory 2019-06-29 03:15:18 gotthattrans
    Some of the transcribed rhythms are a bit off. For example, measure 4. "MTV" starts on beat one: 8th, 8th, quarter. &#x200B; I'd consider larger tuplets where a string of syllables are fairly even in length, like 3rd & 4th beats here: &#x200B; [https://i.imgur.com/pONnkLc.png](https://i.imgur.com/pONnkLc.png)

  4380. musictheory 2019-06-29 15:12:00 GlassConcert
    I think you're confusing the root note of a scale with the open notes of a guitar? The two concepts aren't directly related. Each fretted note (consider an open string the 0 fret) corresponds to a note in our 12-tone western music system. If you play C-D-E-F-G-A-B with the corresponding notes on a guitar neck, you've played C major, just like playing G-A-B-C-D-E-F♯ is playing G major. Because of the intervals (distance between notes) the guitar strings are tuned, in terms of physically performing a scale, guitarists will often learn these note fingerings as patterns on the neck. So you might hear "there are 7 major scale shapes or there are five pentatonic shapes" it's relating to these patterns of repeating notes that are just easier to memorize.

  4381. musictheory 2019-06-29 19:16:46 Jongtr
    Do you want to be professional? Then learn all the scales, and learn all the notes too. And all the chords. If not (if you're happy as an amateur, and that's fine), do you *still* find that one scale shape "really sufficient"? Or are you starting to feel limited by it? If the latter, then obviously you have to start expandng your knowledge. I.e., it depends on your goals - short term and long term. Short term: is there a song you want to play where your current knowledge is holding you back? Long term: do you want to be professional - or (at least) play in a band or in public? >why do I have to learn different shapes if they all just sound the same? Short answer: they don't. Different patterns for the same scale will all contain the same notes, but in different ranges or octaves, and some patterns may make some phrases or chords easier to play, and/or sound better. The same note sounds different when played on a different string. Play the C note on B string fret 1. Then play the same note on D string fret 10. You really think they sound the same? (This is the advantage guitar has over instruments where each note is only playable one way.) My question to you would be: you're a guitarist. Why don't you want to learn to play the guitar? OK, you've got by with limited knowledge so far. But why aren't you curious about the rest? I mean, why do you actually want to play music in the first place? >Also what's the difference between modes and scales and why do I have to learn them. Ah, now here's a sensible and complicated question! "Modes" and "scales" each get defined in slightly different and overlapping ways. (I was going to post a lecture here, but I decided against it. Theory is something you don't need to know until you have a piece of music which you want to describe - theory is what will give you the terminology for the sounds. I.e., if you want to know what a "mode" is, find a piece of music and ask what mode it's in. It might not be in one at all. It might be in a "key" instead. That's an important difference, but you have to hear it first.) My recommendations are as follows (you may already know some of this): 1. Learn all the basic chords in open position: C G D A E, Em Am Dm. Learn a couple of common barre chords (F, Bm, to start with). 2. Learn the scales that go with those chords *in open position.* At the very least, learn to play the C major scale (the notes ABCDEFG) between frets 0-3. Look at how the C, D, F, Am, Em and Dm chords all employ notes from that scale. Between them, in fact, those chord shapes spell out the entire scale, so if you know the chords you kind of know the scale anyway - when you play the chords you are playing chunks of the scale without being aware of it. Even so, it's worth practising it *as a scale.* *Learn all the note names in that scale* (this is really not hard - again, this is only between frets 0-3 for the moment)*.* Notice how the D, A and E chords each feature one note which is not in that scale. These are sharps. 3. Learn some songs. Any songs you like. Ideally pick ones that use those open position chord shapes, or variants of them (such as add9s or sus4s). Look at all the chord shapes, and add all the notes up - map them out. That amounts to the "scale" used in the song. The "key", is the note or chord that "sounds like home" - but you don't need to know that. Not if you know all the chords and the notes in those chords! (It's quite common for a song to use mixed scales, with different versions of the same note. That's a theoretical issue which you don't need to confront. Not if you can play the song as well as you want.) 4. If you know a scale pattern further up the neck (and I'm guessing you do), try to see the chord shapes within it. A minor pentatonic pattern has a very limited number of chords, but a full 7-note (major scale) pattern has 7 chords within it - and various extended versions of those chords. What you have learned in stages 1 and 2 above should be of great help here. You will see those chord shapes (perhaps in barre or partial versions) in any major scale pattern anywhere on the fretboard.

  4382. musictheory 2019-06-29 21:33:29 Jongtr
    The tuning of the guitar has nothing to do with scales. The open notes happen to be all part of the C major scale, but they are also part of the G and D major scales. There are 12 different major scales, because the major scale formula (7 notes out of a 12-step octave) is irregular. You can play all of them on the guitar, but you will - of course - need some fretted notes (as you do for C major, after all), and won't be able to include all the open string notes on 9 of those scales. >Don't you need to base your notes around those strings? Absolutely not. What gave you that idea? That's why we have frets... ;-) The tuning of the guitar is a compromise that's evolved to make playing most chords and scales relatively easy (some are always going to be difficult). Each string has three notes (just two on one string) before you need to move to the next string, so you can play a scale in any position without moving your hand up and down the neck.

  4383. musictheory 2019-06-29 22:11:36 17bmw
    This is actually a really cool question that touches on the social functions of music and how those functions inform and influence musical design.^1 Some music is certainly designed to have the listener pay rapt attention through its entire duration. A symphony is one example but that new single by the band with the dreamy front man might also be an example. Of course, there is also music designed or used as designated background noise; for the most part, it's fine if you aren't really paying attention to it. This ranges from jazz beats for studying to a wind quintet for a banquet. Elevator and coffee shop music also come to mind. Thomas Turino in *Music as Social Life* theorizes that there are four main ways music functions/is presentend. Not going to get into detail about all of that here, but I do want to say that in music with participatory function, there is very little (if any!) distinction between the performer and the listener. In this scenario, one would need to pay attention in order to properly participate. From there, it's not hard to find similarities across musical genre based on how much attention is expected to be paid by the listener. Perhaps there's a positive correlation between a music's "complexity" (wow, that's a loaded word!) and how much attention we're asked to pay it vs. other tasks such as chatting or eating. Length also plays a role in this. No matter how much we wish it otherwise, our attention spans are quite short. So, a song that only takes up four minutes of time is going to be easier to listen to without interruption/multitasking than a thirty-five minute string quartet with no breaks. Also on the point of our attention spans being short, perhaps one of the biggest reasons many Classical and Romantic forms had genres with designated key changes was to make sure listeners could follow the music and would want to pay attention to it. And maybe this speaks to the shorter/pointilistic nature across post-tonal genres; because we've lost the guideposts that helped us pay attention before, post-tonal composers had to either find new ways to aid our listening if they expected us to pay attention or just write shorter music. We do know for a fact that composers keep this correlation in mind. Operas, for example, are commonly written with an intermission built in. But also, many operas conform to general design principles (recitative for plot, arias for emotion) that aid the listener in determining what's most important to pay attention to and what can be tuned out (but only if you have to!). The same can be said of plenty of albums that feature intro tracks and interludes to guide the ear between the different worlds of each song. Maybe these short guiding tracks are meta-musical moments and it's fine if we skip over them. Or maybe they are road signs alerting the audience that this music was intended to be consumed in a certain way. For today's listeners, technology changes previous expectations for audience interaction. Because it's now possible to skip over the parts you don't want to listen to or repeat the parts you didn't catch, there's a culture that's more lackadaisical about paying attention in the first place (which is neither good or bad but just is). Modern composers take this into account when creating and disseminating their work. A lot more could be said about this and I don't think I'm even scratching the surface here but thank you for starting such a wonderful discussion! I hope this gave you something to think about and take care! 1.) If I was studying music academically, this would make an excellent thesis project. Just saying.

  4384. musictheory 2019-06-29 23:03:25 divenorth
    There’s an Adam Neely video on this. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EKTZ151yLnk To answer your question directly. People can tune instruments by tightening string, lengthening tubes, etc to change the tuning. Each note has a different frequency so by changing the tuning they are really changing the tuning of all notes.

  4385. musictheory 2019-06-29 23:05:34 mehliana
    you just tune down your A string by 8 hz on a guitar. Don't worry though, there is no evidence whatsoever that music written with A =432hz is any different in effect to the mind or sound than A = 440hz (standard). It will not bring you closer to the universe to tune to a different 'bass note' and you won't be able to play with any other instrument besides percussion.

  4386. musictheory 2019-06-30 01:50:23 65TwinReverbRI
    Oh geez. "Drop" implies tuning the guitar down. "Drop Eb" would imply that you've tuned it down REALLY far :-) or that you, oh fuck it, I'm short tempered today... When a guitar is is standard tuning, and you put a capo on the 5th fret, you don't call it anything different. It's not "tuned" differently. It's standard tuning, capo 5th fret. That's it. We don't say it's tuned to "raise A" or something like that. "Drop D" means, lower the E string a whole step from standard tuning. So by the same logic, if you put a capo on, you're not going to call it "Drop whatever" because you don't do it in standard tuning either. It's just Drop D, Capo on the first fret. And if you do that, you can play a song in C Major, just like you can without the capo on. May make fingerings different, and allow for different "open" (capoed) strings but the only "tuning" change that's happened is the Drop D part. We don't call DADGAD Capo 3 "FAGDAD" or something. It's just DADGAD with a Capo. If it's Open E Tuning, with a Capo on 2, we don't call it "Open F# tuning" - that would imply you tune the guitar to Open F#. IOW, the capo doesn't have anything to do with it as far as our saying what the tuning is.i

  4387. musictheory 2019-06-30 15:14:20 Jongtr
    As I understand it, a trichord is a series of 3 notes from a scale, such as A-B-C, or F-A-G. I gues it might be any three notes, but I think it relates to "tetrachord", which does mean a run of 4 notes. It means literally "four string" and I believe derives from the tuning of the ancient Greek lyre, four pitches in a row from a mode.

  4388. musictheory 2019-06-30 15:17:06 nickstu
    Early Kirk Hammet was often trying to play as fast as possible. The last solo of "One" for example, the song gets very fast, aroud 220 BPM. Playing 16th notes at that speed is pretty hard so he plays lots of triplets. Same with Creeping Death's solo, it's about 210 BPM, so again, lots of triplets, although he attempts a lick in 16th notes but it's all on one string :)

  4389. musictheory 2019-06-30 16:15:42 Jongtr
    The system they use on Joni Mitchell's site is a good one, although it's somewhat cryptic when you first see it. It involves numbers of semitones between each string. So EADGBE is 55545 (you only need 5 numbers, because it refers to the gaps between the strings, not each string). Naturally it's only one character shorter than just spelling out the notes, but the advantage is that it's the same regardless of capo use. EADGBE with capo on 3 or tuned down to DGCFAD is still 55545, because it's those intervals that matter. if you did want to refer to the actual register, you could name the 6th string - e.g., D55545. Once you're used to the system, you see straightaway that that's a standard tuning dropped down. Seeing DGCFAD it might take you a second or two to recognise it or work it out. CGCFAD = 75545, or C75545 to be more precise CADGBE = 95545, or C95545 to be more precise In fact, personally - while I see the advantages in the Joni system when you have a whole mass of different tunes - I prefer the note letters in this case.

  4390. musictheory 2019-06-30 17:52:50 TheMahiMahi
    The book on orchestration by Samuel Adler that I linked is full of helpful tips like that to help composers write parts that are actually playable. Also, I don't know what instrument you play, but orchestral experience will help you discern playability as well. For instance, I'm a string player (double bass) myself so writing for strings comes very naturally even though the bass is played quite differently from other string instruments. The part you wrote *could* be playable, but not at the fast tempo that you want, at least not cleanly and articulately.

  4391. musictheory 2019-06-30 19:43:53 ESCapeditiea
    I usually write the first draft with out listening to it, just what ever comes to my head. But i have near perfect pitch. even though i cannot sing the sound out loud, my mind can hear what i am trying to write, at the pace of which the piece would be or close to it. But MIDI kinda ruins it. so i end up having to only use MIDI to match what goes on in my head. Only times i use MIDI or instrument is post first draft, which at this time i reme,ber that i am using musescore... so theory goes out the window. -_- i really need a better notation software for linux. it takes more time writing out the various things that the musicians should express, but half the time the words run off the page. (okay no more rant on this.) Last year i would have said, that i would have troubles with it, but expanding my knowledge of what instruments can and cannot do, along with knowing the various difficulties that may arise. (some works i had to completely change because well... just imagine all the strings shifting from First string position to forth string position wilst playing fortissimo going F C E C in vivace eighths. four 16 measures and the horns blowing full notes during this time (which i think was the same sequence, but in the same octave.) While the timpanist would end up kinda destroying their instrument by going all out with ABCD sixteenth notes, and the Woodwinds Performing a really loud cantabile.) As bad as that sounds this was how i wrote with electronic music, and decided to impliment it into a symphony. LOL the subtitle was called Chaos. But since then i deleted that work along with many others, :3 But tm;dr, i do it about 85% of the time.

  4392. musictheory 2019-06-30 22:50:11 RadioUnfriendly
    Every punk guitarist I've ever seen strings the guitar in the same manner as everybody else, with the thickest string on top and thinnest on the bottom. It's total conformity to the system, man. [Dick Dale](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuHs_mhg9Nk) was the real non-conformist, punk guitarist.

  4393. musictheory 2019-06-30 23:04:05 RadioUnfriendly
    I've heard Marty Friedman say that he found out that most fast guitarists are doing the same things they do slow when they play fast. I can't play incredibly fast, so I don't know much about it. I struggle to crank out 10 notes per second, whereas a lot of these super fast heavy metal guitarists are cranking out 15 or more notes per second on every string and going up and down the neck as needed.

  4394. musictheory 2019-07-01 00:43:15 grey_rock_method
    Real time FFT derived stroboscopic display in three octave. Storable tuning presets. Inharmonicity adjustment for fixed length string instruments like pianos.

  4395. musictheory 2019-07-01 00:43:45 ErmahgerdYuzername
    I used GuitarToolkit for iOS. It has presets to tune 6 & 12 string guitars, Banjos, Uke’s and 4,5,6,7 string bases.

  4396. musictheory 2019-07-01 03:33:49 Jongtr
    What's wrong with the standard chromatic setting on most cheap tuners? I use that for all my instruments (guitar, mandolin, ukulele, bass guitar, banjo...). The reason I don't use the presets for each instrument is that if the string is a long way out of tune the tuner is confused - it's only programmed to recognise the right note when it's near enough.

  4397. musictheory 2019-07-01 07:28:10 vornska
    >Since when can we have two of the same pitches? Since always! Normal set theory usually ignores it, but practical music uses it all the time -- it's just "doubling" in standard tonal theory. Sometimes it turns out to be mathematically useful to pay attention to note doublings; sometimes it's easier to connect (C, C, E, G) to another chord than (C, E, E, G). In math, these things with repeated objects are called "multisets." >And why isn’t C, C#, D symmetrical enough already? Yes, actually it's *too* symmetrical. The point is that (C, E, G) has more exciting possibilities than (C, E, G♯), because (C, E, G♯) is too symmetrical. The cool voice leadings we're talking about happen when you have a set that's nearly symmetrical but not actually symmetrical. In terms of inversion, (C, C♯, D) is perfectly symmetrical, so that's no good. That's why we want to look for a way that it's *almost* symmetrical. >And what’s the point if it only gives us the same thing but reordered? That's a fair question! But we might ask the same thing about (C, E♭, G♭, B♭) going to (C♯, D♯, F♯, A). What's the point if it only gives us the same thing but inverted? It allows consistency and change to coexist. Imagine that I'm writing for string trio, and I'm representing my three instruments as (violin, viola, cello). Suppose I have them start from (C, C♯, D) and then move to (C, D, C♯). The viola & cello change notes, creating a feeling of motion, while the overall harmony stays the same. Consonant triads can't do this nearly as efficiently. Imagine having my trio play (G, E, C) and then going to (G, C, E). The voice leading needed for the viola & cello to swap notes is way less efficient: (0, -4, +4). That's because (C, E, G) is much farther from a permutational symmetry than (C, C♯, D) is.

  4398. musictheory 2019-07-01 10:56:28 vornska
    It communicates something about the *character* of the notes, not just their attack pattern. 64th notes are light and ornamental, whereas eighth notes are more structural. Shostakovich goes for the opposite effect in [the 2nd movement of his 8th string quartet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGoxfQ2H3ns&t=4m57s): here he uses quarter notes for what should normally be 16th notes, given the speed. But expressively a quarter note is a heavier sort of thing than fleeting sixteenth notes. The rhythmic notation matches the brutal character of the pitches.

  4399. musictheory 2019-07-01 16:11:59 cy6nu5
    Learn extended chords like m7b5 and the likes. Gotta learn your sevenths forms with 3 4 5th string roots. It adds so much colour to your music.

  4400. musictheory 2019-07-01 18:05:07 AANickFan
    start with learning the notes on the guitar, like, the thicc string is the E, and then, with each fret, it increases a semitone E F F# G G# A and then the 2nd thiccest string is an A A A# B C C# D D# that's how I started

  4401. musictheory 2019-07-01 21:57:59 jenslarsenjazz
    **Content:** [0:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=0s) Intro [0:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=32s) Practice the things you need when You solo [0:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=50s) Modern Jazz that's 60 years old. [1:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=63s) \#1 Sus4 Triads [1:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=85s) The Sound Of Rosenwinkel, Brecker and Mark Turner [1:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=92s) Example Lick with Sus4 triads [1:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=109s) Exercises [2:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=161s) String-set Practice [3:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=214s) \#2 Quartal Arpeggios - Modal Jazz Sounds [3:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=232s) Chords with Quartal Structures [4:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=248s) Kurt's solo on I'll Remember April [4:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=274s) 3-Part Quartal Voicings and Sus Triads [5:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=312s) Exercises with Quartal Arpeggios [5:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=358s) Example Lick with Quartal Arpeggios - Chromatic Shifting [6:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=385s) \#3 Shell-Voicings - Mike Moreno and Pat Metheny [7:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=441s) Exercises for Shell-voicings [8:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=495s) Applying Shell-voicings [8:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=517s) Example with Shell-voicings [8:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=521s) Bonus: From Shells to open upper-structure triads [9:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=558s) Spreat Triad Example [9:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=561s) Arpeggios = Melodies [9:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRRiHsz40A&list=PLWYuNvZPqqcGy5Q-sazLbhodtRGCcC-CQ&index=1&t=592s) Like the video? Check out My Patreon Page

  4402. musictheory 2019-07-02 00:15:32 fretflip
    Ok, then this might help, there are two main ways to approach scales on guitar, you got the "three notes per string" and the "CAGED system" approach, you can google the details but [this chart](https://www.fretflip.com/023574770558) will get you started, also shows some arpeggios. Have fun!

  4403. musictheory 2019-07-02 00:32:48 Parametric_Or_Treat
    I didn’t know about “3 notes per string”

  4404. musictheory 2019-07-02 01:20:00 65TwinReverbRI
    So many...I'll try to keep it smallish...and with the more "approachable" music Debussy - Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, Trio for Flute, Viola, and Harp, String Quartet, pretty much any of the solo Piano stuff - Preludes, Images, Suite Bergamasque, Children's Corner, etc. Ravel - Bolero, String Quartet, Trio in A Minor, Solo Piano stuff (much of which he also orchestrated so I didn't mention those) like Jeax D'eau, Miriors, La Valse, Tombeau de Couperin. Stravinsky: Rite of Spring, Petrushaka, The Firebird, L'histoire du Soldat, Serenade en La, The Five Notes/Fingers (there was a trend early in the century in France for composers to write pieces using 5 notes or fingers, which sometimes are easy pieces but sometimes really complex and many composers wrote these and it's worth comparing how they all deal with it which is why I include it with Stravinsky - not one of his "major" works, but most Piano students will know it and really, they're still quite good music). Bartok: String Quartets, Concerto for Orchestra, Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste, Allegro Barbaro Copland - Appalachian Spring, Fanfare for the Common Man, Lincoln Portrait, 12 Poems of Emily Dickenson Samuel Barber - Adagio for Strings, Knoxville Summer of 1915, Summer Music for Wind Quintet Schoenberg: Transfigured Night, Pierrot Lunaire, Wind Quintet Note, I'm not going to list stuff from Berg or Webern, his students, because I think if you investigate Schoenberg at all you're going to come across references to them and can follow those threads. There's plenty more: Stockhausen, Ligeti, Penderecki, Ives, Glass, Reich, Bernstein, Gershwin, etc. as well as all the Film Composers that shouldn't be neglected like Korngold and Hermann, but the above is a good starting point if you're unfamiliar with 20th century music and are coming from a more traditional "classical listening" background. I'd also include things like Richard Strauss, who were maybe still late 19th century composers but who lived well into the 20th century and had output during the early 20th century, like "Salome", "Oboe Concerto", "Metamorphosen", "Four Last Songs", etc. I didn't list a lot of other people who may have had significant impact on Theory, or were maybe more adventurous, but there's a whole category of people like Messian, Hindemith, Roy Harris (and all the other American School who weren't quite as adventurous, like Howard Hanson) or who otherwise aren't "household names". There are of course other people peripherally related to "concert music" (Wendy Carlos, Brian Eno, etc.) or who do more Electronic Music in less of a "notes on paper written for players to play" kind of thing, and I didn't get into "the next generation" - Takemitsu, Joan Tower, and things like that. I think once you start on a path of listening to these people (if you haven't or don't already) then a little research will lead you to the others pretty easily. I've found a couple of good youtube channels that have a lot of modern music on them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyqLnP0hOnI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieRQyyPowH0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05n91td5Q8I Between those three alone you could keep yourself very busy!

  4405. musictheory 2019-07-02 04:23:33 electon10orbit
    Interesting post. In several instances, Mozart wrote canons for 4th movements, like this one (Wind Octet cminor, but the string quartet version)...though in this case, though it's also a 2 part canon, Mozart fills in other voices, not part of the cannon...so not as pure as your example.... https://youtu.be/qk0MV_cJfvQ?t=754

  4406. musictheory 2019-07-02 04:35:39 65TwinReverbRI
    Oh, Mozart was definitely aware of Haydn: >Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed 23 string quartets. The six "Haydn" Quartets were written in Vienna during the years 1782 to 1785. They are dedicated to the composer Joseph Haydn, who is considered the creator of the modern string quartet. Haydn had recently completed his influential "Opus 33" set of quartets in 1781, the year that Mozart arrived in Vienna. Mozart studied Haydn's string quartets and began composing this set of six, which were published in 1785. During this time, Haydn and Mozart had become friends, and sometimes played quartets together in Mozart's apartment, with Mozart playing the viola, and Haydn playing violin;[2] see Haydn and Mozart. >Haydn first heard the quartets at two gatherings at Mozart's home, 15 January and 12 February 1785 (on these occasions he apparently just listened, rather than playing a part himself).[3] After hearing them all, Haydn made a now-famous remark to Mozart's father Leopold, who was visiting from Salzburg: "Before God, and as an honest man, I tell you that your son is the greatest composer known to me either in person or by name. He has taste, and, what is more, the most profound knowledge of composition."[2] The comment was preserved in a letter Leopold wrote 16 February to his daughter Nannerl.[3] This Quartet was written after Mozart's set dedicated to Haydn, so it's possible that Haydn was influenced by Mozart (who was influenced by Haydn!) but this kind of counterpoint is not uncommon in either composer's output.

  4407. musictheory 2019-07-02 10:41:30 65TwinReverbRI
    All French composers are obscure in the Classical period ;-) There's a big gap between Rameau and Berlioz. Whether any of those lesser known (or for all intents and purposes, unknown) French composers are "notable" I can't say. If they were "notable", they probably wouldn't be so unknown. But there were probably ones - just like of all nationalities - that were more well known at the time and have just been forgotten over time. >Pleyel is one instance of the phenomenon of a composer (others include Cherubini, Meyerbeer, and Thalberg) who was very famous in his own time but currently obscure. Keefe (2005) describes a "craze for his music c. 1780–1800", and quotes a number of contemporary witnesses to this surge. For instance François-Joseph Fétis wrote, "What composer ever created more of a craze than Pleyel? Who enjoyed a more universal reputation or a more absolute domination of the field of instrumental music? Over more than twenty years, there was no amateur or professional musician who did not delight in his genius."[13] >Pleyel's fame even reached the then-remote musical regions of America: there was a Pleyel Society on the island of Nantucket off the coast of Massachusetts, and tunes by Pleyel made their way into the then-popular shape note tunebooks. Pleyel's work is twice represented in the principal modern descendant of these books, The Sacred Harp. >In his own time, Pleyel's reputation rested at least in part on the undemanding character of his music. A reviewer writing in the Morning Herald of London (1791) said that Pleyel "is becoming even more popular than his master [Haydn], as his works are characterized less by the intricacies of science[14] than the charm of simplicity and feeling."[13] In the mid 20th century, the harpsichord builder Wolfgang Zuckermann reminisced about playing Pleyel in his childhood in the 1930s: "When I was ten years old, my family string quartet played a lot of Pleyel since it was the only thing easy enough to keep us going. My cello part consisted of unending stretches of quarter notes played on open strings."[15] Pleyel continues to be known today as a composer of didactic music: generations of beginning violin and flute students, for example, learn to play the numerous duets he wrote for those instruments. Alas, Playel wasn't born in France, but he was a French Composer as he did most of his composing and held positions there. See here for more "obscure" French composers from the Classical Period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_list_of_French_classical_composers#Baroque

  4408. musictheory 2019-07-02 12:19:34 65TwinReverbRI
    That's an old notation. Now, notes are named with "Scientific Pitch Notation" which places Middle C at C4. The high C that Tenor vocalists hit is C5. Rock singers however constantly go well above this note. Steve Perry from Journey loved to hang around B4 (one note below C5) but other singers could sing - or scream - much higher - often up to E5 and maybe above - Geoff Tate from Queensryche could get up to a powerful G5 or G#5. Now, whether a "scream" is a focused pitch or just a "squeak" or not. But certainly people can squeak out notes that are really high. Scientific Pitch Notation runs from C to B, with the number being the octave (and you can think of C1 as "first C on the piano). C4 goes up through B4, then the next C is C5. The C 2 ledger lines above the staff is C6. A long time ago, they used to use words like "great" and small" and the notes were capitalized accordingly. I thought I recalled Small c was middle c but wikipedia says that's the Bass clef C. At any rate, it used to be going DOWN, c, C, CC, CCC, and so on . Going up it's c, c', c'', c''' - rather than c, cc, ccc as you might expect. c' is Middle C (C4) I've never heard to things referred to "double high C" or anything like that, but Wiki includes it - though it's not "cc" as you'd expect - which would be C5, but C7 - twice that - or c'''' ("four lined c"). Those screams are going to be in C6 or possibly C7 territory, so possibly double - a female might be able to shriek in C8 territory so "triple". You mention a lot of string instruments -but I'll assume you mean Baritone the brass instrument since you're talking about "concert pitch". The low open string on a Cello is C2. C5 on Guitar is the 8th fret on the high E string. So guitars only go up to C6 which is not even "double" yet. You could play an octave pinch harmonic of that note and possibly get C7 or higher on other notes. On a Baritone horn, Bb4 is going to be towards the top of your sounding range. Bb7 would be double, so you're still 3 octaves below that.

  4409. musictheory 2019-07-02 15:42:49 HashPram
    You just need to work on reading sheet music a bit more and translating it to "what fingers do I use". One of the challenges of playing string instruments is that because strings have overlapping ranges you often have some options about where on the fretboard you place your fingers, and for beginners this can be a real headache because it looks like the options are infinite and ever-changing. If you've only just started out what I'd advise is keeping it simple when you're reading sheet music - use open strings where you can. Meanwhile - and separately - start learning the fretboard. The key to this is to do a little every day. How much depends on the amount of time you have to practice (although I would suggest no more than a tenth of your total practice time, partly because this stuff is incredibly tedious, but mainly because what you want is to remember stuff from one day to the next rather than from one minute to the next - like learning a language. Come to think of it you could probably use something like [spaced repetition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_repetition) to learn the fretboard). It will take time and effort before it feels natural. Keep working on it and don't give up. The problem you'll have with your project of "compiling a list of all the places where you can play a G chord" is that the G chord consists of G B D and if you think of all the different combinations of 6 fingers playing those 3 notes on a 6-string guitar you'll tie yourself in knots working out a compendium. It's easier in the long run - and far more flexible - to learn the fretboard, learn to read music and learn good technique than it is to work out a chord compendium and learn that for every possible chord bearing in mind there's root-position, 1st inversion & 2nd inversion chords for all triads, there's 3rd inversion for 7ths, and then there are loads of other colour possibilities - augmented, diminished, diminished 7th, 6/9, 11th, 9th, 13th, sus4 and so on.

  4410. musictheory 2019-07-02 20:08:48 Jongtr
    The key is B minor (not D major or E major). Everything is within the B minor ballpark, with E major (from that angle) being a dorian IV. (Or call it a melodic minor IV if you like, but context suggests dorian better.) In fact, the 12-string guitar plays that chord as a Bm with G# bass anyway - Bm6, G#m7b5, or E9 with no E in it. But that's not the only way of seeing it. Firstly, you're quite right point out the chromatic descending line. That does indeed tie the whole sequence together, and is an example of a "line cliche". You could think of it as the Eagles homage to Stairway to Heaven, in B minor instead of A minor, and harmonised a little differently. Secondly, it's an embellished "Andalusian cadence". Play Bm - A - G - F# and you'll hear the outline of Hotel California. (It's appropriate because of the useful Spanish connotations it provides.) The way they embellish it - or prolong it (and this is kind of the third clever thing) - is to follow each chord (the first three anyway) with its own V chord. So you get Bm-F# - A-E - G-D. Then to lead into the F# they use the iv of the key, Em. If they'd had a more developed jazz sensibility they could have introduced an additional chromatic descent by using C#m7b5 instead of Em - i.e. Em/C# - the standard jazz ii chord in B minor. This really is one of the all-time great rock chord sequences. It makes up for the fact that the melody is one of the dullest ever written: the verse consists of just 4 notes, and the phrasing is extremely repetive. Take away the chords, and the melody is little more than a rap. In fact, you could argue that it's better that way. With the dream-like allegorical lyrics, the masterful chord sequence, and the oddly reggae-ish rhythm (combining with the "Spanish" chord sequence to give a hint of vague "foreign-ness"), a great melody might just have been too much.

  4411. musictheory 2019-07-02 21:01:45 SimplyTheJester
    > Is there a better way to learn the modes than by memorization? By relating it to the root (Major / Harmonic Minor / Melodic Minor / Etc) Not just that D Dorian is C Major starting on D as the root. But that D Dorian is D Major with a flatted (minor) 3rd and 7th. In the same area, the minor 7th relates to Dorian. Stuff like that. I'm a guitarist and practiced the shapes. I can't not see the shapes for the modes, so I can literally see the M2, m3, P4, P5, M6, m7 visually in my head. As a guitarist, I would actually drone the open D string as I played the D Dorian on the the G string. This helps sink in the sound of the scale as well as the tensions of each individual interval. Even easier for you as a keyboardist. There's consonant and dissonant sounds, but pleasing chord progressions is also subjective. Voice leading is probably the quickest route in terms of theory. In terms of using your ear, use something online like Hookpad. Experiment to no end and use your ear. Then you can also create a single note melody, and then build the harmony around that one voice at a time. You may not think you are learning theory, but you are actually internalizing it so when you read up on it, it is more than just a math problem for you (frequently called musicianship courses in school).

  4412. musictheory 2019-07-03 00:12:36 KingAdamXVII
    To add on to the other comment, the easiest way IMO to play these notes is x23x01. Your thumb can mute the low E string and the ring finger (or pinky) on the D string can mute the G string.

  4413. musictheory 2019-07-03 04:35:00 65TwinReverbRI
    Read the other thread about "Wild West" feeling, where the op describes this feeling and a number of posters respond with, I don't get that feeling from it, maybe other than banjo, or plucked string instruments, and so on. And that's because the OP associates those things with "wild west" music, because whatever wild west music they've heard has those surface level elements. Looking at your example, if you took away "Big Choir" and asked someone what genre it was, without leading the witness, everyone would say Jazz, maybe even suggest Lonnie Smith. "Gospel" - yes, a Gospel Choir will do it (because that's not associated with other genres - when it appears in other genres people say it's "gospel" because that's where they know it from). God, Jesus, "him" and variations of "he", "his", etc. every line. Titles of the pieces, the fact you hear them on Gospel contexts, and they appear on compilations titles "Gospel Greats" or something. All of THOSE things are what makes something "Gospel" - and you carry those associations with you. So in a simple way, u/fhughes131313 is correct. Gospel is about FEEL more so than any of those things you've mentioned. You need to start there. Then Big Choir helps, as does mentioning the trinity, etc.

  4414. musictheory 2019-07-03 05:12:03 65TwinReverbRI
    So, when I was 12 or so, I sat down, turned on the radio, and picked up my guitar. I would run my finger up and down the low E string playing notes until I found what sounded like the right note, and then try a major chord there. If it didn't sound right, I tried minor. If that didn't sound right I tried to find another note that sounded right within the chord, and repeated that process. Since the chords in the music were also changing all the time, I had to remember where certain chords were, and when i got one had to remember where that one went, and kept working to fill in the gap. When I had a cassette tape, or record, I could play the song over and over (or a section over and over) - you can do that now with Audacity (which is free - and I use that today for the same process still!) - until I figured out all or most of the song. Sometimes, a song like Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" would come on the radio, which consists primarily of just one lick played over and over through the whole song, which gave you plenty of chances to figure out what it was. But a song like Led Zeppelin's "Black Dog" was much harder, because the lick is long with lots of notes, odd rhythm, hard to remember, and so on. It took me a long time just to get the main riff down on that one. Obviously, doing your homework in terms of knowing how to play your chords is imperative. It's also useful to know scales and keys (I had taken piano lessons before so that helped). If you're talking about pop music (which I assume you are), "cadences" are not something you care about. You just learn the parts that are played on your instrument (or other parts if you want to). I play guitar and I grew up in an era when most music was "guitar based" - it's why I didn't care to learn so many songs in the 1980s "New Wave" scene because they were mostly synthesizer (but I learned them on synth ;-) But it really helps to seek out music that is for a single primary instrument like that. A lot of today's modern synth sounds are actually complex and you don't "Play" the music, you just push one note down and it plays a lot of stuff for you - you can't really learn to manually play that, you need the exact same patch. So that can really be harder to learn. Much pop music uses bass lines that are the same pitch as the chordal part in root position, meaning if you figure out the bass note is C, it's a C or Cm chord (or maybe C7, etc.). If the bass note is G, it's most likely a G or Gm chord and so on. Now, learning to read music, or tabs for guitar, or at least chord charts can be helpful too, as well as using video tutorials. There's nothing wrong with that but you still want to make sure you develop your listening skills. Identify the chord roots from the bass line, figure out the chords, what key it is (which helps you eliminate the less common chord options), and then start playing it. You have to start simple, and gradually get more complex. But don't be afraid to learn only a single section of a song. It's better to learn tons of short sections than to spend a long time trying to learn just one single piece. The more you do that, the easier it will get to learn entire pieces as you go.

  4415. musictheory 2019-07-03 10:45:46 whatelseisneu
    Exactly. "Real" middle C (C4) is the first fret on the B string in standard tuning.

  4416. musictheory 2019-07-03 10:48:11 WolfySpice
    Basically. It's played an octave lower than written so that middle C on the guitar is actually C3, third fret of the A string. Actual middle C, A4, would be first fret of the B string. Transposing an octave lower means you don't need too many ledger lines below middle C for the bottom range of the instrument.

  4417. musictheory 2019-07-03 11:02:51 Canvaverbalist
    > In sheet music for trumpet, when a C is written, the sound the musician actually produces is a Bb. That always confused me, and seemed kinda dumb. That's like saying "when a C is written on sheet music, a guitar needs to play the 1th fret on the 5th string, which is actually a Bb, which is why we say a guitar is 'in' Bb", that'd be ridiculous, we'd say "just play the 3th fret... which is a C... why are you making it this difficult for everybody else?"

  4418. musictheory 2019-07-03 11:08:26 65TwinReverbRI
    If you play a chord progression like Am - G - F - G and repeat, that's in A minor. You would play A Minor Pentatonic over it. If the progression were C - Em - F - C, that's C Major, you'd play C Major Pentatonic over it. If you try to play A Minor Pentatonic over the C chord progression it's just going to sound like C Major Pentatonic because the harmony kind of "wins out". And this is because of what you already know - they're the same scale basically. But what makes the two different - besides how the chord progression will make them seem, is musical emphasis. While you shouldn't really just run up and down the scale, you should focus on the notes that make the scale what it is by playing, say, C on the down beat, as opposed to A on the downbeat. Melodic lines should resolve to C in C, and A in Am. So it's not really what you play (the "pattern" that is either scale) but HOW you play it - which notes you play when, and how you emphasize them. Another way to look at this is, if you were going to solo over Brown-Eyed Girl (or rather, if you had the unfortunate luck to have to :-) the song is in G Major, so you'd use G Major Pentatonic - and even though it's the same shape as Em, you'd want to be *thinking* G - and focusing on the elements of the scale that give it more "G-ness". But if you were playing over Blood and Roses by The Smithereens, which is in E minor (it's tuned down a half step though) you'd want to use Em pentatonic - same scale again, but it's about the emphasis. For example, that typical Chuck Berry lick where you bend the 3rd string up and then hit the B and E strings on the same fret (say 12th) is going to be very "E" sounding, and playing that over the G Major progression isn't going to sound quite right. So it's about how you focus the notes - and you learn this from learning solos of others. As A-5-Star-Man mentions, you can also use them in other ways but probably the most common thin in pop/rock is to use the in a bluesy fashion, which is actually kind of counter-intuitive - you'd use A Minor Pentatonic over a Blue in A - which is A "major". So you play a minor pentatonic over an otherwise major progression. And this is what gives you your "blue notes". The absolute best thing you can do is start learning solos and start identifying what scale they use, and if they're pentatonic, see how they use them.

  4419. musictheory 2019-07-03 11:17:13 psychoCom
    The reason for that is for consistency of fingering across different instruments with different ranges. Even on guitar, if you tune each string half a step down, you would want to write the score so that when a C is written, what you actually play is a Bb, so that the fingerings of this alternative tuning guitar matches the standard tuning one.

  4420. musictheory 2019-07-03 11:19:17 xiipaoc
    This is confusing, but let me explain. First, the guitar is not pitched in C. I don't think it is, anyway. The pitch of an instrument is, in some sense, what note it plays naturally. If you take a C bugle -- just a metal pipe, no valves -- and blow into it, you'll make a C; blow tighter and you make a G, or a C, or an E, a G, a very low Bb, a C, a D, an E, a very low F#, a G, etc. If you take an Eb bugle, on the other hand, and blow into it, you'll get an Eb, or a Bb, or an Eb, G, Bb, very low Db, Eb, F, G, etc. This sequence of notes -- called overtones -- are based on the note to which the instrument is pitched. Back in the 18th century they didn't have valves, so a trumpet could only play one overtone series. You'd carry around crooks to make the instrument longer and let you hit a different set of notes instead. Eventually, valves were introduced, which made playing on a trumpet possible for all keys. But the open position, the regular pipe of the instrument without any extra pipes due to the valves, still corresponds to a pitch, and for a Bb trumpet, that pitch is Bb. Generally, trumpets are pitched in Bb or C (my brother's a trumpet player and he swears by the C trumpet), but there are some higher trumpets pitched in Eb. Horns are generally pitched in F, but if you're lucky you have what's called a double horn, which is actually *two* sets of pipes, the second one in (low) Bb and able to be operated by pressing a valve. Trombones are generally pitched in Bb and bass trombones are generally in F, but there are instruments in other keys such as D for a lower bass or alto trombones. This is the note they play if you hold the slide all the way in, in first position. Euphoniums are generally in Bb, and tubas are generally either in F for smaller tubas or low Bb (sometimes written BBb) for the bigger ones. Woodwinds also come in different sizes, but there, things are somewhat less clear, because there isn't a "standard" tube length. There's some sense in which the most "natural" scale to play on an instrument at a given pitch is that pitch's major scale, so on a Bb clarinet, the most "natural" scale to play is the Bb major scale, and on an A clarinet, the most "natural" scale to play is the A major scale. There are also sopranino clarinets in Eb, basset horns in F, alto clarinets in Eb, bass clarinets in low Bb, contralto clarinets in low Eb, contrabass clarinets in low low Bb. Flutes come in many sizes too; the standard flute is in C by some definition of "in C", and there's the alto flute in G, the piccolo in high C, the piccolo in high Db (that one's not so popular these days, I wonder why), etc. Oboes come in different sizes, the standard one in C and the English horn in F. Bassoons... are just in C, except contrabassoons that are an octave lower. Saxophones come in *all* sizes, from tiny Eb sopraninos to Bb sopranos, Eb altos, C melody saxes, Bb tenors, Eb baritones, Bb basses, and probably a whole lot more. OK, so, what does this have to do with you? Well. For some reason, it was decided that if you play an instrument in a different key, you shouldn't need to relearn all the notes. Say you're playing a Bb clarinet. You see a C marked on the page, and you know the fingering for C. Then you switch to your Eb clarinet, and you see a C marked on the page. It was decided that you'd use the same fingering for that C. EVEN THOUGH IT SOUNDS LIKE A DIFFERENT NOTE. It's fucked up! So, if you see a C on the page on a Bb clarinet, you actually play a Bb, and if you see a C on the page on an Eb clarinet, you actually play an Eb! We say that the Bb and Eb clarinets are transposing instruments, because any music you play on them will come out in a different key! The benefit is that I can play any clarinet without having to relearn which fingering goes with which note. The cost is that I need a transposed part or I won't know what to do! The way transposing instruments work is that if they're "in" a note, then if they play a C on their instrument, it actually sounds like that note. Bb clarinets are Bb instruments, because if you play a C on a Bb clarinet, you actually get a Bb a whole step down. Bb bass clarinets transpose a major ninth down; a written middle C sounds like a low Bb. Bb contrabass clarinets transpose another octave further down. On the other hand, if you play a C on an oboe, it actually sounds like a C. You can say that the oboe is a C instrument. This gets confusing when we get to, say, tubas. When you play a C on a tuba, it sounds like a C, so you could say that the tuba is a C instrument. Except that it's actually pitched in Bb (or F for smaller tubas). Tubas don't play the game. So while the *instrument* is in Bb, the *music* is in C -- it's not (necessarily) in C major; this just means that when you play a C on the tuba, it actually sounds like a C. But while on a Bb trumpet (which is a transposing instrument, in Bb) you'd see a C written, play open position, and hear a Bb, on the Bb tuba you'd see a C written and you *wouldn't* play open position (though if you have the fourth valve, you can use that). Finally, we come to the guitar. The guitar is not actually pitched in C. But it *reads* in C, meaning that if you play a C on the guitar, it actually sounds like a C... an octave lower. Because the guitar is a transposing instrument. Sorry! At least the transposition is easy. It does mean that if you want to tune against the piano, you need to play an octave lower than written. Your low E string, for example, is written as E below middle C, but the actual pitch is the E an octave below that. At least the note name doesn't change! Unless, that is, you use a capo to take the music up a step. Yep. You're not getting away *that* easy! To summarize: some instruments have a natural pitch. Some instruments read music such that a written C actually sounds like their natural pitch. The guitar is not usually one of those instruments, but it can be.

  4421. musictheory 2019-07-03 15:52:38 rAbBITwILdeBBB
    Ahh, but the pitches of all of the guitar strings together, in standard tuning of course, are a pitch set that resides in the keys of C and G. This is even so in drop D. It's a very cool thing to know for composing on guitar. Open notes are extremely important in guitar especially when these open notes are being palm muted. Despite being palm muted, the open string still greatly affects whatever the guitarist is playing. This is why changing tuning and especially using a capo does so much more than just shift keys. I call this concept intonation. I think that's the best word for it. The guitar kind of IS pitched to C! It's the palm mutes that make this most true, but I think something is going on with the frequency ratios that also affects how certain notes sound in different places on the neck, like the places where you can play harmonics. So it isn't even just about open notes. All the sweet spots on the guitar in standard tuning will be continuances onward from those C & G pitched open notes.

  4422. musictheory 2019-07-03 16:54:21 Zak_Rahman
    Set the metronome slow. Real slow, under 90bpm. 60bpm or something. Work on each division. Quarters, 8ths, Triplets, 16th, quintuplets, sextuplets. Work on a single string/note. Then sequential strings/notes. Then string/note skipping. The apply it to a scale. When the metronome is set this slow you are essentially eliminating any physical limitations you might have (for example I can't play 16ths at 200bpm, that's a physical limitation for me). This makes you able to work purely on your timing. You get it solid at slow speeds and gradually build up. This is how I combat sloppy playing, and it is working. When I play at *normal* speeds now, it sounds tighter and better. It's a bit hardcore, but if you want to play technically demanding genres like metal or jazz, I would say it's almost mandatory to get your essential timing rock solid. Of course, this is only one approach. Consider what other people suggest too. I think there is more than one solution, but this is the one that is working for me. Daily practice. 10-20 minutes a day won't kill you in terms of boredom, and plays into the long-term nicely.

  4423. musictheory 2019-07-03 16:55:05 Jongtr
    >middle C on the guitar is actually C3, third fret of the A string. That's not "middle C". It just looks like middle C to someone reading concert treble clef. > Actual middle C, C4, would be first fret of the B string. Exactly. There are not two middle C's. "Middle C" = C4. C4 can be notated in different places for different instruments. It's defined by pitch, not by its position on the staff.

  4424. musictheory 2019-07-03 20:42:35 xiipaoc
    While the guitar can play in some keys better than others, there are actually *six* instruments in a (standard) guitar, each at a different pitch. There's a meaningful sense in which the E string is pitched in E, even though it can actually play a whole bunch of different notes by touching it on the fretboard. The open position on the string makes an E; that's the basic pitch of the string. The problem here is that there are six of them, so it doesn't *really* make sense to talk about a guitar being in C. Sure, you can play notes and chords in C major fairly simply (well, except for having to barre the F major, which is why I personally prefer to play in A or E), but if I had to pick an actual pitch, I'd pick E, the lowest string. Then you could also say that violins are pitched in G and violas/cellos are pitched in C.

  4425. musictheory 2019-07-04 01:12:37 rAbBITwILdeBBB
    What I am getting at is the guitar's intonation. It's like timbre but I would say intonation is a more apt description. The guitar has open string notes and whatever tuning the guitar is in affects the way all the notes on the fret board are played. There are sweet spots on the guitar. If you play certain strings on a certain frets, the note will sound very clear. This has to do with harmonics, guitar resonance, etc. but changing the open string notes has a huge impact on sweet spots and the overall sound of the guitar. (Timbre? Eh kind of, but intonation is a better word.) The guitar can play in all keys equally as efficiently. A capo shortens the scale length of the strings thus raising the pitch of its intonation. The harmonic locations change which will affect sweet spots as well. (Not all sweet spots are where the harmonics are.) Say you want to make a song in C# in standard tuning. Those open notes will make it dissonant, even when palm muting. If you play bar chords and actually fret all the strings, that eliminates the brunt of the open notes' influence, but not all of it. Every note you play is based off of fretting the strings, or not. Every note is a direct frequency ratio from what the open string is tuned to. This greatly affects how even the bar chord will sound because of sweet spots, and whatever the bar chord's notes' relationship is with the open notes. It's not that C is even a particularly "easy" key to play in on guitar. It's that it's alluded to by the implicative intonation of the guitar in standard tuning. They keys of D, A, ad E are just as "easy" to play. They will all just be correlated to standard tuning's C & G central intonation. This really does make it a C instrument because that is exactly what happens with other instruments that have an essential note which they shape into other notes. The guitar is one instrument; the piano isn't 88 instruments. That's truly being silly. Even a drum kit is one instrument; it's a kit; a set of instruments being used together. In that case you could say that each individual drum is it's own instrument, because that makes sense logically. They are self contained, and self sustained. They are also considered unpitched by some people so are they not even instruments at all then? (I tune my to pitch for what that's worth.) Guitar strings are dependent on the instrument, the guitar. The guitar is the instrument, that is wound with strings and played. You silly.

  4426. musictheory 2019-07-04 03:32:37 TheSeattleKid88
    What I mean to say is that the D chord is played on the 2nd fret on the high E string and G string, and the 3rd fret on B. These are not actually in the C major scale. However if you play D minor then those notes are actually in the C major scale. How is this possible?

  4427. musictheory 2019-07-04 09:42:12 xiipaoc
    I don't think the guitar body resonates harmonically. That's why I don't think the guitar has a pitch (I wouldn't use intonation because that already means something). That said, yes, the open strings do resonate differently depending on the note, and Narciso Yepes famously has a 10-string guitar with some extra open strings specifically for that additional resonance in various keys. But that *still* doesn't pitch the guitar in C in any meaningful way. Now, my oud, that's in C. It has 6 sets of strings (5 pairs and the lowest string is on its own), and it's tuned to C E A D G C. My ukulele is in C; it has strings tuned to G C E A. But the guitar is not. I think the best you can argue for on a guitar in standard tuning is E (or even E minor if you want to get specific), and if you put it in drop D, you can argue that it's in D. But not C. Without a C string, it just doesn't make sense to say that the guitar is pitched in C. > The guitar is one instrument; the piano isn't 88 instruments. Not when we're talking about the pitch of the instrument. When you have a brass instrument in Bb, you have a brass pipe whose resonant frequencies are the Bb harmonic scale. You can play other notes using valves, which release segments of the pipe to change the frequencies it produces, but the basic pipe is in that key. If you wanted to, you could actually play guitar that way. Use 7 strings tuned chromatically (say, F#, G, Ab, A, Bb, B, C) and *only* play natural harmonics. Congratulations, you're now a string trumpet! A brass instrument is *fundamentally* at a given pitch. The guitar is really, really, really not. The piano is kind of a different case, because it *is* actually in C -- not the individual strings but the fact that the white keys make up the C major scale. That said, if you apply the same logic as a brass instrument, each string has its own pitch (which is highly adjustable via tuning pegs and such).

  4428. musictheory 2019-07-04 15:39:33 Jongtr
    >I just learned about the different modes and am trying to apply them to my guitar playing Why, and how? >I understand that each mode has its own style, but I am confused on how to use a mode? You listen to the "style" (sound, mood or feel) of each mode, and write a tune using it, if you want that sound. What you *don't* do is apply modes to existing music. Modes are not something you *improvise* with - unless you're just jamming from scratch. They are things you *compose* with. Like keys, but (a little) different. >My question is if I wanted to make this song have more of a Spanish sound, I would want to apply the Phrygian mode. If the song doesn't already have a "Spanish" sound, you can't give it one. Except by maybe playing on a nylon-string acoustic, and playing lots of ornaments in your phrasing - i.e., playing in a pseudo-Spanish *style*. If you want the phrygian sound, you have to start with a phrygian song. >ASSUMING WE ARE STILL IN C, if I were to play play E Phrygian, that would mean that I would begin my scale on E. Would this make my song have a Spanish sound? No. >if I’m still playing all the same notes that are in C Ionian, but am just starting on a different root note?? Precisely. All you'd be doing is emphasising the E note in the key. That might be a nice effect, but it isn't a phrygian effect, it's merely a "C major with emphasis on E" effect. If you applied *C phrygian* mode, that would be nearer the effect you're after, but of course that just introduces wrong notes, because the tune is in C major. Like I said, if you want a phrygian sound, find a phrygian tune, or write one of your own. An E phrygian tune, for example, would be based on an Em chord, probably with a contrasting F somewhere, and maybe no other chords. The scale (of course) would be ABCDEFG (aka "the C major scale"), and the starting note is neither here nor there. What matters is the overall keynote or tonal centre, and the *final* note and chord. IOW, E phrygian is a "kind of E minor" sound. Like the E minor key, but with F instead of F#. That's the phrygian effect, the b2>1 resolution to the tonic.

  4429. musictheory 2019-07-04 15:55:17 Shred_TP
    What way are you looking at the Major scale with this? I found its much easier to look at it from the 3 notes per string perspective, as it gives you 7 different shapes, one for each mode. If you Google "modes 3 notes per string" you'll find a diagram with the shapes. All the modes of C major for example consist of the same notes. Each mode just means you start from a different note. So in C Ionian, the scale goes: C D E F G A B C And D Dorian would be: D E F G A B C D If you play both of these from the scale shapes, you'll hear the differences in them. I actually first realised this on a piano because in the key of C major, all the notes are natural (white keys) If you want to play in C Dorian, the notes change to retain the Dorian sound: C D Eb F G A Bb C This is why you cant switch to C Dorian if you're playing over C Ionian, because Eb and Bb don't belong in C Ionian. If playing in C Ionian, the first chord available is a Cmaj, which usually makes it sound like the "home" chord or tonic. But in C Dorian the tonic would be a Cmin. This goes with all the modes. You can write out which notes are available in each and see the differences, in order to start exploring a mode. I hope this helps, I've only recently started understanding the modes too etc, and this was what helped me make the connection.

  4430. musictheory 2019-07-05 02:06:54 enforcercombine
    So if you play the major scale in the 6th string 8th fret it would be Cmaj aka Ionian, right? And if I played it on the same string 3rd fret that would be Mixolydian (G)? Am i getting this right?

  4431. musictheory 2019-07-05 05:30:08 The_Original_Gronkie
    Because if it consisted of several short movements, it wouldn't have been a "Symphony." A Symphony is simply a Sonata for Orchestra. A Sonata for String Quartet is called a string Quartet, and a sonata for piano is called a Piano Sonata. The point is that a Sonata has a specific definition, both in the overall structure, as well as the form of each individual movement. Occasional there were deviations, especially once Beethoven started experimenting and breaking the rules - His Sixth had five movements, the Fifth connected the 3rd and 4th movements without a break, the Third was far longer than any previous symphony, the Ninth included a chorus, etc. But while he broke rules in many of his Symphonies, he didnt break so many that it became unrecognizable as a symphony. Orchestral works with multiple movements would have different names, probably with less defined structures - a suite would be a good catch all term. As for the idea of numerous short works like the modern album, that has also existed since Schubert wrote two very famous song cycles - Die Schone Mullerin (20 songs) and Die Winterreise (24 songs). He also wrote many separate songs which could be combined in any order. Beethoven wrote groups of songs such as his op 48, which consists of six songs to texts of Christian Gellert. He also did settings of as many as 20 and 25 songs of various folk songs of England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and other countries. Schumann, Wolf, and many, many other composers ha e written collections of songs, often based on the works of their favorite poets. So your idea that cycles of numerous works intended to be performed together is not a new one, nor does it have anything to do with the rise of the recorded music industry.

  4432. musictheory 2019-07-05 08:07:19 SimplyTheJester
    In rock, a lot of it has to do with all the harmonic overtones overdrive/distortion produces. I consider each guitar string a voice. I still practice voice leading on my guitar because in rock, the guitar can be "most" of the voices. You just have to be careful when you have distortion. In many cases, diads are better than whole chords. But as with anything in music, if you think it sounds good .. then it doesn't matter if there's a rule that says it is taboo. Never use music theory to "correct" your composition that you already enjoy.

  4433. musictheory 2019-07-05 08:12:38 ChuckDimeCliff
    > I consider each guitar string a voice. That’s simply not how voices in music work. Changing string doesn’t automatically change voice.

  4434. musictheory 2019-07-05 08:46:16 ChuckDimeCliff
    But it doesn’t matter what string your using. If I play a two octave scale without shift my fretting hand, it’s all the same voice. It’s not five different voices dovetailing. Strings literally have **no** influence on voices.

  4435. musictheory 2019-07-05 14:59:20 SimplyTheJester
    It is funny that tuning your guitar by ear day in and day out can give you a quasi-perfect pitch for those guitar strings. Just to stay sharp, I force myself to do it by just imagining the string pitch in my head and then tuning to it (no checking against another string) and then check it against a tuner. Well, actually, the first test is playing an open G Chord.

  4436. musictheory 2019-07-05 21:14:43 AANickFan
    well I tell you one thing I have autism anyway, just learn if it's fun. if it's not, don't, or maybe do, depends I only learnt what I was interested in I know there is a lot more music theory, but for now, I am content with what I have what I started with was learning the notes on the guitar, like, the thicc string is an E, and then with every fret, it increases, so, E F F# G G# A and then the next string starts at A and goes up A A# B C C# D D# E and these notes also exist on the piano and I learnt to play power chords on the guitar, green day songs. and then just go from there, discover regular triad chords, and I've watched a lot of *8-bit music theory*, and it has helped tremendously

  4437. musictheory 2019-07-06 01:11:56 SACRED-GEOMETRY
    > You can use the respective major scales, but you could also play around with relative modes. On the Cmaj7 part, you could use the major scale, A minor scale, and G Mixolydian scale. No. C major, A minor, and G Mixolydian all share the same notes. You are in C major. It doesn't matter where in the E string you're starting the scale from. Its about the tonic and its relationship to the other notes in the scale. You've already established that this is C major. You're playing the C major scale over C major, so this is definitely C major. If you want to play in a relative mode of C major you will need a different a different chord progression. In C major you could do a ii-V progression with Dm7 - G7 and play with the D Dorian mode. > On the Gmaj7 part, you can use the major scale, E minor, and D Mixolydian.

  4438. musictheory 2019-07-06 02:11:05 Naima_x
    > Yes, but what you mean by that? I've played guitar for 10 years now but i almost exclusively focused on rhythm. I can easily call out notes on the E and A strings but after that its mostly just me remembering patterns and licks that work. When i *did* try to learn scales, i got confused so i figured i'd only focus on calling out scales based on where the root note is on the E string. So if were jamming on a C major drone, i'd think of all the scales i can used based on their low E root note. When i jam, i usually pick out three scales i'll use that i know work and go from there. I'd say the C major blues starting at the 9th fret, E phygrian starting at the 12th fret, and A minor blues starting at the 5th fret. All the notes i'm playing are in the C major scale, but for some reason i just find it easier to think of it as "The relative minor" or "relative phygrian" Eh, thats just how it works for me. > For E phrygian, e.g., you might play Em arpeggios and use the F note to resolve to E (which, again, you can do anywhere on the fretboard). That's the phrygian effect. I'll have to try this.

  4439. musictheory 2019-07-06 02:37:11 mikefan
    Neither of the two youtube string examples are glissandos or smears. They have specific notes. Both glissandos and smears slide continuously between notes. I'd call these both "runs," though I think some reserve that term for cases where the notes strictly go just up or down .

  4440. musictheory 2019-07-06 21:47:20 JaxonOSU
    I'm not saying there wasn't a change in sounds and intonation, there obviously was. I'm saying that the purity effect of the intonation is lost because of the synthetic sounds. A string or barbershop quartet can properly blend a JI chord way better than korg. JI isn't ONLY frequency fine tuning.

  4441. musictheory 2019-07-07 03:05:34 -x-x-checkers
    Instruments with almost completely harmonic overtones are unusual in a lot of music and can be misleading. The early clash of non-harmonic overtones in the attack of a piano hammer on string is beautiful and adds to the music. There is an aggression, persistence, reminder of instability rendered with each blow that perfect harmonicity would be incapable of. Reciprocally, playing Just intervals with very harmonic instruments is inherently limited in this dimension. Do you want to hear three pretty simple voices (sawtooth) blend perfectly into one? Or might it be more interesting if the tones are subtly off, not quite together but not fully independent either? The 12-tet triads offer some of that complexity missing in the pure harmonic sawtooth timbre that Just triads can't.

  4442. musictheory 2019-07-07 03:38:01 AntimonytheSnake
    Gmaj7#11 Works well because the G is on the lowest string

  4443. musictheory 2019-07-07 05:07:51 65TwinReverbRI
    I have come to understand Haydn as the consummate craftsman in more recent years. I think many of us latch on to the "amazing feats" of Mozart and the mythology that makes his story more interesting, and the highly-romanticized view - all the dark, brooding, tortured soul stuff we associate with Beethoven - which also makes for good movie stuff, but poor Papa Haydn - who Mozart held in the highest regard (and Haydn held Mozart in high regard similarly) gets left out... a true underdog. His music is, IMHO, every bit as good as Mozart and Beethoven (and possibly even better on overall average - less hit and miss if you know what I mean). This guy has a number of videos on various composers but has done a number of Haydn examples that could help bring greater appreciation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX_JSzCFCQA If you like Orchestral Music, the London Symphonies are a great place to start. Haydn is the "father" of the String Quartet and really they're all great and it's fascinating to see how they and the genre he "invented" evolves even in his own works. Op. 33 is considered great but these Op.76 and the next Op.77 are considered to be on par with anything Mozart or Beethoven ever wrote, outside of the really late Beethoven where things get really hairy. Outside of the Op.103 which was incomplete, these represent Haydn's most mature String Quartets and writing (and can you believe, approaching 1800 - which is also the same time frame for the 2nd set of London Symphonies). His Piano Sonatas (and Piano Trios, as well as Concerti) are worth checking out as well. Here is a Piano Sonata I discovered recently - again, mature composer. Stupidly simple idea again (in C no less) but what he does with this with this simple leap down motive is, to me, amazing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VijCE-3YvL8 Enjoy!

  4444. musictheory 2019-07-08 08:37:37 65TwinReverbRI
    Yes, E, G and C. Those would be 4th String 2nd Fret, 3rd string open, and 2nd string 1st fret. You'll recognize them as a "subset" on those 3 strings of the typical open position "Cowboy" chord C form.

  4445. musictheory 2019-07-08 10:59:56 wamus
    How would you physically play that's without atleast muting one string or having a different tuning?

  4446. musictheory 2019-07-08 13:40:01 lllg17
    Guitar chords: This voicing for a sort of C-lydian feel: x35252 Voiced: C G A E F# Pretty hard to play without large hands but you can play it pretty easily if you have a bass player and just don’t play the C. Or this Amaj7 voicing: 5x7654 played with the thumb on the E-string. If you like those, the try high-fret 6/9 voicings like 8x7788 or the equivalent for keys other than C.

  4447. musictheory 2019-07-08 19:32:52 Latteeee
    Position of fingers on the guitar frets. 0 is open string and 2 is the 2nd fret position and so on.

  4448. musictheory 2019-07-08 23:36:35 Bad_Sex_Advice
    Use your thumb for the low E string

  4449. musictheory 2019-07-09 00:54:38 SuperLucarioSunshine
    I've always heard it and the first strings as the lowest ones. That would be thinking of it from the perspective of a guitar player looking down at their strings, so the low E would be string 1. That's just how I've heard it but i could be wrong so idk.

  4450. musictheory 2019-07-09 00:59:37 GreenPhoennix
    That's how it'd intuitively be, but the high E string is the first string. Idk man, I don't get it either It's like with a start and it's pickup positions. I figured it'd go left to right (from the guitarist perspective), 1 to 5. Apparently not and it goes from right to left? So from the perspective of the viewer

  4451. musictheory 2019-07-09 01:01:09 mublob
    Top strings have higher pitch. Bottom strings have lower pitch. This corresponds with how the guitarist would see their guitar from their perspective. The low E string is however string 6, and the high E is string 1. Not necessarily intuitive, but just the way it has been throughout my 3 guitar teachers across opposite sides of the country as well as any music books I've read.

  4452. musictheory 2019-07-09 04:35:03 12ealdeal
    2nd fret on what string?

  4453. musictheory 2019-07-09 04:54:19 Latteeee
    The numbers go from lowest string to highest. So in 246200 the 4 means fourth fret on A string.

  4454. musictheory 2019-07-09 08:22:28 65TwinReverbRI
    Evolution. That's the way music evolved. A long time ago, the Greeks were using instruments call "Tetrachords" that literally had 4 strings. The string were tuned a 4th apart, like C to F, but the middle strings were tuned to various things. There were "Enharmonic", "Chromatic" and "Diatonic" Genera (Genera is the plural of Genus, and means "type" here). Those words are familiar to us but don't quite mean what we think of today in this context. Nonetheless this produced tunings like C-C#-D-F and C-Db-Eb-F as well as one going into quarter tones. For some reason it seems they preferred notes closer to one end than the other, but over time they kind of more or less turned into what we might call C-Db-Eb-F. So that "close to the note" thing produces the half step, and the other two are whole steps. (side note, the Greeks actually thought about music from the highest note down unlike we think of music from the lowest note up today, so I'm not telling you exactly how it was done, just a general idea). What they then figured out was that they could "stack" and "overlap" these tetrachords to form 8 and 7 note scales. E-F-G-A can overlap with A-Bb-C-D - what we'd call Locrian today. E-F-G-A can add on B-C-D-E - what we'd call Phrygian today. And they came up with many other patterns. If you look at the 7 diatonic modes, what you will find is the first 4 notes and the 2nd four notes will 1 half step in each part. This means in any 7 note scale (the 8th note being a repeat of the first note) there will be 2 half steps. Because of the way it evolved, once they started using letters they came between E and F, and B and C. At this time, there actually weren't "half steps" in between the other notes either (outside of tuning differences). That's why many older instruments are Diatonic - like a Diatonic Harp - 7 strings for each octave - you had to retune it to play anything other than the diatonic notes (and this is still how modern Concert Pedal Harps work). It wasn't until the Middle Ages that we started using what at first is called "Musica Ficta" or "false music", which is using what we would now call Bb. Then they started using F#, and Eb, and C#, and so on down the line until we finally got a full chromatic scale (though in practice, really it makes modes into "transposed modes" which is the way it was done before the concept of "key" and key signature). So that's the way it evolved.

  4455. musictheory 2019-07-09 14:57:24 Jongtr
    This is difficult to answer briefly, but the shortest answer - to why the octave is divided in 7 in that odd iregular way (Two half-steps and five whole ones) - begins by saying that we *don't divide the octave.* What we do is divided a *string* (or pipe, or metal or wooden bar - anything that vibrates to produce a note. 1/2 of the string gives us the octave 2/3 of the string gives us (almost exactly) 7/12 of the octave. 3/4 of the string gives us (almost exactly) 5/12 of the octave. (The guitar fretboard is direct illustration of this.) Now if we take that 2/12 gap and divide up the two 5/12 spaces, we get a couple of 1/12 spaces left over. There's your 7-note octave, composed of 5 whole steps and 2 half-steps. In general we keep those "perfect" 5/12 and 7/12 points (because they sound so good), but we move the other whole and half steps around - in "major" or "minor" positions. This gives all the popular "modes" in use (in western music at least). It's another question (medieval history) how the letters ABCDEFG got attached to a specific arrangement of those W and H steps. Try the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/wiki/faq/history/whytwelve#wiki_starting_with_the_basics).

  4456. musictheory 2019-07-09 17:19:04 Jongtr
    Mainly because you've heard it before - lots of times. That's the "why". The rest is theoretical description or analysis.... As part of a melodic phrase or riff, it could be 1 b3 and 4 of a minor pentatonic, blues or minor key line. It's also 3-5-6 of a major pentatonic, and 2-4-5 of a major or minor scale. For example, 0-3-5 on the E string is the notes E-G-A. They come from various scales: the major scales of C, F, G, D and B♭ - and their relative minors (Am, Dm, Em, Gm). They come from E minor/G major pentatonic, and also from Am/C major pentatonic. They come from the E blues scale and the A blues scale. So they can "sound good" in all those contexts, because they fit. It's also very easy to play, which is another reason why it's common in guitar music - more common than, say 1-4-6, which is the same sound a half-step higher. The more common a sound is, the more "right" it sounds - which is usually what we mean by "works". For a sound to "work", it just has to sound logical, which means nothing more than "commonly used". You might as well ask "why does this sentence work?" Try asking "why not sentence works this does?" The obvious answer is "the words are in the wrong order in the second one". Sentences work when the words are in the right order. But what determines the order of the words? Only habit (and the fact we're not Yoda). Other languages put words in a different order. I.e., when we learn language, we just copy the word order we hear parents and others speaking. The habits of grammar are passed down. The grammar of the language is just a way of describing all those age-old habits of usage. Same with music. What "sounds good" is just what musicians have copied earlier musicians doing. It ain't broke so don't fix it. All those "common practices" then become the foundation of "music theory".

  4457. musictheory 2019-07-09 21:18:36 KingAdamXVII
    If you want to play the A (which is certainly not necessary or even implied), you can do it. In this case, don’t use your index finger to play the G chord (muting the B string would be the easiest way to do this), and then hit the second fret of the G string on the beat where the A occurs.

  4458. musictheory 2019-07-10 02:42:12 jazzadellic
    You're basically talking about music analysis. There's no forum comment, youtube video, or website that is really going to teach it to you properly. Yes you might pick up bits and pieces here and there, but you're more likely to get confused by it all or have **huge** gaps in your knowledge. It's best to just get a solid music theory book and read it cover to cover **and do all the exercises & assignments.** The bulk of your music theory learning comes through learning a concept and then analyzing music and spotting the new music theory concept you just read about. If you don't do this, you'll never really learn it. That's why the bulk of the people on this forum who really know their theory went to college and learned it. You don't need to go to college to learn it though, but music theory is a very deep and complex field of knowledge and it would possibly be just as hard as trying to learn string theory on your own.

  4459. musictheory 2019-07-10 06:17:44 Jongtr
    There's a few ways of doing it, but more limited than on piano. A lot depends on how close you want to get how it sounds on piano - the chord voicings you've used - and how much that matters. If you just want an easy guitar version that's not hard: D = x-x-0-2-3-2 (usual D shape). Or to give better voice-leading to the following, x-5-4-2-x-x F#m/C# = x-4-4-2-(2-2) (top2 strings optional) F#dim = x-3-4-2-(4)-x (the 2nd string note will give you a full F#dim7) B7(no 3) = s-2-4-2-x-x. This chord is missing its 3rd, but would be Bm7 by implication. Obviously (given the 2nd option for D), you have a descending bass line with the other two chord tones remaining static. The 3rd chord also works as a rootless D7.

  4460. musictheory 2019-07-11 00:09:57 Thecowman123
    I do use the caged system along with 3 notes per string and the triads you can make within those. Do you mind explaining the ABCDEFGA thing a little more?

  4461. musictheory 2019-07-11 01:02:40 jazzadellic
    They are generally notes that are very faint and you don't necessarily hear as a pitched note. For example it can be a heavily muted note on a string instrument to the point that the pitch is barely audible, and serves more of a rhythmic purpose. For a drummer it can just be a very soft "note" in between stronger notes. Sometimes when transcribing a recorded performance, I'll come across one of these ghost notes, but it's clear that it was unintentional, for example a difficult fast passage might find the musician partially missing the note by not pressing it down hard enough on their guitar, or their pick not making full contact with the string.

  4462. musictheory 2019-07-11 02:04:49 65TwinReverbRI
    The definition of this seems to have changed more recently. In ye olden days (the 1980s) "ghost notes" were faint notes that were produced accidentally (or accidentally on purpose). For example, in Jimi Hendrix's "Foxy Lady", at the beginning he holds and "rubs against the fret" a G note, and in doing so bumps against the adjacent strings. He does so hard enough to produce notes on those two open strings but it's kind of like, he didn't really intend to "play" those notes (but knew it was happening and did it intentionally). But any kind of thing like that - person plays a note and lifts the finger from the string but accidentally sounds the open string - those were Ghost Notes. We also used the term for when a drummer bounced a stick and produced extra "accidental" (on purpose) notes as well. So this kind of separated Ghost Notes notes from "accidental notes" in that they were somewhat intentional, even if what might otherwise be considered an accident or happenstance. Back then, we called Muted Notes, wait for it, Muted Notes. And "Choked Notes" were "Choked Notes". It's only somewhat recently that term has been, ahem, "re-imagined" to mean more like a muted note or choked note. It's like how "legato" has become misused as well. They are notated in parentheses when the pitch is definite, and usually in parentheses with an X note head when the pitch is indefinite. The parentheses are generally not used in muted or choked notes, but those are what people also call Ghost Notes now (I guess it sounded more evil so they latched on to it).

  4463. musictheory 2019-07-11 07:57:27 17bmw
    I don't know why anyone in this thread is calling this a joke. Representing extra-musical knowledge (religion, philosophy, architecture, physics, etc.) with music has been a hallmark of musical traditions all over our little planet-ship. Finding how composers have translated these ideas into music is serious musicological inquiry and learning to represent these ideas musically is a wonderful theoretical/compositional exercise. Musical cryptography is fun stuff, through and through. And whether or not we like the ideas that get encoded musically, they remain thoroughly poetic. This isn't to legitimize any one school of thought but to point out that ideas we might find "out there" have been the source of a lot of beautiful music. I won't talk about what a 6/28 time signature would signify because u/crom-dubh did a more than excellent job summarizing how irrational time signatures work. There's this [excellent video](https://youtu.be/yLCD6sJdsOs) by David Bruce^0 that treats this topic with examples from the canon; you should check it out. There are, however, plenty of ways to represent the ideas and concepts you talk about across musical parameters especially now that we have access to computer assistance in a more powerful way than previous generations. I'm going to try to not get too involved or detailed because long-winded reddit posts are the absolute worst. But, some thoughts on how one might do this below as well as some examples of composers who have done something similar: **Rhythm**: As you've already mentioned, a 6/28 time signature might be one way to encode tau into music. You might also use a 6:2:8 polyrhythm divided across instruments (tricky because 2 divides all three numbers evenly but possible). Elliott Carter and seum circles use wild polyrhythms like these all of the time. You might also create cycles of rhythmic attacks, say 6 variations of 28 attack patterns or 28 variations of 6 attack patterns (I like the second one more, personally). Strictly speaking, this would a serialization of rhythm which was a huge thing with total serialists like Babbit and Boulez. **Timbre**: A more spectralist approach, to be sure, but timbre is also modelled as a series of ratios. I'm not too solid on the math, but last I checked, there's ways of calculatinf digits of pi by a series of added fractions. Perhaps these fractions correspond to overtones that are emphasized or de-emphasized. Or maybe you stack sine waves related to each other by pi and tau ratios to create new timbres that way. You could even use a computer to analyze these new timbres and find ways to approximate them using standard orchestral instruments. **Pitch**: Just like the other musical parameters, there are plenty of ways to encode ideas into pitch structures and spaces. For example, you might create chords built out of intervals 6, 2, and 8. An Fr+6 chord could be one example of one such chord. This would allow you to use specific segments of tau to create pitch structures. You might also create Klumpenhower networks with arrow values of 6, 2, and 8 and create constellations of pc-sets that fit these graphs. (I can maybe give you an example of how this might work if you're interested). Alternatively, you might create a pitch space and use the geometry of that space (in relation to tau or space piracy) as a determinant for melodic/harmonic material. Geometric models of the whole tone and hexatonic scales would be awesome of this in particular. **Tuning**: Our tuning systems, are, at their core, a game of ratios as well so it shouldn't be hard to shift the rules around to create a new system with desired ratios. This is trivially easy to do with the help of a computer, some equations, and a few liters of coffee. You might, for instance, redefine an octave as two pitches in a tau ratio. You might then divide that octave into equal or unequal steps to produce. Or you might keep the ratio of the octave the same (2:1) but divide it based on radians, degrees, or circle arcs. If you were really (over) dedicated, you could create instruments for these new tunings (stringed instruments and voices are best for this but others are possible!). **Form**: Then there are ways to create cryptograms with musical structure. Again, the most straight-forward way would be to create ratios between sections of music. Or you could have tau or pi determine key structural moments in the music itself; 3.14 minutues in, a repetition occurs or something along those lines. **Composers**: A.) Bach was ever the clever devil and snuck in tons of hidden messages into his work. His cantatas are a gold mine of semiotics (see below!) and his name is easily translated into pitches. But perhaps my favorite musical message from him is his [C# minor fugue](https://youtu.be/zdD_QygwRuY) from WTC-1. It's absolutely littered with symbolisms for the Crucifixion. The fugue subject itself represents the cross! B.) Stockhausen's whole thing was representing archetypal stories and Aquarian age thinking musically. The Licht cycle offers amazing examples of how music can provide meaning but really all of his stuff, as well as his original writings are worth checking out for ideas. C.) Berg's [Lyric Suite](https://youtu.be/GKAVN5ZUdbw) for string quartet was also full of musical codes. George Perle found symbolism on all levels of the musical structure. This included things like Berg enconding the initials of he and his lover as part of the tone row, numbers representative of both parties being used rhythmic and formal determinants, and Berg secretly setting a love poem to music. D.) Messiaen wrote an opera, "Saint François d'Assise." And heavens to Murgatroyd, what an opera it is. It's got all the musical symbols you could think of like birdsongs used as leitmotifs in the vein of Wagner and synasthetic associations of harmony and color. Particularly worth checking out just to be blown away by the majesty of it all. **Theories**: Beyond that, there are some new(ish) theoretical models that you might want to check out as they could help you conceptualize existing musical parameters in a way that helps you create music representative of these ideas. In particular, I would reccomend a dive into musical semiology, the narrative analysis of music. Fundamental to the theory is that music is a discursive practice and that "gestures" or "topics" derive their power through cultural association. I'm a fan because it sets the basis for decolonized musical analytical paradigms and I'm a sl** for story telling (especially when it comes to Chopin's ballades!^1). You might look into what associations or gestures exist for piracy, the ocean/space, voyage, and equality and see if there aren't narrative ways to represent those concepts in your own music and doing so without abandoning our inherited musical system. As usual, I've written WAY more than I planned to but this was such a cool inquiry, it really got me going! Whatever you do, I would definitely check out transcendental number theory as well as the history of and the various associations for these values/ideas. There's so much to this topic and I had to leave so much fun stuff out but I still hope this post does justice to what's possible with musical symbolism. I can't say I'm much of Tauarchist myself (I'm more of a Champernowne girl :p) and I haven't said much beyond "use the ratios!" but I still hope this gave you something to think about on your musical cryptographical journey, fellow space pirate. I hope this helps. Thanks for posting and take care! 0.) Totally unrelated to anything in this thread, but I have a huge crush on David Bruce which is part of the reason I'm linking this video. 1.) It might be worth checking out tone-poems in general because it's a genre that lends itself to narrative analysis. Chopin's piano ballades are close-ish but Schoenberg's Verklärte Nacht or Rachmaninov's Isle of the Dead are two exemplary tone poems. Just something else to think about. EDIT: Making edits for any mechanical errors I find! Sorry!

  4464. musictheory 2019-07-11 08:40:54 crom-dubh
    I only managed to skim some of your post because honestly.. a little too long. No judgment there, I assume there's a lot of stuff worth reading there for people more patient than I am. I mostly wanted to just offer a cautionary word about one particular thing that appears in several places of your post. If the ratio of 6:28 is important, we *cannot* really break that down into some variation of 6, 2, an 8 (as suggested in your polyrhythm of 6:2:8 and in a couple of other places). At least not if we intend to actually be mathematical about this. I've spoken about this before in numerous contexts, but we essentially have a choice when working with numbers and music: a mathematical approach and a *numerological* approach. It's important to remember that numerology is *not* math. There's nothing wrong with a numerological approach, per se, but we *have* to acknowledge that it's fundamentally not math. The numbers 6, 2, and 8, in other words, have no meaningful mathematical relationship to the ratio 6:28 (aside from the fact that 6 is present, but the quantity of 28 in relation to the 6 is utterly absent). I say this not to nitpick, but because if we're talking about encoding of information, it's vitally important that we adhere to some logical principles, for which mathematics is particularly well suited. Numerology is *not* logical and thus makes for a poor means of encoding of information. It's on this level that most attempts I've seen to integrate mathematical ideas into music fail. One has to ask themselves whether they care more about the gimmickry of incorporating number gymnastics into music, or if they actually want to musically investigate numerical phenomena. The most common one I see is attempts to use the Fibonacci sequence, and most of the results make it evident that the gimmickry was the more persuasive force at work - they had no intention (whether they realized it or not) of actually exploring the *form* of the series as it manifests in our physical reality (i.e. the spiral, the golden ratio, etc). If one wishes to play number games, any random string of numbers will do and we needn't bother with noteworthy quantities and ratios. If one wishes to model musical form after numbers and ratios that appear to have meaning, then we are better served actually incorporating those forms into the music and not haphazardly subjecting them to numerological whim.

  4465. musictheory 2019-07-11 11:56:04 josh0114
    Generally what you want is to play harmonies in which the extensions of chords are played on the open strings if you’re a guitar player. For instance, if you have an Fmaj7#11, the B will be played on an open string. That’s why Capo’s are utilized superfluosuly, because certain palos are played in certain modes and keys. The capo allows for this transposition of key to enable the consistency of the open note extensions.

  4466. musictheory 2019-07-11 15:44:20 Jongtr
    >If it is a continuous, sliding motion from one note to another, I think it's called glissando *Portamento.* Glissando normally means where you hear each chromatic pitch. On guitar, it's portamento when you use a slide (bottleneck). Glissando is when you run the finger up or down the string on the frets.

  4467. musictheory 2019-07-11 19:15:25 Jongtr
    That's just the formula for the natural notes, or white notes of the piano. You probably know it as the "C major scale". ;-) The idea is to run those notes up one string (any string) - not just across the fretboard in a scale pattern - as a an additional way of learning the fretboard. The point being that all methods are good because they all support one another. The more clues you have for joining the pieces of the jigsaw, the quicker you see the big picture.

  4468. musictheory 2019-07-12 01:37:43 darikana
    I think all instruments have their quirks. Singing is difficult because you can’t actually see the instrument. Many of the “parts” you can’t actually feel such as the actual vocal folds or the diaphragm. Since every voice and body is literally different for everyone, it makes it a challenging instrument. The string instruments are also very difficult. Without frets, intonation is extremely challenging on violins, cellos, etc. There is often multiple “solutions” to things like fingerings and bowings that it wouldn’t be the same from one violin player to another. Don’t even get me started on brass instruments and partials.

  4469. musictheory 2019-07-12 01:41:09 Jongtr
    The point is about a "common practice" - not a hard and fast rule - and to understand why minor scale notes may be altered. (And AFAIK such practices *were* fairly "common" not just in "some examples". If those examples were as rare or occasional as you're implying, the practices would not have become standard in theory texts. I.e., they were common enough to define a recognisable *style,* at one period in time.) So, to create a better cadence to the tonic chord, the 7th of the scale is raised to create a leading tone - not necessarily in the melody,. but in the harmony. This practice is known as "harmonic minor", for obvious reasons. The result of that is that - melodically - there is now an augmented 2nd between m6 and M7, which was - at least traditionally - considered awkward or difficult. So the 6th could be raised too, to create a smoother melodic line. Hence naming this practice "melodic minor", again for obvious reasons. *Neither practice implies a scale in its own right.* These are temporary alterations to natural minor, for either harmonic or melodic purposes. Descending from the tonic, neither raised note is needed, at least *melodically.* Indeed it may sound better if descending to the 5th to lower the 6th back to minor. And that in turn would suggest the 7th can return to minor - although it wouldn't have to, and would stay raised if the V chord was present at that point. This doesn't suggest that the 6th and 7th *must* be lowered wihen descending. Only that it would probably be *common practice*, seeing that the reason for raising the notes (to resolve up to the tonic) no longer applies. In short, I agree with your quote: that the whole idea of three distinct scales, each with a fixed structure (and melodic minor ascending only) is a misguided teaching aid in which common practices have become set in stone - and copued from book to book - as if they were *universal* practices; and which also obscures the reality of flexibility based on context. The "written rules" do enable correct-sounding music (in that archaic style) to be produced, which is obviously an advantage, but the disadvantage is the myth you're objecting to. Still, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Like I said, the point is to understand that the minor scale 6th and 7th degrees are flexible - they can be be minor or major depending on the effect we want to achieve. And there are indeed certain *historical habits* we can emulate if we want, by following those "rules". One example - created intuitively, not from academic knowledge - is Paul McCartney's *Yesterday*, where the line "all my troubles seemed so" is ascending melodic minor, and the following line "now it looks as though" is descending natural minor. It's one of the things that gives that tune its pseudo-baroque effect, aside from the string quartet - and may have actually inspired the use of the quartet.

  4470. musictheory 2019-07-12 02:26:59 maestro2005
    There's two separate aspects to this: How difficult the instrument is to play, and how hard it is to gain prominence in the music world. For example, piano is a very easy instrument to play. It doesn't take any skill whatsoever to make it make a good sound, and unless you're trying to be a top-level classical pianist playing the hardest material ever written, it doesn't take all that long to get to a point where you can approach typical piano music. But, if you're trying to become a working pianist, that takes decades. To actually work as a pianist you have to do accompanying, which means sight reading incredibly well in every style, including comping from chords, doing a theoretical analysis on the fly so you can make effective simplifications, and possibly some degree of improvisation. If you're merely at the point where you can learn an easy song/piece in an afternoon, you're nowhere near ready to do this. On the other hand, you have the orchestral strings. They are very hard to play, taking years just to consistently play a single note in tune with a good sound. But, once you've mastered playing the instrument, you're basically done. There's far less breadth of knowledge required to play the kinds of things you'll play as a string player. I often joke--but I'm not really joking--that if you can play viola reasonably in tune with a reasonably good sound, you can get gigs. So which way is harder? I dunno. But here's my little list: Hard to play: * Orchestral strings, of which violin is hardest because it's smallest (so the precision required is that much tighter) * Brass, of which horn is the hardest * Double reeds Easy to play, but hard to rise above the masses: * Piano * Guitar

  4471. musictheory 2019-07-12 07:04:16 BruhDontFuckWithMe
    That depends on what you are playing For electric guitar, by far the most difficult right hand technique is string skipping, usually done on arpeggios. There are a handful of players that have this down at speeds that are quite simply inhuman, its like being thrown out of a car at speed and having to land sprinting at max speed so to not fall over, to have that kind of extreme acceleration on command is damn near impossible. To be able to play 14+ picked notes a second like this guy using string skipping, the very fastest pickers max out at that speed exclusively playing notes only on one, or two adjacent strings, thus not having to skip over another string. Hes picking at that speed whilst constantly jumping back and forth over multiple strings. Theres only 2 or 3 players in the world that can do this. https://youtu.be/47_3FA_lWbM?t=287

  4472. musictheory 2019-07-12 08:51:16 Masterkid1230
    Hey, Haydn didn't do much new. He wrote a lot for String Quartets but in "the grand scope of things musically", his niche was pretty specific, and he was a master of form, but it's not like he revolutionized much. And yet there he is. Inspiring people is also pretty important. And ruling a specific genre is important as well.

  4473. musictheory 2019-07-12 09:41:43 cowboysfromhell_2005
    Sorry 035 on the a string and 035 are frets, forgot to point that out

  4474. musictheory 2019-07-12 16:02:46 Jongtr
    Yes. The other differences are the factors [bartonsmart](https://www.reddit.com/user/bartonsmart/) mentioned, which govern the shape ("envelope") of the sound over time. Eg. plucked string instrument (and piano) sounds *decay* over time; wind instruments and bowed string instruments can *sustain* a pitch and even increase it in volume. The attack sounds are also different: hammer, bow or finger on string, breath on mouthpiece, etc. Synth technology, of course, can control all these things - including timbre - to emulate various instruments to debatable degrees of realism, and create instrument-like sounds that no acoustic instrument can make.

  4475. musictheory 2019-07-12 21:07:30 Jongtr
    He means frets on one guitar string, as confirmed elsewhere.

  4476. musictheory 2019-07-13 18:02:03 Zak_Rahman
    I am here to learn. I also like helping people where I can. Often I find helping others somehow deepens my own understanding too, and I make new and meaningful connections in my brain. I would call myself a musician. I play guitar mainly. I also record my own bass and piano parts, but I wouldn't have the audacity to call myself a bassist or pianist. I would love to explore drums more, but I don't have space for even an electric kit. I have zero formal training - not through choice. I just realised very late how significant music is to my life. I make music for fun and also for media and games. I also love the audio engineering aspect of it. Compressors, equalizers, mixing, mastering, automation...I love all that stuff. It has given me a lot of appreciation of genres that I normally would not listen to. I love collecting software synthesizers too. We will not be able to explore space during my lifetime, sadly. So using U-he Diva is probably the closest thing I can get to exploring new worlds. I am a bit of a gear junky too. At the moment I have GAS for a 5-string Precision bass and a 1U rack compressor. I like all sorts of content really. Even if I think I know the answer, often the responses provided by this community teach me a great deal more than I expected. It really helps me to deal with how overwhelmingly broad music is. What warms my heart is the fact that this sub is essentially devoid of elitism.

  4477. musictheory 2019-07-13 20:54:57 FretMagic
    Here is a [free ebook](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hPpsF1ItvaRO2J6_nd3JDqNAYnpxZdnD) I wrote for my grandson who is learning to improvise. It uses two small shapes that snap together like Lego pieces. It allow you to move in any direction at any time over the entire fretboard. It will give you more flexibility and freedom than the five shapes of the CAGED system. **Here is a partial list of different ways you can play one note:** Note Mutted Vibrato Staccato Hammer on Quick walk over Pull off or multiple Release bend to note Trill, single or multiple Quick slide off and back Slide from above or below Hammer on before pull off Bend to note, whole or half step Chromatic walk from above or below **And here is a partial list of different slides you can do:** Slide to note and do vibrato without picking note, just sliding Slide one fret down from target note, immediately slide back Slide one fret up from target note, immediately slide back Slide to note, then play note on next higher string Slide scale tones on one string ending with vibrato Pull off then slide while string is still ringing Slide up whole step, then back whole step Play target note, then slide to target note Hammer on then slide to target note Repeat slide two or more times Slide to target note, then bend Chromatic walk up, then slide Play note - Wait - then slide Slide in direction of music Double stop slide Two string slides Slide to the beat Slide out

  4478. musictheory 2019-07-14 04:53:46 65TwinReverbRI
    Haydn's music was certainly popular. He was well known, people called him "Papa Haydn" which was a sign of respect, and he traveled throughout Europe, had tons of his music performed regularly, sold lots of music and so on. He was asked to compose the music for some Town Clocks. Here's a story: >Napoleon, knowing the importance of Haydn, posted military protection around his house to see that no damage came to Haydn. One of these soldiers came to his deathbed and sang a piece from Haydn's Creation in such a beautiful voice and style, that Haydn burst into tears and gave him a big hug. Opera Arias became "popular songs" and popular things for composers to write Variations on. Mozart's "Magic Flute" was well-known enough that Fernando Sor wrote a set of Variations on one of the themes for Classical Guitar. Those guys were money-makers - they were looking to SELL sheet music - so they made arrangements of and variations on popular songs because they knew they'd sell - kind of like when a Jazz player today does yet another album of Beatles favorites. But we have to remember that Europe back then was a much "smaller" place and there were plenty of "backwater towns" that are huge today but then would have been out on the fringes and not really a center of culture. People in Paris would know about Mozart, but people in Madrid might not know much about him (as Spain was more cut off from the rest of Europe by the Pyrenees in those days). Before Haydn, things become more "localized". Handel was well known because of his composing for the Royal Courts in England - that's why today the "Water Music", the "Royal Fireworks Music", and the "Messiah" are still so well known. There were big time events associated with them and more lay people (as well as lords and ladies and royalty) would have been exposed to the. However, it's not like the people out in Sheffiled would be able to watch the coronation on TV like they would in the 1960s. So we have to kind of qualify what "the masses" were. Greensleeves was probably as popular - and there are plenty of Irish Tunes and Piper's Tunes that would have been very popular in their own regions, but again these wouldn't have as much impact on mainstream Europe (though "Jigs" did become a part of the Baroque Suite, even though stylized people must have been hearing them). But someone like Bach - Bach was really primarily a "hometown boy" - worked at his Church gig - so people there were hearing his music, but not people elsewhere. Bach was actually pretty much forgotten by Mozart's time and was "re-discovered" by Mendelssohn who started a "Bach Society" to raise awareness of his music. Bach's sons were probably better known more widely in their day, than their father - especially CPE Bach, and "The London Bach", JC Bach, who was friends with Mozart and convinced Mozart to come to London to give concerts and soak up the music. Prior to Bach, most formal music making was in the Church so it was limited to just that audience. What we can look at for really old music is to see how widely the music itself was distributed. Back then, trade between countries was even harder and England was physically separated from the rest of the "Continent". So we hear about Manuscripts from England that also appear in "Continental Sources". What this means is that a piece was "popular" enough that it shows up in multiple books in multiple Continental libraries and monasteries despite it originating in England - this means people were hearing it and wanting to perform it. And considering at that point Scribes had to manually copy the music out by hand, this meant it must have been really worthwhile to do that. With the advent of the Printing Press we get music moving more around Europe - this also made for a rise in news and books - so that names became more "household names". We don't know a lot about a lot of early composers because not much survives from them. We have to also assume that there may have been really famous people who just dropped off the pages of history because the sources they were mentioned in or the music they wrote is no longer extant. As time goes on, Music-making turns more into a commercial enterprise and by the time you get to people like Liszt, they are really well known. After a point, composers like Mahler and Strauss become as well known for their Conducting as they do for their pieces. But we can also look not only at arrangements and variations on popular themes, but see things like Piano transcriptions of orchestral works - Beethoven's Symphonies had to be very popular because a lot of people transcribed them for Piano (and again, back then, even though engraving was around, it was an expensive undertaking and needed to show a profit - and was done for profit. Now, that said, certainly composers wrote works that "weren't for the lay people". String Quartets and other chamber music were often written more with the artistic elite in mind - but Operas, Ballets, and Symphonie were more popular. And in fact, there are TONS of pieces that we no longer hear about - they were extremely popular then, but have been forgotten. Kind of like kids today don't know many B level bands that were super popular but who don't get play anymore. Then there are the "rediscoveries" for this generation like Queen, Don't Stop Believin' , Rosanna and Africa - which kind of take on Cult status. But there's tons of music that was popular back then that has been forgotten that was Symphonies and Operas, they just don't have the "context" associated with them that carried them on to the present. And I'm sure there were also "folk songs" and stuff like that - as well as what we might call regional or "one hit wonders" (anyone remember Gangnam Style now?) but that kind of stuff didn't really get preserved as well, so again, lost to time. HTH

  4479. musictheory 2019-07-14 06:08:32 duckey5393
    This thread is great! I'm here to learn and discuss music theory of course! I sing and play guitar, bass and drums (with a semester under my belt of piano and trumpet but still pretty bad at both of those). I'm primarily a composer but I cut my teeth playing DIY punk shows. I got into music theory because when I started playing guitar a friend of mine gave me a table of all the diatonic chords in natural keys and a circle of fifths. I proceeded to copy (either photo or by hand) this table and the circle into every notebook I used for songwriting. Using that and the internet I just kind of got a grasp on the basics but eventually hit a wall so I went back to college for music. I've got a post-punk/shoegaze band that's working on a concept album that I wrote the bones for, I'm hoping soon to hire some string players to record a tone poem I wrote inspired by Paradise Lost for a string quartet and a rock band, and it's actually been a bit since I wrote all that so I'm currently working on some words for new songs. I think since there's words it'll probably be stuff for the band, but we'll see. I guess my goal with music theory and music in general is to make stuff. I'm at a weird spot with music right now. Who knows.

  4480. musictheory 2019-07-14 07:52:43 SimplyTheJester
    TBH, I don't use theory at all for improv (at least not knowingly). I just try to replicate what my mind's ear is feeding me. If you are having a hard time with that kind of inspiration, then look for some key notes to hit at key places over the progression. In other words, you may not know what is going to lead up to that F#, but you know you are going to nail an F# right there and a G there and then a D over here. You've created an outline of a roadmap, so you might get lost between Note 3 & 4, but will get right back on the saddle at Note target 5. This will also influence your phrasing. I'd imagine you eventually start to hear more than just the target notes once you lock that down. If you mind's ear isn't developed, you can also just play on one string and slide into the notes until you recognize you've hit them Eventually, you will find the notes faster and faster. If you sound like a trainwreck, better to sound like a trainwreck and learn from it than to never board the train at all. There are plenty of ways to use theory for improv. That to me is more like a tune up to push myself into new territory as opposed to using it each and every time.

  4481. musictheory 2019-07-15 08:45:53 spritefan
    The chords in Ben Johnston’s string quartet No. 7, the xenharmonic chords in Stephen Weigel’s “Fiat Circadia”

  4482. musictheory 2019-07-16 12:41:11 FoxAmongWolves00
    Try to experiment with sus2 sus4 chords as well as maj and m 7s. If you’re into playing metalcore practice chugging the e string and make up breakdowns. Invert your power chords. In general it’s a good idea to always be trying something new

  4483. musictheory 2019-07-16 12:59:03 KonataLuckyStar
    Listen to his string quartet, I am sure you would like it.

  4484. musictheory 2019-07-16 21:38:08 Baroque--
    Hmmm, I see, a couple of pieces atonal pieces I have tried are The Rite of Spring and Schoenberg’s String quartet no.2 op 10. I’ll see how passive exposure goes..

  4485. musictheory 2019-07-17 01:45:50 65TwinReverbRI
    Depends on the sensitivity of the tuner. I saw some complaints from guitarists about Headstock tuners - the ones you clamp on that read vibrations rather than "listening" to the pitch. Sometimes there's a natural resonance in the wood itself that when playing certain notes (not even an interval) the tuner will pick up on and give a false reading. Even a string with an imperfection in it can cause a weird overtone that may "confuse" the tuner. Likewise, it can depend on the overall lowness or highness of the interval, how loud it's played (IIRC Tartini didn't notice the Difference Tones until he played really loud), and which strings they're on (plain or wound) as well as just natural resonances in the instrument itself. On electric guitar, we use overdrive and/or distortion effects which add clipping to the signal and lots of weird overtones. But they also generally make the fundamentals "enhanced" as well and you can literally hear the difference tones "beating" when the two notes are not perfectly in tune (according to mathematical ratios). Beating happens when the difference tone is lower than roughly 20 Hz - because then we cease hearing it as a pitched note but rather as individual vibrations - a "pulsing" or "beating". This is noticeable on out of tune unisons because the two notes are so close (like 110 and 112) it produces very low undertones (2 hz in this example). A tuner may not pick up on those (because the microphone is too small to pick up those large waveforms) but it might be confused by them in terms of vibration. So it's going to depend on many factors. I'd say cheaper tuners are more likely to easily get confused as a general rule.

  4486. musictheory 2019-07-17 06:32:46 FretMagic
    I'm teaching my ten year old grandson improvisation on the guitar. No chords initially, just good notes all over the fretboard. He's ten so he had never heard Pink Floyd. He's now a big fan. When the backing track starts he doesn't stop until the song ends. Even more impressive is how he plays. I can see him reacting to the music and feeling the groove doing simple embellishments. He lacks finger dexterity, he trips over the B string, he looses his place, but he's clearly feeling the groove. I didn't expect that.

  4487. musictheory 2019-07-18 02:26:47 Sketch_Bug
    > Tremolo is mostly okay, but there's one tremolo in there with almost impossible fingering. But which one? D# to F# is a little nasty but they still like to write it for us... also it's helped out considerably by having a clarinet with an extra left-hand D#/Eb key. I'm not happy to see any pinky key tremolo but I think "almost impossible" is pushing it a bit. Also you can use scordatura for the cello low B but it's still a mistake because that isn't indicated in the score. Similarly, I think Violin II will find the A# and C# double stop difficult without retuning a string =P And to be clear, flz on timpani is incorrect, right? You don't flutter tongue a timpani to my knowledge.

  4488. musictheory 2019-07-18 02:31:36 tinysurvivor
    I think it was Marty Friedman who said in an interview that a lot of Japanese music's emotive nature's comes from (or at least has its roots) in Japanese folk music. I haven't delved deep enough into Japanese folk music to confirm this. What I have noticed is common among a lot of anime openings (both of the jrock or pop variants) is the following: -In place of a four chord progression restricted to just major/minor chords are longer progressions that more often extended chords -Layers upon layers of instrumentation between doubled guitars, catchy string bits, active basslines and more. Every part of the musical outfit usually exhibits top-notch musicianship -I think there is a possibility that there are some melodies that are more native to Japanese music and foreign to our ears and therefore it pulls us in. -Seeing a video with your favorite anime characters + hearing the song will probably make it a lot more emotive, especially after a whole season

  4489. musictheory 2019-07-18 02:38:52 sevensixtwolove
    Ah, I get it I think. If I put it like this, have I understood the difference correctly: Stacking triplets on it's own in a measure would not produce a break between each group of three like the traditional does but just be a quite fast continuous string of notes. (Will read the Wikipedia article, it was quite massive/technical though, so maybe the misunderstandings I have will be corrected there.)

  4490. musictheory 2019-07-18 04:35:26 ChuckEye
    As a bass player of 30+ years (and a mod of /r/bass) I would say fairly unusual but not unheard of. A typical song in E on a standard 4-string bass, the low E string (E1) is as low as you can go. To get to E3 two octaves you're looking at fret 9 on the high G string. Unless I'm doing some chord voicings around the 12th fret, I don't spend a whole lot of time in that area of the neck, myself. For a song in D, the lowest D I can play in standard tuning is D2, so if I want to go up an octave from there to D3 I'll go to the 7th fret on the G string. While the range of available pitches on a typical 4-string bass is E1 to \~E4, we really don't play too much in that top octave unless we're soloing.

  4491. musictheory 2019-07-18 15:31:14 divenorth
    I’ve seen stuff like this for musicals. It means add a synth string patch or whatever.

  4492. musictheory 2019-07-18 23:25:59 Naima_x
    I can't name it off the top off my head, but this is essentially what pentatonic shapes are. I didn't really understand it until recently. For example lets take C Major. You can play the major catatonic scale at the 8th fret starting from the low E. G Mixolydian contains the same notes as the C major scale, so you could also play the pentatonic variant of starting from the low E. E Phygrian also shares the same notes as C major so you could play the Phygrian pentatonic variant at the 12th fret. All of these scales are technically in C major since its the same notes, just different placement on the fretboard. In my head, its easier to think that "G is the harmonic mixolydian" of C. The 5th tone of a scale will result in the harmonic mixolydian. You can find the same for the rest. I tried this a few months ago. I found a C major string drone, and picked 3 scales to use. I used blues variations of the major, harmonic minor, and harmonic phygrian, each at 2 different positions. Essentially i played the C major scale 3 different ways long the fret board.

  4493. musictheory 2019-07-19 02:42:30 CelestialSegfault
    I wrote this chord progression while fiddling with my 6 string guitar tuned to drop C#: F#m9 - Amaj9 - C#m9 - Fm9 (tabs in case i name them wrong) \-5--8----0--4- \-6--10--2--5- \-7--10--2--6- \-8--12--4--7- \-5--8----0--4- \-5--8----0--4- One thing i noticed was that it moves a third up until the last chord, which is exactly a semitone below the root (was it called leading tone?). The thing that surprised me that it seems to be arbitrary whether I was moving forwards a minor third or a major third at a time (i don't know what it's called) but it turns up nicely at the end. Anyone care to explain it?

  4494. musictheory 2019-07-19 05:14:00 Bluesboy82
    First Piano, because it's easier the get a tone, which makes it easier to concentrate on the music theory. At guitar you'll first need to learn how to play a the string properly.

  4495. musictheory 2019-07-19 06:42:24 mikefan
    "Détaché" is the most confusing bowing term. It is on the string with no separation between notes, and thus contradicts the staccato dot.

  4496. musictheory 2019-07-19 20:22:43 AKloch
    My cat loves the sound of string instruments, especially if they’re MIDI, and she also really loves sub/hip hop kick drums, especially when played on low quality speakers. She gets really affectionate (which she typically isn’t), and massage the heck out of the closest pillow. I have no idea why.

  4497. musictheory 2019-07-20 01:56:32 FwLineberry
    Finger the Am normally in the open position with fingers 1 2 and 3. Use the 4th finger to fret the G on the 3rd fret of the low E string. I don't include the open A string when I play it, so I let my 4th finger lean against the A string and keep it quiet. For the D/F#, you can either finger the open position D chord normally and use your thumb to grab the F# note at the 2nd fret of the low E string, or use your 1st finger on the F# and re-finger the D Chord with the remaining fingers.

  4498. musictheory 2019-07-20 05:36:29 65TwinReverbRI
    Learn to PLAY the songs. I would literally sit with my guitar in hand, and try to figure out songs as they played. I would try to find the bass note, or the melody note, or a basic chord, etc. I can remember tracking my first finger along the 6th string trying to find the bass note to each chord, and then figuring out which chords went with those bass notes - would try open position cowboy chords first, then power chords and barre chords, and gradually learned to hear the difference between major and minor, or just a power chord, and so on (and later on, m7 and maj7, and 7, etc.) I'd also learn licks and melodies, or attempt to pick out what I could of guitar solos and so on. Obviously it helps to find a kind of repetitive song for this at first so you have plenty of chances to figure out what's going on. Of course nowadays everyone can rewind stuff and tons of music is at your fingertips - in my day all you had was what came on any one radio station at one time, what you recorded on cassette from the radio, or what you bough on album etc. So I think that "trial by fire" actually helped, because you had the 3.5 minutes the song lasted and then you had to try another song (on the radio). So that meant you were constantly trying to learn all kinds of different song all the time until that one song came back on again.

  4499. musictheory 2019-07-20 13:38:44 ifihadsomethingtosay
    I think you’re not giving enough credit to the role that key plays. As a composer transposing my music seems to have a substantial effect on it. There are many things that I attribute this to. The most noticeable is the way various instruments sound different depending on the notes for example an open string on a stringed instrument sounds different in tone than on that isn’t. I’ve been making a lot of electronic music and the low end sounds very different when transposed. If you go low enough you will encounter the limits of speakers, human hearing, and other interesting phenomenon like how a frequency with overtones low enough will be perceived as rhythmic rather than tonal... There’s also that certain scales in equal temperament are more consonant or dissonant than others. This doesn’t seem to be as big of a factor as the previous reason, but I find it noticeable. I think that associations people have with certain keys are far outweighed by their associations with melodies, chord progressions, and tone. I guess I think that some things sound “better” in certain keys than others and that this has to do with the instrumentation and consonance/dissonance of certain parts of the music. This is all based on my experience. It is not a peer-reviewed study, but what I have come to find in my personal experience.

  4500. musictheory 2019-07-21 06:57:43 FretMagic
    I wrote an ebook for my grandson. I'm offering it as a free resource. I'm not plugging anything commercial. I'm retired, I don't charge my grandson or his friend Lily for lessons, and I have no monetary goal here. Some of the people here have responded to my ebook with some nice comments and I've shared them. Those comments are in the normal reddit thread so they are not private. Having said all of that, I have only been part of reddit for about three week. The only people I offer the ebook to are beginners looking for advice or a path forward. If I'm doing something wrong, spell it out and I will follow the rules. Here's my motivation if you're interest. Fender did a survey of first time guitar players. They found that 90% of them quit in the first hear, many in the first ninety days. I truly believe if we started with improvisation like I outline in my book, more students would make it past the one year mark. Lilly and James are ten years old. Lily likes Adele so in her fourth lesson she was able to play along with Adele's song, "Rollin in the Deep." She even had to switch from her familiar A minor key to B minor. I've introduced James to Pink Floyd and now he's a big fan. Once James starts playing he doesn't stop until the song ends. I asked him if he feels like he's in a trance and he agreed. These are ten year old kids in their first few lessons and they're feeling the groove and reacting to the songs. I could have spent the first five or six lessons showing them how to play the C, D and G chords. But what could they do with those chords that would come close to playing along Adele and Pink Floyd. Yesterday in our lesson, I brought my TC-Helicon Voicelive touch. I told them they were going to sing and play today. I turned on a blues backing track and had James start playing. I held the mic in front of him and told him he could make up his own lyrics, but he had to keep playing his guitar along with the backing track. He was shy for about ten seconds, and I did give him some ideas for lyrics like, "I hate homework." Realize the Voicelive unit was adding chorus, reverb, octaves and reverb. At one point I switch the preset over to a gender switch, actually more like Donald Duck. We'll you can image how ten year olds reacted to that. Before Lily started (she's had fewer lessons) I should her how to take the stepping squares that she was familiar with and side-step up at the 12th fret, so she could continue playing and eventually circle back to her starting note on the low E string. Then we turned on the blues backing track and had her complete the full circle several times. Now it was time for Lily to sing while playing. At one point she landed on the root note A and it blended so well with her voice. I asked her, "do you know what note that is?" I showed her how it was the octave of her starting note. I didn't have to give her the Wikipedia definiition for resolution. She was experiencing it. If this is out of character for Reddit, I will move on.

  4501. musictheory 2019-07-21 11:41:55 65TwinReverbRI
    It sounds like you are looking for "Triads". The 3 note forms are subsets of larger forms - Barre Chords mainly. Do you know them? For example, if you play an F Major Barre Chord on the first fret you will have: 1 1 2 3 3 1 Each set of three strings makes a complete F Triad, except the 6th string. So 1 1 2 on the upper 3 strings is an F Major chord (in first inversion) E 1 2 3 on strings 2 through 4 is an F Major chord as well (in Root position) E B 2 3 3 on strings 3-5 are also an F Major Chord (2nd inversion). The lowest 3 string just form a "Power Chord". There are 3 basic shapes for each set of 3 strings, which provides one of the 3 inversions. This is where CAGED comes in handy. The C form (which is like a D chord) gives you one form (the upper 3 strings of the D chord "triangle") and the A form gives you another, and the E form the remaining one. So what you do is learn the FULL forms, and then those triads are just subsets - you basically just play 3 strings out of the shape and you'll have them. That way you don't have to learn 3 forms for the first 3 strings, 3 forms for the next 3 strings, 3 forms for the next 3 strings, etc. You just learn 3 forms (C, A, and E - as barre chord forms) and you have all of them.

  4502. musictheory 2019-07-21 11:46:17 65TwinReverbRI
    >If, say I wanted to learn a System of a Down song Do you know how to read Tablature? It's way easier than reading sheet music (though I'd still recommend learning to do that). It's "bare essentials" - which strings have notes played on them - it's the fret number on a string. Rhythm is often not even notated, but since you said your timing is good, maybe that's what you need.

  4503. musictheory 2019-07-21 14:52:30 65TwinReverbRI
    Yes - it's implied. The assumption is that it would still be an Am if the E were present, so we call it what it would be if the chord were complete. And really, we hear it that way - the root and 3rd are enough to imply the chord (plus, having already heard the E, we still kind of comprehend that as the likely note that would be there). I should mention though, with any guitar part (or other chordal instrument part) there's likely something else going on - Vocals, Bass, Keys, etc. So it's very likely someone else could be playing the E note to "complete" the chord. Chord Symbols are typically (and should be) based on the harmony created by all the instruments. So this is an "incomplete" chord. On Guitar, Power Chords are super common and "incomplete" in the sense that they're missing the 3rd of the chord. And it is possible to arpeggiate them as well. Usually, unless the bass is playing another note or it's implied, you need at least the Root and 3rd, or Root and 5th, or maybe, the Root and 7th. IOW, arpeggiating just the 3rd and 5th is going to sound like a different chord (again unless some other instrument has the root or it's otherwise strongly implied - and it can be in some common patterns). It's kind of common on guitar to keep the two strings that are the upper notes of the arpeggio on the same strings while the bass note moves to notes on both the 6th and 5th string - doing that with Em to Am would cause exactly that if you used the 2nd and 3rd strings for the upper notes.

  4504. musictheory 2019-07-21 18:51:33 Aszalee
    I don't see D fitting with the rest of the notes - to me it sounds really aggressive and abrupt, I'll have to look at a c minor scale in more context. in metal, two notes next to each other is referred to as a devil's chord - and for some reason I don't understand some are more harsh than others, and in this case, D + D# creates a really nasty sound that I'm not a fan of and that's all I hear when they're played in the same string of notes lol

  4505. musictheory 2019-07-21 19:53:15 markjohnstonmusic
    Every major or minor scale should have each note name once, which preserves the transferability of the principles used to build them. This necessitates a theoretically endless number of multiple sharps and flats. Practically speaking nobody ever goes past single-sharp or single-flat tonics (i.e. F-flat or B-sharp), but many scales before those end points require double sharps and flats to express the relationships between the notes correctly on the diatonic level. In addition to which, enharmonic notes are not identical in pitch unless you use the equally tempered scale, which is basically limited to piano, mallet instruments, and atonal music. If you're playing a D-sharp and I have to play a major third, I can't use an open G string and have it be just.

  4506. musictheory 2019-07-21 23:17:41 JoeFro1101
    I don't have the best knowledge about this but basically there's a shit ton of information about how different instruments work and how you should or shouldn't write for them. Usually i think youd learn from either experience or like colleagues, or am orchestration book. For example their ranges, and limitations. Like a guitar physically can't play certain types of voicings like a piano can. For example like lots of notes right next to eachother. But a piano cant play any note twice at the same time like a guitar can. Or how string instruments can play more than one note, but you have to understand how. But yeah, to learn more you could probably get some orchestration book on it. Im not sure where to start though.

  4507. musictheory 2019-07-22 01:38:47 lonec
    Simple answer: different pitches. Long answer that isnt too long: many instruments are tuned differently. Guitars and bass start on the E string so many modern styles of stringed music are in E or A major/minor, or whatever a guitar tends to be tuned in. Classical music in an orchestra has stringed instruments tuned to C or G, and mamy woodwinds and brass are tuned in stranged notes like Eb, Bb, and sometimes C or A. And piano, harp, harpsichord, etc, can be in many different keys because there are literally 12 notes to choose from at any time. Last reason is because id we only had a few major and minor keys, a lot of music will sound extremely similar and in my opinion, get boring. On phone, mind the garbage grammar if there is any.

  4508. musictheory 2019-07-22 04:06:40 Pelusteriano
    Certain instruments by the way they're built and tuned, have certain keys that make it easier to play on them. For example, on guitar, C or G keys (and their relative minors) are easier, since you have access to open chord shapes and open strings with notes that are within the key. On the other hand, keys like Db or F# are a pain in the ass, because all the chords involve barred chords and you don't access to many open strings, and most of the chords are higher up the fretboard. This same principle applies for other instruments, for example, violins go well with D (that's why there are many violin pieces in D), some brass instruments go well with Bb, etc. Besides that, [instruments have ranges](https://i.redd.it/z1p2g66cyf821.jpg). For example, on guitar, the lowest note on standard tuning is E2. If I had a piece in D, I wouldn't have access to D2 (unless I tune the lower string one step lower). So, the range of the instrument also lends itself to a particular key. Finally, there are two ways to learn about it, the first one is the most obvious: Learning how to play the instruments, but it can be time, effort, and cost consuming. The other one is learning about arrangement and composition, which takes into consideration what I mentioned earlier, to prevent having as many players as possible playing in keys that are hard to read (on the staff) and hard to awkward to play (not comfortable enough on their instrument. You can read about it [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_\(music\)#Instruments_in_a_key), [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transposing_instruments), and [here](http://northernsounds.com/forum/showthread.php/72530-Good-Keys-and-Bad-Keys). If you ever get into arranging and composing music, you have to take that into consideration. You'll end up writing your music and if you don't have any experience on the instrument, you'll end up writing things that are either tremendously complicated to play, or absolutely impossible. I've encountered that problem before, sheets for guitar that have parts that require me to perform chord shapes and changes that are tremendously complicated or chord shapes and melodies that are impossible to play.

  4509. musictheory 2019-07-22 05:37:50 Carbon_Coffee
    Historically, when equal temperament wasn't used, some keys were the same as now, some were a little off, and some were unusable, so a lot of difference is down to that. In string instruments, like violins, certain notes will sound different/be easier to play because they're open strings as well. Different keys also allows for moving pieces up or down Without changing them, making them a bit more relaxed or vibrant, or to suit vocal registers. Even on piano though, playing in c all the time could make things more difficult for very hard pieces as you need the black notes as guides. Stevie wonder preferred keys with black notes for this reason.

  4510. musictheory 2019-07-22 10:39:26 peduxe
    true that about Eb minor, unless you drop every string a half step and use a E shape barre you need to use a movable C shape barre and play the chords in the key from the 6th fret (gets trickier the more you advance in the fretboard) or use the D shape (which is very uncomfortable to play on) from the 1st fret. either that or you learn the open positions.

  4511. musictheory 2019-07-22 12:55:47 jimjambanx
    How long is a piece of string?

  4512. musictheory 2019-07-22 14:47:55 josh0114
    Yes. I was in great shock and overwhelming bereavement today upon hearing of his passing. The first western Microtonal piece I ever listened to was his Third String Quartet. Amazing man, and amazing composer. He will be sorely missed. R.I.P. Mr. Johnston.

  4513. musictheory 2019-07-22 20:28:49 Jongtr
    >As a drummer There you go. The more you get used to listening to specific factors in music, the better you get at recognising them. E.g., I don't have perfect pitch, but I do have a fairly common type of pitch memory: as a guitarist (for more than 50 years) I know the sound of the bass E string so well I can tune a newly-strung guitar to within a semitone of concert. Note the "within a semitone" - similar margin of error, maybe, to your 5-10 bpm. The difference of perfect pitch from the kinds of pitch memory learned as an adult musician is that PP is learned in a similar way, but *in infancy:* when the infant brain is wired to learn language wholly by ear - and does it entirely competently within a few years. That kind of obsessive focus on details of sound seems to be what produces perfect pitch if the child is exposed to music in a similar way to language. I.e., they don't have to be taught that "A = 440", or even that that specific pitch is called "A". It's usually only later, when they have music lessons and learn the names of notes, that their ability to identify pitches is revealed. There would seem to be no reason why a similar skill in identifying precise tempos couldn't be acquired the same way. (Speech obviously doesn't require it, but then speech doesn't require pitch identification either. Except in tonal languages, where *relative pitch* plays a significant part, and where - indeed - many more people grow up with perfect pitch as an accidental consequence.) Given that "perfect tempo" doesn't seem to occur (we need more responses from those with perfect pitch), the reason is probably that precise tempo is not that critical for music. But also that rhythm in music is complex and multiple. To identify a tempo you'd have to be able to ascertain which were the prime accents, the beats, that needed to be memorised, among all the other rhythmic patterns. You'd need to be aware - as an infant - that the beat *mattered,* in the same way that variations in pitch and accent seem to matter in speech, in order for you to pay proper attention. And then the same level of importance would need to be attached to bpm as it is to pitch in early music lessons. Still - interesting question!

  4514. musictheory 2019-07-22 20:53:37 sasoh1
    Some chord voicings are going to be the same, but not all of them. On the piano you can play each voice independently from the others while on the guitar you are restricted to one note per string.

  4515. musictheory 2019-07-22 21:13:00 HYP3RSL33P
    You totally can! Keep in mind that both instruments have their own idiomatic voicings and if you’re talking about copying over a chord voicing note for note you may find some chords that are easy on piano but difficult or even impossible on guitar. This is especially true with “cluster chords” (chords with lots of adjacent notes) because guitar can only play one note per string and they are all tuned a 4th apart. If you’re just trying to get both instruments to play harmoniously together then any chord on one is the same chord on the other. As a side note, the norm for music notation specifically for guitar is that the guitar will sound an octave lower than written. If you want an exact note match when reading from the same music you should play the guitar an octave higher than written.

  4516. musictheory 2019-07-22 21:45:05 positive_note
    I thought so ... and the aminor7 isn't really aminor7 I just called it like that but its like aminor7 with added G on the high e string. Thank you for your thoughts too haha.

  4517. musictheory 2019-07-22 22:39:27 Jongtr
    >I guess the disadvantage would the limited range within one position. You only have two notes per string, and one position covers a range of an octave and a 5th, as opposed to two octaves and a 3rd in EADGBE. > >You found the major 3rds tuning, and wiki also has a page on [minor 3rds tuning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_tuning#Minor_thirds) (among other regular ones). But I agree, I'm surprised your idea seems rare, as I can see at least as many advantages as with the regular 3rds tunings. > >I just tried it, and while it's interesting I'm not sold. Obviously the barre 7ths are nice, but then forming nearby shapes for them to resolve to needs some thought. It's not hard, but - as with all alternative tunings - you win some, you lose some. For all the advantages of them, you ened up realising what a good compromise EADGBE is: not great for much of anything, but adaptable to plenty of different chord types and keys. Alternative tunings (of any kind) are always better for a few things, but worse for all the rest.

  4518. musictheory 2019-07-23 00:57:16 17bmw
    I know people are getting on you for this^1 but it really is something that should be said. Sure, if people like Mary Osbourne use alternate tunings, it opens up whole new worlds of sounds. And Bieber's Rosary Sonatas are genuinely incomparable and sublime. But the average r/musictheory poster isn't a guitar goddess^2 and doesn't have the Rosary Sonatas in their repertoire. And mastery of fundamentals are really important to get the most out of being able to use alternate tunings. That said, the possibilities scordatura creates are endlessly wonderful from a theoretical/compositional perspective. I would go so far as to say it's one of the biggest blessings of string instruments. I would love to be a fly-on-the-wall for a conversation among guitarists of the myriad possibilities this tuning opens up. Still, learn your instrument *first.* Have fun experimenting and take care! 1.) We've been really downvote happy around these parts lately. And I understand it's reddit and I understand people can be less than ideal with their phrasing but I wish our first response to things we don't like wasn't to use internet buttons to shame them. 2.) Not a guitarist personally (but I wish I were/want to be!) but these alternate tunings might have plenty of pedagogical value that might be lost in conversations like these. I'd love to see any literature/opinions on these tunings as teaching aides.

  4519. musictheory 2019-07-23 01:24:40 syyvius
    You can, but an intuitive hand shapes for a given chord might not be as easy or obvious in standard tuning. A 'traditional' Em would be 0220000, which is considered an "open voicing" which means that from the lowest note to the highest note played in the chord, there are notes that could be played as part of the cord that don't exist. Most piano chords are played with a closed" voicing would have all the notes stacked on top of itself. A "cowboy" G chord 32000X had the intervals 1 3 5 8(octave) 10 (third). Additionally a "cowboy" C chord X32010 is a closed voiced chord. If you only play the highest for strings of a Barre chord, you also have a closed voicing. Finally there are a couple of interesting closed voicing chords like X79080 for E minor that take a minor barre cord shape and user open strings up fill in the intervals omitted by the original chord voicing. You can also let the low E string ring out on that chord which sounds awesome, but that isn't the main point of this reply. Playing these chords with the guitar in E is definitely possible, but not necessarily optimal for playing. You can move these shapes around with a capo to change the notes of the "open" strings so you can keep the voicings of a chord the same without (i.e. capo 1 to play C# with the C chord shape instead of playing X43121X without a capo which can be done, but might be difficult for some players). Alternatively, you can retune individual strings for an alternate tuning (like Dadgad) or a different key (D standard) to get different shapes for a given chord voicing that night be easier to play. Even though you might play note for note the same chords, the timbre of your guitar, would probably sound different than a piano unless you are tracking your guitar to midi with a piano effect. In the end, you have 4 fingers (and a thumb if you are Jimi Hendrix it John Mayer) to play 6 strings across open strings and a 4-5 fret stretch from pointer to pinky on most places on the fretboard. There are classical and jazz guitarists that play closed voice chords anywhere on the neck, but that is always for a specific sound. Most songs sound similar of you change voicings of chords, so playing a chord progression with chord voicings that are comfortable to most people would be good enough for a lot of songs, but might sound generic and lack the feel of the original. If you've heard a 4 chord song strummed on guitar, it might sound very similar to another 4 chord song strummed on guitar, but if there purpose is to be a simple rhythm backing for vocals, it is normally enough for most songs. A song that is known more for iconic riffs like Don't Stop Believin might feel a bit empty if the piano chords are just strummed out. TL;DR pretty much anything is possible on guitar with a bit of ingenuity. Figure out the feel of what you want to play first and focus on that and use as many tools to play and arrange guitar that you have.

  4520. musictheory 2019-07-23 01:36:45 xcrissxcrossx
    I had to swap the higher strings out for this tuning. The highest string is a Bb. It won't work with standard strings. I typically run 0.10 when using standard tuning.

  4521. musictheory 2019-07-23 05:35:35 crom-dubh
    ^ Basically this. For actually quite a while I had transitioned to what I was at the time calling "augmented tuning" (just straight major 3rds). I came up with the idea myself, although I obviously assumed someone somewhere had done it before. I quite liked it in many ways and felt like it suited my playing style, but ultimately I came back to standard tuning. One disadvantage of *not* playing in standard tuning, aside from specific issues of which chords are easy to play and things like that is not often talked about. Which is to say that I really believe most guitars are set up to sound best with standard tuning. Everything from fret placement, intonation, and string gauges kind of rely on this, otherwise things start sounding a little off. You can get around it, but it isn't always as simple as just re-tuning and keeping all these other variables the same. In my augmented tuning I always felt like I was a little out of tune. This became more apparent when playing with another guitarist who was in standard tuning. Maybe this was just my own problem, but I began suspecting it had to do with the fact that I really would have had to set up my guitar better to specifically play in this tuning.

  4522. musictheory 2019-07-23 08:44:33 TheCoolSquare
    Yes you usually need to re set up your guitar after any changes to the string, either pitch or gauge, to keep optimal intonation. For small changes though like drop D or Eb standard it's usually not a big issue unless you plan to keep it like that for a while.

  4523. musictheory 2019-07-23 11:54:58 IamRick_Deckard
    You can try Indian classical music for major/minor scales with non-equalized spaces between. To determine tunings, they would focus on making perfect octaves and fifths in typical keys and work from there. Because octaves have a ratio (like imagine a string length that is plucked) of 1:2, fifths are 2:3, and fourths are 3:4, so you can do some simple calculations and make most of the notes in a scale that way. But the distance won't be perfectly even.

  4524. musictheory 2019-07-23 15:20:49 Gwaur
    With many acoustic instruments, different keys also sound different. Especially with stringed instruments like guitar and violin. If a key has a lot of open string notes, there's gonna be some resonance between the strings. With guitar chords, the player is probably going to use open strings, which sound different from stopped strings. With wind instruments, different registers may sound different, and the choice of key affects where the change in sound is relative to the music.

  4525. musictheory 2019-07-23 15:42:47 positive_note
    right! sorry I forgot its also aminor7 lol I just preferred the high e string but its the same

  4526. musictheory 2019-07-23 17:48:07 ZeAthenA714
    An interesting tidbit when you start learning about this is that the note *frequencies* (how "high" or "low" they sound) is directly tied to the physics used to create them. We didn't really "invent" any of that, we merely "discovered" it. The first part you need to look at is if you take a string of a specific length, gauge and tension that you vibrate (and amplify that vibration), you'll produce a specific frequency. If you now halve the length of that string (while keeping everything else equal) then you'll get a frequency that is twice the initial frequency. If you take a third of the initial length, you now get a frequency that is three times the initial frequency. That's the basic way we can create different notes, it's how a guitar or a violin works, by varying the length of a vibrating string. Then there is another physics concept call the overtone series. The idea is that when you produce a sound of a specific frequency, what you hear is actually a sum of different frequencies: the initial frequency (called the fundamental frequencies) and a bunch of frequencies which are integer multiples of the fundamental frequencies (so 2 times the fundamental, 3 times the fundamental, 4 times the fundamental etc...) with a decreasing magnitude (which means the "higher" you go in the frequencies, the less you "hear" them). Now imagine you don't know those two facts but you start experimenting with some pieces of string. You take one string that produce a frequency of 100Hz (you have no way of measuring that yet but it's just to clarify the experiment). You take another string that is half the length and it will produce a frequency of 200Hz, twice the initial frequency. You then realize that this specific combination of two notes sound really nice, that's because the 200Hz frequency is one of the overtone of the 100Hz frequency, so those two notes compliment each other really well. You don't know why yet, but you'll have discovered what we now call the octave. If you take a string that is a third of the initial length, you'll now get a frequency of 300Hz, which is the second overtone of the initial frequency, so it also sounds really nice. And you'll have discovered what we now call the perfect fifth. But if you try to take a random length of string, you might end up with a frequency of maybe 185Hz, which doesn't resonate with any overtone of the initial note, and kinda clash with them. So it sounds bad. Now you have a framework to start creating a theory system. You know that some combinations of string length sound nice together while other don't. You can experiment to see which notes sounds well together, and better than that: you can actually measure the length of those strings, so you can put numbers and names on all of that. And that's how notes were created a very long time ago. The concept hasn't changed much since then, we've just become much better a measuring frequencies and overtones and understanding the underlying aspects. Unfortunately the math isn't really easy to use in a musical setting, so throughout the years we've made some concessions, some approximations, so that we have a system that isn't overly complex and still close enough to the reality of the overtone series. That led to different standardization that are not necessarily the same based on the time period and culture.

  4527. musictheory 2019-07-23 23:13:36 Jongtr
    >Ends with a G? Yes, that's a flawed page. There is no reason why the open 6th string should be missing, and (of course) every reason why it should be there. It's also a little odd to show the B as fret of 3rd string rather than open B. >Omits a B? He's not missing anything. He is playing the open B instead of the 4th fret on the G (at least when demonstrating the pattern) but that's as it should be. You have the choice of 3rd string 4th fret instead, but to begin with the open B is more important, as part of the basic pattern. >Authors add their own spin to it. Well, yes. Happens in the best theory books too. It's never a good idea to trust one source - even the best (whatever that might be).

  4528. musictheory 2019-07-24 02:19:13 toughenough6
    Okay so I spend a lot of time studying sonic physics and I can elaborate a little more! I can't say it's impossible that a capo on your guitar will produce a different vibe. The ratios between the scale degrees will remain intact (especially on a guitar with a capo compared to a piano), however, the spectral response is going to change! Since the "new string" is shorter, it's going to change the timbre. Two different frets on a guitar will obviously have a shifted fundamental + harmonic series, but the strength and longevity of the various harmonics will change as well. With regards to frequency ratios, different keys do not have different vibes. However, transposing a composition to a different key will push it closer to either the upper or lower limit of human hearing. Frequencies work on a logarithmic scale, so musical notes extend infinitely toward zero and infinitely upward as well, however humans can only hear pitch between ~20hz and ~18-20khz. Transposing a song up a semi tone on a piano that's tuned to equal temperament will not change the ratios between the intervals, but it will brighten the overall timbre of the sound and change the spectral response heard in the harmonic series of each tone played. This can affect the vibe, sure, but it's not dependent on which key it you're moving from or to. Certain keys don't have inherent emotive properties in 12TET tuning, but transposing a song can affect the vibe. The guitar is an interesting one since each note is not tuned individually the way piano keys are, so throwing a capo on your guitar is simple going to reduce the length of every string equally and pitch up the entire composition, where if you were transposing a song on a real piano you wouldn't have a tool to do this easily, so you'd have to be hitting different keys. In 12TET, it would have the same effect as a guitar capo, but in other tuning systems it might not.

  4529. musictheory 2019-07-24 10:53:26 Richard_Berg
    I could just as well imagine a drummer making the opposite argument: “my kick is gonna vibrate however long it vibrates, nothing I can do about it, so why should I have to count all these rests?” String instruments are different. Even if the score calls for a pizz technique, you’re still expected to control the sustain.

  4530. musictheory 2019-07-24 11:19:15 Richard_Berg
    If I write 𝅘𝅥𝅰 𝅀 𝄿 𝄾 𝄽 𝄼 I'd expect you to mute the string.

  4531. musictheory 2019-07-24 11:28:28 ChemicalXP
    Ok, so if you're saying one lone string instrument pluck an open d and let it ring, yea, youd get maybe 3 good slow beats before it diminishes into uselessness. If you have any string instrument play any fingered note, youll be lucky to get half that depending on how far up the neck you are. In any practical concert setting, unless it is a tutti pizz section or overall very, very quiet, no good composer would write a stringed instrument to have more than a quarter note pizz and expect it to be meaningful. On your notation, dont be ridiculous, you dont need to put a 32th note to get a short pizz, that's unnecessary. An 8th would be fine in nearly all settings and if you're really inclined, a 16th.

  4532. musictheory 2019-07-24 11:31:08 Richard_Berg
    If you think there's a difference between a quarter, eight, and 16th note pizz then congrats, you're agreeing with me that string players can control the sustain.

  4533. musictheory 2019-07-24 11:41:10 ChemicalXP
    Ok, 8th and 16th, little to no difference. Consecutive pizz notes with no rests in between pizz means pizz with no stopping the string in between. Let's say 8th pizz, 8th rest, 8th pizz would mean pluck, place, pluck, place. In that sense, yes, you can control pizz length. But trust me, as a student of classical music on viola for 7 years, many of which at collegiate level, what you are describing is not a thesiable control of pluck sustain and control, as if you can pluck a note and sustain it for tied while notes if that's what the conductor deems necessary, and any valid distinction between 8th, 16th and 32nd note pizz

  4534. musictheory 2019-07-24 11:57:02 fight_for_anything
    > Ok, so if you're saying one lone string instrument pluck an open d and let it ring, yea, youd get maybe 3 good slow beats before it diminishes into uselessness. If you have any string instrument play any fingered note, youll be lucky to get half that depending on how far up the neck you are. I get what you are saying, and dont want to distract too much from your point, but I have to play devils advocate here. my BC Rich Warlock and Marshall Amp disagree with the above statement wholeheartedly. :P

  4535. musictheory 2019-07-24 16:15:40 SimplyTheJester
    Yes and no. Yes I can do that. Yes I can make mistakes. I don't want this to be a bio on me, so I'll try to keep up the many process I've done through my life. 1. Played my aunts piano using only my ear and made up simple melodies. Never learned songs from sheet music (because I couldn't). I'd create my own songs or try to mimic the simple melodies of the songs on the radio. 2. Big break of no real music playing from K to 9th grade. I wrote stuff in my head, but that was it. I mostly shunned it because most musicians are broke and it seemed like a bad path. I found my ear to be severely lacking, which was surprising considering it came so much easier when I was a toddler. 3. Mostly just learned to play guitar from 9th to 12th grade. Did jazz class, but my ear training was essentially nil other than jamming with friends (and it was hardly Al Di Meola level jamming.) 4. College. Typical ear training. Scales, intervals, chords, progressions. The ear started to resurface within me. Just needed some cobwebs cleared out and some foundation it seemed. 5. College: Musicianship classes. The do re mi sight singing. Might be the best thing to get me to what I talked about. 6. Started to more seriously write my own songs. I always wrote them in my head, but now I was writing them so I could play them as a band. just hearing it in my head and then putting it into a sequencer so I could share a completed song to the band helped a lot. 7. Transcribed the entire Dream Theater - Images and Words album. Every instrument except vocal. This helped more with my composition skills, but lots of transcribing definitely helps the ear. 8. Started to concentrate more heavily on melody. One thing I did was drone an open E, A, D, G or B string as I played the melody only on the next highest string. This helped me feel each interval as relative to the root (drone string). I'd think about it being a minor 6th and the tension it uniquely created. But eventually it just became the note I wanted and my hand went there. i stopped thinking about the note name and the interval and just heard the note and knew where to go (most of the time) 9. Lately, I just hear a song I like and break out my guitar and try to play along to the vocal melody (or lead fills) with my guitar as close to real time as possible. You can also hum your own melodies in your head and try to "sing" them with your instrument, but mimic'ing a melody you hear means you don't have to feel creative at that point in time to get that practice in. And you can learn from that musician their phrasing &#x200B; This is essentially relative pitch. My first note I usually just slide into, and my tonal center is set so it is all relative (without actually thinking intervals) after that. &#x200B; If you haven't already, those are some things you can try yourself. If I had to recommend one as a must, it would be #4 and #5. Do Re Mi sight singing works wonders.

  4536. musictheory 2019-07-24 23:34:06 graymatter3
    This is pretty amazing. Took me a second to really grasp it, but wow! It's really good. I feel that the first sheet takes some getting used to, but the amount of options is really good. I appreciate the tuning table, that was pretty neat to include it for the guitar scales, though I think that Tuning table's placement is in an odd place and it might be more fitting beside the Diatonic Chords table. Also, you have room for 8 strings, but the sheet that shows the guitar frets still only has 6 string displayed. Maybe this is something you're working on? These are minor considering all the work you put into this. Really good job and thank you for sharing it.

  4537. musictheory 2019-07-25 06:59:19 Xenoceratops
    I just like the word. It gives me confidence. *Notey.* It's got sort of a woody quality to it. Much better than *qualitative* or *negative*. Dreadful tinny words. Anyway, let's compare two of analogous passages. --- Schoenberg === >Even the writing of simple phrases involves the invention and use of motives, though perhaps unconsciously. Consciously used, the motive should produce unity, relationship, coherence, logic, comprehensibility and fluency. >The *motive* generally appears in a characteristic and impressive manner at the beginning of a piece. The features of a motive are intervals and rhythms, combined to produce a memorable shape or contour which usually implies an inherent harmony. Inasmuch as almost every figure within a piece reveals some relationship to it, the basic motive is often considered the 'germ' of the idea. Since it includes elements, at least, of every subsequent musical figure, one could consider it the 'smallest common multiple'. And since it is included in every subsequent figure, it could be considered the 'greatest common factor.' >However, everything depends on its use. Whether a motive be simple or complex, whether it consists of few or many features, the final impression of the piece is not determined by its primary form. Everything depends on its treatment and development. **A motive appears constantly throughout a piece: *it is repeated*. Repetition alone often gives rise to *monotony*. Monotony can only be overcome by *variation*.** (p.8) Schoenberg then goes through a highly specific (and therefore immediately applicable) list of ways in which a motive can be varied: >In Exs. 17-29, based solely on a broken chord, some of the methods which can be applied are shown as systematically as is practicable. >The *rhythm* is changed: >1. By modifying the length of the notes (Ex. 17). >2. By note repetitions (Exs. 17h, i, k, l, n). >3. By repetition of certain rhythms (Exs. 17l, m, 18e). >4. By shifting rhythms to different beats (Ex. 23; in particular, compare 23d with 23e, f, g). >5. By addition of upbeats (Ex. 22). >6. By changing the metre—a device seldom used within a piece (Ex. 24). >The *intervals* are changed: >1. By changing the original order or direction of the notes (Ex. 19). >2. By addition or omission of intervals (Ex. 21). >3. By filling up intervals with ancillary notes (Exs. 18, 20 ff.). >4. By reduction through omission or condensation (Ex. 21). >5. By repetition of features (Exs. 20h, 22a, b, d). >6. By shifting features to other beats (Ex. 23). >The *harmony* is changed: >1. By the use of inversions (Exs. 25a, b). >2. By additions at the end (Exs. 25 c-i). >3. By insertions in the middle (Exs. 26). >4. By substituting a different chord (Exs. 27a, b, c) or succession (Exs. 27d-i). >The *melody* is adapted to these changes: >1. By transposition (Ex. 28). >2. By addition of passing harmonies (Ex. 29). >3. By ‘semi-contrapuntal’ treatment of the accompaniment (Ex. 29). (p.10) --- Belkin === >A legitimate question can be raised as to whether it is possible to create a composition with continuously new material. It would indeed seem possible, through carefully crafted transitions, to create continuity between continuously changing ideas. However it is hard to see how such a formal strategy could succeed in creating a satisfactory whole—at least within the limits mentioned in our introductory chapter. Only by developing and exploring previously heard material can the composer stimulate and appeal to the listener's memory, thus setting up the rich, long range associations that give the larger forms their interest and depth. The notions of foreground and background, already presented, are critical in controlling musical flow. **If similarity is in the foreground, the listener will perceive the music as continuing uninterrupted; if difference is more prominent, then the first impression will be of novelty. ... When contrast is in the foreground, it is introduced to avoid monotony, and to deepen the listener's experience.** Contrast engenders emotional breadth, setting off ideas and heightening relief and definition of character. An analogy can be made here with the novel: Seeing a character's reactions in varied situations, we get to know him better. Musically, hearing familiar material in new contexts, its meaning is enriched. >To continuously maintain the listener's interest, the composer must maintain suspense until the very end, avoiding a sense of premature closure. Suspense may be defined as a sense of sharp expectation. The lack of immediate fulfillment leads to listener on. >Following up on our analogy to the novel, if the composer can evoke the musical equivalent of the "whodunit?" response in a thriller, the listener will want to keep listening. The essence of this narrative technique, as in the novel, is not to give away the "answer" too soon. >Suspense implies predictability and progression. Without predictability there can be no expectation; without clear, audible progressions there can be no predictability. To create musical suspense, the composer can leave gestures incomplete at punctuation points, for example by: >* stopping on rhythmic weakness. >* contrapuntally introducing a new element (motive, timbre, register, etc.) while an old one achieves completion. >The composer can also use instability—more rapid changes—to "raise the temperature", increasing the demands on the listener. Of course, it is not enough just to present a few ideas in quick succession. To avoid incoherence, the ideas thus presented should: >* refer to previously presented material, enriching the web of the listener's associations. >* be well joined, to ensure local continuity. (We will have more to say about the nature of these joints below. For now we may just remark that the main pitfall to avoid is the "catalogue" effect—a list of unassociated items.) >Finally, an important tool for creating suspense lies in the way in which sections—at any level: phrases, paragraphs, etc.—are articulated from one another: A cadence supplies information to the listener about what will follow. (Of course the continuation may not always fulfill the expectations so evoked.) While we will explore the formal implications of various kinds of punctuation in the second part of this chapter, suffice it to say here, that open cadences contribute largely to suspense, since they create definite expectations and are, by definition, prominently placed. >To help the listener make sense of the music, it is important to provide recognizable signposts; these reference points also help to tie the work together. If the music goes on for long without a clear reference to something well defined and familiar, the listener can feel lost. Motives and themes often fulfill this function. These signposts must be clear and easy to recognize; a complex motivic or harmonic relationship in a secondary part is useless. >Ways to throw such points of reference into relief include: >* a stop before the reference point. >* a buildup into the reference point. (pp.25-29) --- Comparison === Schoenberg does use examples from the literature, but for this simple itemized list he just composes his own to keep it concise. Belkin relies entirely on examples from the literature, and he is not so concise. I'm omitting all the intervening examples and captions from Belkin in the above excerpt, but here's one such caption to illustrate (p.27): >String Quartet #2: The last harmony before the new section (m. 32) is a polychord, where the lower notes undermine the stability of the upper dominant sonority. It would be great if he numbered his figures, wouldn't it? That's supposed to illustrate "stopping on rhythmic weakness," which itself is an ambiguous and idiosyncratic term (like the "understanding of creation and differentiation of planes of tone" he expects of the reader on page 7). His writing irks me, but I don't want to give the impression that this post is me saying that Schoenberg is better or anything like that. My point in bringing up this example is that Belkin's approach is to bring up a fairly general feature, demonstrate a place it appears in the literature (along with a bunch of other information: a mini-analysis of sorts), and finally to suggest that this feature can exist in a myriad of forms beyond those discussed in the text. Meanwhile, Belkin is also trying to make a point about the balance of coherence and incoherence in mediating expectation. It's qualitative: he doesn't get into what the individual elements of a composition are doing, but rather the affect they project. Schoenberg, by contrast, shows you a specific kind of motive (a 'broken chord', AKA an arpeggio) and then walks you through very concrete ways in which it can be developed to produce a sense of variety. More importantly, whereas Belkin suggests that rupturing the flow of motivically-related material produces variety, Schoenberg insists that variety is found in the motive itself (illustrating Schoenberg's commitment to the Hegelian dialectic and organicism à la Goethe). His prose has a 1:1 relationship to his examples. It is notey: he is quantifying how the particular relates to the the general, and he does that by focusing on the actual notes that make up motives and how those notes change through a process of variation.

  4538. musictheory 2019-07-25 14:37:02 bloodyell76
    I've long been fond of odd arrangements of pieces. For example, when in college, we decided to play a string trio. The main problem was the school had almost no string players, so we played it with flute, oboe and bass clarinet. The lesson I came to learn from this and other examples is that while certain genres might *typically* use certain instruments, in the end you get to do what you like. And also, if you write for an instrument, the main thing to remember is it's tonal range, followed by what is actually playable on the instrument. Have a desire to play something dub influenced but have a band that features clarinet, violin and accordion? [no problem](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBDuQ6GGaJU). Really love Radiohead, and want to cover one of their songs, but you front a bluegrass band? [no problem](https://www.pbs.org/video/frontrowboston-punch-brothers-kid-wayside-back-time/) So maybe assume you have a five piece band, where three players can play more than one instrument. Then pick the instruments. Then pick the genre. Out of a hat if you must. Then figure out a way to make it work. Try arranging an existing piece for the chosen "band" at first if writing something new doesn't work.

  4539. musictheory 2019-07-25 19:44:24 Jongtr
    Ah-ha! That doesn't explain all your chords of course. ECDGDE? 0-3-0-0-0-3-0, I guess. I also guess you're muting strings on some of the others (CDGAC - 8-10-x-0-10-8?) while others are spelled the wrong way (ADEGF#A = 5-7-0-0-7-5 = AEDGF#A). I appreciate the latter - ADE is in pitch order rather than string order, but then CDGAC is in string order, not pitch order. Anyway, "why it works" is largely down to all the shared tones - obviously those two or three open strings all the way. In addition, the parallel moves of those perfect 5ths on the bottom of the chords (strings 6-5), and the minor 3rds on top (strings 2-1). I.e., your choice is based (to begin with) on ergonomics, but that in itself contributes an aural logic because of the consistent intervals. Your other system of choice is (I guess) aural, in that there you've chosen certain positions and not others. Presumably you tried some of the missing ones and decided they sounded wrong in some way - either individually, or alongside the others. That means you're intuitively finding your way to *familiar* sounds, which will bring you into line with the "common practices" that music theory lays out. You've been pretty consistent in terms of scale or mode - only one note has two versions: F and F#. You have no other sharps or flats. You are therefore mixing two scales, known commonly as C major and G major. Or slightly less commonly as A minor and E minor. The question of "mode" depends on what you feel the key centre is - the overall "home" note or "tonic" - if there is one. Your lowest note (I guess) is E, but that doesn't mean it's an E mode - or rather mixed modes on E (aeolian and phrygian). If A was the overall key centre, then you could say you're mixing A aeolian and A dorian. I.e., you have to decide - using your ear - which is the most likely keynote, the note (or chord) you'd end your tune on, or at least where it would sound most "finished". The mode (or key) name then derives from that.

  4540. musictheory 2019-07-25 21:48:20 Jongtr
    You're right that in theory it ought to work - at least you ought to be able to make the bass *clearer* in relation to other instriments, even if you can't isolate it completely. My guess is that the bass is actually producing harmonics louder than its fundamental (2nd harmonic in particular), which is what enables you to hear it in the unedited track. Even if 110 was the loudest harmonic (1st, or fundamental), the others will contribute significantly to its overall volume. And in fact 110 is mid range for a bass. Guitar often goes that low (open 5th string), and of course keys will too. Have you tried it with bass notes below E2 (bottom of guitar)? BTW, if you just want to hear a bass line more clearly - for transcribing a song, rather than this kind of audio experiment - the simple thing to do is raise the octave of the whole track. It's amazing how much clearer the bass then becomes. I imagine that's down to the greater sensitivity of our ears to mid-range frequencies - such as those of human voices. Below around 90-100, the bass increasingly gets muddy or muffled - we certainly hear it, but determining extact pitch (or the octave) gets harder. I often use [Transcribe](https://www.seventhstring.com/xscribe/screenshots.html) software, which has a "bass select" EQ patch, but I never use that because raising the octave is so much more effective. (In fact "bass select" only removes anything below C4, which would allow high register bass notes, but is obviously not much use for masking other instruments.) Manually removing other frequencies - easy enough - does result in masking more of the other instruments but - you're right - while the bass is retained it gets a lot quieter, and not really any more distinct.

  4541. musictheory 2019-07-25 23:39:57 Kemaneo
    1. Those ratios are only theoretically true. Most instruments have a slightly irregular harmonic series. Non-pitched percussion is the best example for this, we usually can't even hear the fundamental note. When a string is plucked, additional harmonics are generated for a very short amount of time. 2. Are there any effects on the master bus? 3. If any other instruments are playing in that frequency range, chances are that they are much, much louder than the harmonic series of that bass. What you describe works a lot better on multiple notes of the same instrument. Plugins like Melodyne are excellent at splitting up each note of a chord.

  4542. musictheory 2019-07-25 23:42:06 10-s
    Nx55 (N being a whole number) is just the A note. When a string vibrates, it generates an infinite number of harmonics (3f/2, 5f/4 etc). Some are louder, some are almost silent. That sum of frequencies is going to be the sound. Distortion simply amplifies those quieter harmonics. You can do a fourrier analysis on a bass sample and figure out which ratios are louder. I know the louder ones are the root, 5th the octave. Pretty sure next is the M3.

  4543. musictheory 2019-07-26 03:12:51 TaigaBridge
    G minor, whether it's 2019 or not. As a string player, G minor and C minor provide a particularly rich dark sound: the lower open strings resonate, the tinnier-sounding higher strings don't.

  4544. musictheory 2019-07-26 06:46:50 Jongtr
    It's a kind of Em, but I think with a F# and C#. Em6/9. With capo on 2, that's Dm6/9, but the chord is a combination of guitar and keys (and bass of course). Looks like she's playing a simple "Dm" shape (x-x-3-2-3-1, notes G B E G), but she could be leaving the 1st string open for the 9th (F#). Her shape doesn't seem to have any room for the 6th though (open 2nd string or 4th fret 3rd string, so the 6th must be coming from the keys (or another guitar). You could get much the same effect from a Bm7b5 shape with an 11 on top: x-2-3-2-3-0. That gives you the notes C#-G-B-E-F# - all present and correct! The bass is E though, you really need that. On one guitar, capo on 2, you'd need to tune the 6th down to E.

  4545. musictheory 2019-07-26 07:47:33 hardrenaissance
    I made something that might help: [https://musescore.com/user/30172115/scores/5655105](https://musescore.com/user/30172115/scores/5655105) This is played at 60 BPM. The tempo doesn't change. However, the note values do change - it shifts from quarter notes, to eighth notes, to sixteenth notes, to triplets, quintuplets, and then a mix. **The tempo doesn't change. At every single moment, the tempo is 60 BPM**. Think of it like how you learned fractions: each bar is an entire pie. You can slice it into four equal pieces. You can slice it into eight equal pieces. You can slice it in a bunch of different sized pieces, like: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8, as long as it all adds up to one pie. You can leave some slices on the dish, call those rests ("unused" slices or notes). So what is a drummer doing when they're doing something complex? They're treating each of their pieces of gear (kick drum, snare drum, hi-hat, etc) as its own instrument, with its own "track" of what I just posted. Maybe the kick is getting the big quarter notes ("Kick...kick...kick...kick"), and the snare drum is a pattern of eighth notes ("Snare!...snare-snare...Snare!...snare-snare..."), and the hi-hat is getting a long string of sixteenth notes (t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t). Even though they're doing different things, **the tempo is 60 BPM.** Even though you're playing more hi-hats than kicks. the bigger picture is that the tempo is 60 BPM. The kick is getting four pie quarters, while the hi-hat is getting sixteen small pieces of pie (that total one whole pie). Did that help?

  4546. musictheory 2019-07-26 19:22:55 Robbityy
    Not completely certain but sounds about right on guitar. Intro Chords: D, C#, F#m, E Then D, C#, F#m, E6 If you're playing this on piano might sound a bit different. If you are playing guitar, I can quickly tab out what I'm doing if necessary? I'm playing a more open voicing where each chord starts on the A string.

  4547. musictheory 2019-07-26 20:28:38 samuilad
    Thanks for the input! I also started every chord on the a string.

  4548. musictheory 2019-07-26 21:52:18 HerShiBer
    i'm not a violinist/cellist but i do play double bass and have some experience with arranging music for my violin/cello friends on this topic. With the exception of the double bass, all of the strings are tuned in fifths meaning min 6ths, maj 6ths and minor 7ths will be very easy to reach, maj 7ths and octaves can definitely work with violins and violas but for cellos you would probably wouldn't want to give them any fast passages. Min 2nds and maj 2nds are a no go for cellos unless you are using an open string with it so A and G#/G, D/ C#/C and G and F#/F would be possible, you can do it with violins but it's best to know your player's ability before writing it. Min 3rds are the same and 8ves and maj 7ths, no fast passages for cello and know your violin/viola players. maj 3rds, perfect 4ths, tritones are also great intervals to play, With the perfect fifth you have to be careful how you use it because with the exception of open strings, the player will have to flatten their finger to play it rather than keeping it curved which will have a huge impact on intonation if you write really fast parts, so generally if you are doing fifths do them on open strings just have them as a drone rather than a fast passage. Now the double bass is a bit special since it's tuned in fourths rather than fifths and we have a much larger space to cover so we have less reach when it comes to intervals when we aren't using open strings. min 3rds, maj 3rds, tritones and perfect fifths are great intervals. min 2nds and maj 2nds are pretty hard in the lower register without an open string and it would be extremely dissonant anyway so unless you are writing for a horror film don't bother. perfect 4ths are the same problem for us as it is for violins as we have to flatten our fingers so slow passages during those sections, maj 6ths are doable but your double bass player needs to have pretty big hands and anything higher is going to be extremely difficult except for the lucky few bass players with massive hands. Now these rules kinda change when you get into the high register so you would want to write much larger intervals since there is a much smaller space to cover. Perfect fourths and fifths are gonna be hard for their respective instruments still and min and maj 2nds will quite difficult to reach once you have written past the body of the instrument.

  4549. musictheory 2019-07-27 06:29:00 65TwinReverbRI
    Right, so it's kind of like a 12-string guitar or Mandolin. On each of those instruments, each string is doubled - so the highest "course" on a Mandolin or Guitar consists of a PAIR of strings tuned to the same note - both E (not the same exact E on each instrument but the same E for Guitar, and a different pair of E notes for the Mandolin). When a player plays a "note" they hold down and pluck both strings in the course. So in essence, while you only play ONE note, it takes TWO strings to do it (that's why a 12 string guitar has 12 strings - it's really 6 courses - 6 pairs of strings so double the regular 6 of a regular guitar). Or you could say that, of the 8 strings a Mandolin has, it takes TWO of those strings to play ONE note. So you might think - 8 strings = 8 note polyphony. But it doesn't because you can't really conveniently separate that pair of strings (I mean, you could, but...). So really, a Mandolin has "8 Sound Producing Units" (strings) but only FOUR note Polyphony, because you have to use 2 SPUs of your polyphony for each single note, meaning the maximum number of notes you can play together is 4. So you can divide the total Polyphony by the number of SPUs it takes to make one note, and that's how many notes you can play at a time. With synthesizers, some sounds may only use one SPU (which are called various things by various manufacturers, such as "partials", etc.) but some sound may use 4 or even 8 SPUs. If a Synthesizer had only 16 note Polyphony, meaning it has 16 total SPUs, but a sound used 4 SPUs, that means you could only play a maximum of 4 notes at a time. Now the maximum Polyphony is a factor of the architecture of the synth and how much memory it has. Higher Polyphony is more expensive. They are in fact Binary, so polyphony is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. on up to 128 and even 256. 256 is pretty good and can be found on the more expensive workstations and whatnot. 128 is not horrible and plenty usable, but can be pushed to the limit if you're using sounds that are just layers upon layers of SPUs (or partials, or voices, or whatever you want to call them). Also, it always have to do with how many sounds are sounding at ONCE - once a note stops sounding it relinquishes those SPUs so a new note can take them up. But if you use sustain pedal on a piano, then all the notes you start with will keep playing, so adding new notes will eventually eat up all the Polyphony. In fact, most Piano sounds use quite a bit of SPUs to make them sound good, so you might only be able to get maybe a 15-20 notes before they eat up 128 note Polyphony! Most keyboards have ways around this - you pick sounds with fewer SPUs, or you have things like "note priority" that will cut off older notes that are still sounding when a new note is played once you max out your Polyphony. So while they call it X "note" Polyphony, it's not really "notes" per se, but these "Sound Producing Units" (partials, voices, oscillators, etc. whatever the manufacturer calls them). 128 is usually pretty sufficient for most normal use.

  4550. musictheory 2019-07-28 04:23:15 neutronbob
    >minor sixth and augmented fifth have the exact same “harmonic ratio” I wish commenters would remember that not every instrument is equal-tempered. On string instruments these intervals are not enharmonic and definitely do not sound the same.

  4551. musictheory 2019-07-28 06:28:40 thesoftdistortion
    But... only in equal temperament. D# and Eb aren’t the same note. Ask a string player and they’ll probably say they play them slightly differently. Which is sharper though goes deeper down that rabbit hole.

  4552. musictheory 2019-07-28 10:27:17 theangusnl
    There's a string ensemble called Taste of Chaos that adapted the entire Leviathan album by Mastodon a few years ago. Most of the vocals on that album similar to what you get from Slipknot. They definitely took some liberties and introduced some melody, but I don't think that's a bad thing at all in this context. Their version of Blood and Thunder is here: https://youtu.be/IhDy3l7Gmjs

  4553. musictheory 2019-07-28 12:37:52 65TwinReverbRI
    Maybe consider a Suite, or a set of "Character Pieces". Also forms like Divertimento (which in a modern context could just be "Diversions"), or Etudes, and Preludes (which in modern fashion could include Interludes and Postludes as well). Some of these have their own historical variations (Suite especially) but IMHO rather than to tackle a Sonata - especially one of the CPP variety, it might be more instructive for an "aspiring composer" as you say to write some smaller pieces you could collect into a multi-movement or multi-piece collection. French composers often wrote "Morceaux" which translates as a "morsel" a "bit" - a small piece! Modern composers have come up with all kinds of words to describe a set of short pieces and even titles like "8 Miniatures for Piano" are common. This kind of eliminates the "baggage" and expectations (and pressure) associated with the most common definitions of many of the forms like Sonata, or Symphony, or String Quartet. HTH

  4554. musictheory 2019-07-28 14:20:08 orein123
    I have to disagree on the value of understanding how to split up measures. If you know all the possible note combinations a single measure can be split into, it becomes a simple matter to just string those individual combinations together over the course of several measures. Rhythm is all about recognizing patterns, so the more patterns you are able to recognize on short notice, the better you are at understanding rhythm.

  4555. musictheory 2019-07-29 04:17:56 julesr13
    That's exactly how I feel! The iv or IV feels appropriate to the progression, but neither matches in mood. The problem with leaving out the third is that I'm not great at muting the G string in Barre chords. I was thinking about changing the voicing to a D-form on the 5th fret though, which would put the 3rd on the high e string where it's not as much of a problem, although that either roots it on the 5th or makes the entire chord higher in tone than I want it to be.

  4556. musictheory 2019-07-29 06:03:49 victotronics
    Bass guitar and upright bass are alternatives. You would have one or the other. (Or you could listen to Miles Davis' Bitches Brew which actually uses multiples basses.) Tuba you could occasionally double with the string bass. Bari sax does not have enough low frequences to be a conflict with the string basses. You write it as part of the sax choir. Creative solutions: intertwining lines, or extreme diffrences of register.

  4557. musictheory 2019-07-29 23:18:09 ferniecanto
    This is probably the most difficult question in music; it's the most vague, but also the most important. We all know that art is strongly tied to emotion--we all *felt* that--and many art forms have the benefit of relating easily to concrete, literal images. But music is inherently abstract; you can't depict an emotion with sounds. What's the sound of happiness? Most of the time, the "emotion" aspect comes not from the composition itself, but from the performance, the way it's played. Some musicians just have that way of making the music come "alive", but even that can be hard to describe, because it's hidden in tiny details or fleeting nuances that can even look artificial when you put them under a microscope. It's not something that can be easily dissected, because emotion is something we *assess*, not something we create with scored gestures (not without running the risk of sounding fake). This is true for singing, as well as playing an instrument, or even the way you occupy the stage during a live performance. And of course there are conventions and "codes" for how to be expressive in certain styles of music, e.g. the use of vibrato for string players, but even the way you follow those "codes" is finicky. Your best bet as a performer is, as long as you're being genuine, it's probably going to come across. As for composition, well, *hoo boy*. what a can of worms it is. Is it accurate to say, for example, that a melody is "emotional" if that emotion can change if you play it loud or quiet, fast or slow, mechanically or rubato? Can an emotion be encoded in a group of notes, or a specific sound? I don't think so. I don't think there are "sad chords", just as much as I don't think there are "excited but slightly apprehensive and maybe a little bit guilty, like when you're going to buy the ticket to make that trip you want but you fear you should be saving that money for something else" chords. That's why I'm a fan of the "making music and then seeing what happens" approach, because we have to be constantly aware that emotions aren't things carried in the music, but things that happen *in the listener's mind*. We have no control over that, and I find that exciting. Hell, even when I play my own music, I sometimes get emotions I didn't even realise I could evoke. I also find that I can react with violent emotions to songs that aren't supposed to cause them, just because that song is tied to some special occasion or moment in my life. We create emotional connections to things that go way beyond what the music means, and that's one of the things I find amazing about being a musician. It's like messing with explosives: you never know what might happen, but you know no one will get hurt if they explode. Now, as for things we *know*, yes, dissonance is closely tied to emotional expression. And I don't mean crazy chords or dodecaphonic melodies, no: you know when we play that 4th or that 7th over the major tonic chord? That's dissonance too. A lot of people will tell you that, in your melodies, the non-chord tones "have to resolve" to a chord tone, and yeah, they probably will, because music benefits from some kind of closure. But many times, it's the way they don't resolve that can stir up funny feelings in our belly--or the way we tease a resolution and postpone it, or take it somewhere unexpected. It's the way we **stress** those non chord tones that can make the ladies swoon and the guys nod approvingly in a very manly fashion. It's the contrast between consonance and dissonance, the tension of knowing the melody won't remain consonant for too long. And it's not just harmony: it's the rhythm too. It's the way notes fall on weak beats and create interesting syncopations, or the way that note falls on the "four-**and**" and stretches into the next bar, it's the rubato effect that makes the notes fall out of their "right" place in a way that sounds, you know, *human*. And it's in the dynamics too: the way a sound can be way louder or way quieter than it "should" be, and it hits us because of that. It's in the way that song goes on for three minutes without any drums, and then Phil Collins goes "**TA-DA-DUM-TA-DA-DUM-TA-DA-DUM-TA-DA-DUM-TA-DA-DUM!**" and we go *woah that's so cool*. I also see those things as "dissonances", and they're great. The fact that there are no cookbooks is at the same time scary and exciting. I mean, of course there are cookbooks for creating certain "emotions", but you can find so many examples that go against the cookbooks that you might as well burn them. It's scary, because it can give you the feeling of "what the hell should I do?", but exciting because of the feeling of "there are so many things I can do!". And this brings me to my final point: the most important thing for a musician, I believe, is to find *their own way* of expressing emotions. Not that this should happen right from the get go, or that is should be a looming goal casting a shadow over your creative process; this is the result of a long, complicated process of self-discovery, experimentation and study, and it doesn't really ever end. But you gotta find the things in you that ring true, that sound honest, and place your bets on them. Trust yourself, trust your intuition, and do it. Just don't forget the dissonances. Never forget the dissonances.

  4558. musictheory 2019-07-30 01:47:41 gitour
    Start by learning just the top two strings, as they will be most useful for chord pattern recognition. After awhile you'll just start remembering that A is the fifth fret on the E string or C is the third fret on the A string, and you can figure out other notes based on this knowledge. For example, if you know B is the 7th fret of the E string, you know the 8th fret on the same string is C. You also know the 9th fret two strings below is a B as well. Apps may help, but nothing beats physically playing the guitar to understand where the notes are. You'll begin recognizing all the patterns and it will become second nature.

  4559. musictheory 2019-07-30 01:55:36 ElectricPB
    1. Really get the E and A strings down. Fortunately on these strings the natural notes line up pretty closely with the fretboard inlays (G, A, B, C#, E on the E string for example). Since there are 2 E strings you now have half of the fretboard memorized. 2. The D and G strings have the same notes as the E and A strings, but shifted up 2 frets. This makes it easy to find notes on those strings if you are already solid on the first 2. 3. The B string sucks. You can think of it as an A string shifted down 2 frets, but if you know the other strings you can get pretty far without memorizing it anyway.

  4560. musictheory 2019-07-30 02:04:19 Jongtr
    Chord shapes. The so-called "CAGED system". I'mguessing you know those five open position chords (C A G E D). The idea is that every major chord (all 12) is playable using those 5 shapes in a linked 12-fret pattern which cycles. I.e., any chord can be played anywhere on the fretboard by choosing the nearest of those 5 shapes. Each shape comes with its own major scale of course, but the first thing (for learning the fretboard) is to know what notes are in a C major chord: C E G. Then every shape for a C chord up the neck (using the "A", "G", "E" and "D" forms) contains the same 3 notes. So you then have positions for 3 out of the 7 notes (don't worry about sharps or flats yet). That's like one chord (soundwise), 5 shapes, and you already have 3/7 of the fretboard learned.... The other useful thing is to memorise the ABCDEFGA formula, as whole and half-steps: |A|-|B|C|-|D|-|E|F|-|G|-|A| Apply that up any string (obviously starting with whatever the open string is), and that will help confirm specific notes on specific frets. I.e., these two strategies - and there are others - work together, support each other. The more pieces of the jigsaw you get, the faster you complete the rest.

  4561. musictheory 2019-07-30 02:51:36 sdokum
    Practice reading music; whether that is chord charts, treble clef notation for guitar, or bass clef notation for bass-lines. TAB notation obviously would not help since it provides a short-cut around the note names by telling you the fret and string directly. Chord chart notation works well for familiarizing yourself with the first two strings where the root note of the chord generally is. Bass lines work well for the first four strings on the low frets (E,A,D, and G strings, frets 0-5). To get through to frets 0-5 on all 6 strings you just need to add the B string since the high E string is the same as the low E string, just 2 octaves higher. Once you're there (or really before you get to that point) you can figure out the rest pretty quickly understanding how to jump move by octaves across the fretboard: - up two stings and up two frets (or up 3 between the D and B strings) - from an open string to the 7th fret of the next highest string - fret 12 is one octave higher than the open string For example say you want to know the note on the 9th fret of the G string. You know that one octave lower is the 7th fret of the A string, which is one octave higher than playing the next lowest string open, so E.

  4562. musictheory 2019-07-30 04:11:35 65TwinReverbRI
    So then do what they did. String chords together like they do. That's what they did - they learned a bunch of music by people they liked and then mixed up the ideas and created their own. That's how bands like this make music.

  4563. musictheory 2019-07-30 05:12:19 jazzadellic
    Start with only memorizing the natural notes, don't worry about sharps and flats. Once you have all the natural notes fairly well memorized you can find all the accidentals in relation to those. It helps to understand how the natural notes work in relation to each other - for example the notes B & C, and E & F have a half-step between them, all other neighboring natural notes have a whole-step between them. This means if you just memorize one note - you can easily find the neighboring notes on the same string by knowing their interval distance. For example, if you know where B is on the 6th string - you can easily find *C* a half-step up and *A* will be a whole-step back Knowing your major scale boxes up the neck can help with quickly finding notes as you simply apply the key signature to the pattern and go up or down alphabetically through the notes in that key signature. The single most dramatic improvement that I saw in my own memorization of the fretboard was practicing the same chord in as many positions as possible (CAGED system helps with this), and finding **all the extensions for each form of that chord in every position**. This caused me to spend a lot of time figuring out where all the various notes were in every position to try to add the extensions that I wanted. Studying jazz harmony will really boost this method as well since the style utilizes so many extensions and alterations. Also along with that it's helpful to take all the chord forms you already know and work on your memorization of the chord formulas for each chord type, and then name all of the pitches and/or scale degrees for each chord in each position.

  4564. musictheory 2019-07-30 10:56:15 ahal33
    The shapes are the same no matter what key you are in. The only difference is your starting point. For example, Am pentatonic first position starts on the 5th fret. Move everything up two frets to start on the 7th fret, and now you're in Bm pentatonic. As for major vs minor, you're seeing the same shapes for both because of relative minor and major scales. This means that the Am and Cmaj scales will have the same notes, but it will depend on which notes you emphasize, start, and end on that determine whether it sounds more like Cmaj or Am. Basically, in the first position of the pentatonic scale, the first note on the 6th string is the tonic (starting note) of the minor scale. The second note on the 6th string, which is three frets up, is your tonic of the major scale. Hope this helps.

  4565. musictheory 2019-07-30 15:27:07 UberZooks
    hi if you want to understand a lot of music theory piano is great, but not for understanding the math. I think any string instrument is amazing for this though. &#x200B; its fibonacci or golden ratio, rounded to make things happy, sad, or whatever the artest wants. [https://www.goldennumber.net/music/](https://www.goldennumber.net/music/) that seems pretty coincidental though lol. I didn't even read past the first two lines it may be more way more correct than me and in better detail when talking about the golden ratio. I aint got Hyperthymesia however if we look at the actual frequency numbers (I can't remember all this shit off the top of my head) pretty sure it's between flat 5 and perfect fourth. it's rounded down to perfect fourth. so if we play the sequence backwards we get like the circle of fifths. &#x200B; (literally can't remember this stuff off the top-o-my head could be wrong look it up or somebody correct me) pretty sure if I chug a beer and throw the can, if it bounces twice it'll be inverted 5th or something like that, don't quote me I just chugged. joking but this is where we get the equal temperment of the notes in the scale. The can naturally round to the closest harmonic option to quickly resolve left over dissonance in the can. seriously though I can't remember all that stuff, different 3D shapes make different patterns and stuff, but the container traps each resonance and so the next fits in line. &#x200B; violins basses and guitars any stringed instrument is crazy about that stuff. fret board measurements are all about that. cadencing and rhythm have very unique math as well. some say both should resemble human heart beat. some have more to do with intricate math that could be about anything. this is really not my strength though I'm rhythm challenged. somebody else help. lol I should have said "different notes" in the next part. scales and math is absolutely something you can not guess about. you have to memorize that stuff. 12 notes within the chromatic (lets not talk about the chords). 8 notes in the harmonic, but there is technically only 3 chords in this scale and realistically only 3 scales but each can fall into 4 different keys (once we get into separate keys and voicing of chords it gets really big again). 7 notes in the ionian major scale (again lots chords but because its the "nice one" don't forget 1-4-5, golden ratio, as well 2-5-1, there are more golden ratio patterns, as well keys can change relative to the major scale and as well the chromatic scale, example key of C (ionian) to Am (alorian) same notes, key of C (ionian) to D (ionian) two notes become sharp). Tonal Scale has 6 notes, but this one is weird I aint going to talk about the chords but there is only 2 different scales and its again like the harmonic scale where you can drop into different keys. pentatonic has 5 notes and is a pleasant scale. okay I feel overwhelmed I'm gonna stop have a good one.

  4566. musictheory 2019-07-30 16:11:49 MaggaraMarine
    The shapes are the same in every key - they are just shifted up or down. Key simply changes pitch but the distances between the notes stay the same. The key of D major is exactly the same as the key of C major - you just shift everything a whole step up. Basically, if the shapes for the pentatonic scale weren't the same in every key, it wouldn't be recognizable as the pentatonic scale. The minor pentatonic scale is made out of a certain interval pattern that is what makes it sound recognizable. There are only five different notes in it that repeat over and over again in different positions and octaves. The minor pentatonic scale is built using the following pattern: start from the root of your choice and go one and a half steps (3 frets) up. Then go a whole step (2 frets) up. Then another whole step up. Then go one and a half steps up. Then go a whole step up and you have reached the root again. For example if you start it on an open string and just play it on one string, the scale will be frets 0 3 5 7 10 12. If you wanted the root note to be on the 2nd fret instead, you would shift the whole pattern up 2 frets. And when it comes to Am and C major pentatonic, these scales are relative, so they are exactly the same notes (A C D E G), but the root of the scales is different (the root of Am pentatonic is A, whereas the root of the C major pentatonic is C).

  4567. musictheory 2019-07-30 16:23:56 Jongtr
    There are plenty of jokes in popular music. A famous one that was supposedly "intentionally badly written" was George Harrison's "Only a Northern Song". He was frustrated for some reason with the Beatles' publishers (Northern Songs Ltd) and his title and lyrics suggest it was meant to be an obvious throwaway: *If you're listening to this song* *You may think the chords are going wrong* *But they're not, he just wrote it like that* ... *And it doesn't really matter what chords I play* *What words I say or time of day it is* *As it's only a Northern song* On "going wrong" he switches to a sus and *minor* version of the V chord. In the bridge ("it doesn't really matter what chords I play"), he proceeds through a deliberately surprising sequence: it begins on the V (E) and goes through G, C#7, F#7, Bm, F#7, D, A, E. However, as you can see, there is a perfect functional logic all the way - with the possible exception of the lurch from E to G to C#7 ("chords I play"), and they all harmonise the B melody note. I.e., it's as if he set out to write a stupid song, because he knew he could get away with it (the dumb publishers would take anything he wrote), but couldn't help himself when it came to choosing chords: he didn't know the theory, but his ear took over to make them sound good. He knew how to "surprise", but he also know how to string a functional series together.

  4568. musictheory 2019-07-30 23:50:39 sdokum
    If the entire song is in D Dorain the key signature should be blank. You can think of that as the key signature of the "parent" (relative major) key of C major, or you could just think of it as the key signature for D Dorian. Do Dorian has no sharps or flats so that's what the key signature should indicate. > rather the standard approach is to play the modes scale relative to the parent major scale position on guitar. While this is efficient it gets clunky really quickly once you move 4 or so modes away from the root due to the modes root not being in the 5 or 6th string. I read through that a few times and still have absolutely no idea what you mean

  4569. musictheory 2019-07-31 01:19:56 ImDFsharpA
    yo, I know a dude who got perfect pitch one string at a time he was young though. I don't know how old you are but maybe. I don't really need to read more about perfect pitch though. I just want to learn how non perfect pitch people differ in the experience of music in their memory. I'm gonna read it because you are talking about keys. &#x200B; that kid I don't know anymore. but I do know people are different. some people can hear 1 note say a D, and the key is C. again I'm look at this stuff, but I don't know, this doesn't seem like the normal route. &#x200B; short from joining an actual ear training and just sitting there asking everybody about everything they are experiencing this is not saving me time.

  4570. musictheory 2019-07-31 08:22:11 ChuckEye
    If the song is in a minor key, you shouldn’t think of the root as La. If a song is in C# major, you know to put your root on the 4th fret of the A string. And if a song is in C# minor, you know to put your root on the 4th fret of the A string. Because in either case, C# is the root. If you say, oh, C# minor is just the E major scale starting on the 6th degree, while you would technically be correct, if will just make it harder for you to play than just learning the differences between the. Amir and minor scale starting from the same note.

  4571. musictheory 2019-07-31 12:45:44 jazzadellic
    Arranging an orchestral piece for piano, when you just recently started playing music is completely the wrong thing to be working on. You have to learn the basics first. You're setting yourself up for frustration and failure. It's like walking a mile and thinking you are ready for an ironman 100 mile marathon in one week, or taking a boxing lesson on Monday and thinking you are ready to fight Floyd Mayweather on Friday, or taking 3rd grade math glass and thinking you are ready to learn string theory...Even if you were an advanced musician, doing this task would be difficult with a high chance for failure. That's probably why all the smart people here are not stepping into this pile of doodoo - it's a waste of precious time trying to help someone with something that is years (more like decades) beyond their level. Do it right and start from the beginning like everyone on here did.

  4572. musictheory 2019-08-01 01:25:42 central_deficiency
    I think a lot of the atonality in a lot of extreme metal kind of touches on polymodality and polytonality. There's usually a difference between a random string of notes and a death metal riff that still sounds musical, and I think it comes down to the riffs using fragments of different scales. A common riff-writing trick I've seen is to come up with a small minor/Phrygian/octatonic-type pattern and transpose it chromatically a few times, maybe with some filler in between for variety.

  4573. musictheory 2019-08-01 05:41:23 Tsukuyomi_Shi
    Well relative pitch is the ability to hear two separate notes, and discern how many intervals apart they are. For instance if I played a C, and then played an F, someone with relative pitch could tell you that it's 5 semitones away. And while some people do have the ability to determine a note without reference, the difference is efficiency. Someone with absolute perfect pitch can go about their daily lives hearing a frequency being produced by anything, and know what note it is immediately. Someone who doesn't have absolute perfect pitch will need extensive training with a specific instrument to know what notes are being played. This is because of the unique color that each instrument gives. For example, if you play ukulele frequently, you can more than likely discern a C on it with ease, due to it being the lowest open string on the ukulele, so it's a lot easier for your brain to remember.

  4574. musictheory 2019-08-01 06:11:43 jolasveinarnir
    The violin family doesn’t really like having too many flats (a little harder to read due to open strings). They also have a set lowest note (their lowest open string), and like to have open strings. On wind instruments, only certain trills may be possible. Clarinets have a few notes in their middle range that are really annoying. Those are just a few examples off the top of my head for why even though the intervals might be the same, different keys are not all equal on all instruments.

  4575. musictheory 2019-08-01 07:04:37 film_composer
    ...Or because you want to write in a certain key? I'm trying to figure out if I'm just misunderstanding your comment and the replies to it, but if I want to write in F minor, it's because I want to write in F minor and my orchestration is influenced by that decision, not the other way around. I'm not going to base what key I'm writing in on the quirks of the instruments of my ensemble. "All keys sound the same" is reductionist and kind of nonsense. The *reason* keys have certain qualities may have come about backwards, but I think the idea that, for example, the key of E sounding more "orchestral" than "marching (or jazz) band" based on the fact that string instruments tend towards sharp keys and band instruments toward flat keys due to their construction (which lines up with your point about why composers choose keys) isn't invalid. Something in E tends toward a certain emotional characteristic in western music that something in A flat tends away from.

  4576. musictheory 2019-08-01 07:58:06 Scatcycle
    On "every" instrument though, there are various technical details (open strings, for one) that will make certain notes have a different timbre than others. String pieces should never be written and transposed to a different key for this very reason.

  4577. musictheory 2019-08-01 08:51:25 Scatcycle
    And it's detrimental to their music. Working in a certain key you will naturally write differently based on the unique characteristics of it. If you're in Bb, you may write more delicately given that there are no open strings and every line can have vibrato. Transpose that to D and you've lost the very vibrato that made your composition work so well. Obviously a specific example, but the idea is the same. Piano is considered to be in the percussion family, not strong family. Its strings are also not fingered, so comparing them to string instruments is asinine.

  4578. musictheory 2019-08-01 10:27:15 sdokum
    No for two reasons: 1) If you include the note an octave above the root, it's still a power chord. 35XXXX and 355XXX are both considered power chords. You might be tempted to call a chord progression of chords in the first format, with only the 1 and the 5 played "parallel fifths" but if you add the octave you have power chords that are more than just parallel fifths. 2) It's only parallel 5ths if the motion is parallel, but it's a power chord regardless of what comes before or after it. Consider a metal riff that alternates between a muted open E string and some two-note power chord. Clearly that wouldn't be parallel 5ths, but it certainly is still a power chord.

  4579. musictheory 2019-08-01 11:04:39 minertyler100
    Let’s say you write a string piece in the key of D major. You don’t like it in D and shift to Db. What could originally be played on the open D string now has to be played high on the G string, which has an entirely different way the overtones come out, thus entirely changing the ramble

  4580. musictheory 2019-08-01 19:37:44 fasti-au
    If your just taking about writing the melody and parts for say a rock band it’s fine......if you doing an orchestra. Write the core part in C the move to Eb or Bb I thing is the general rule.... The issue you have is that instruments have boundaries like a guitar will need special fingerings if you want it to play lower than its normal low e....droid and drop C can happen and baritone guitars exist but it’s a complication you don’t want. Same thing for any string instruments so building your harmonies are best done in the right key.....

  4581. musictheory 2019-08-01 20:03:04 autumn-grace
    to summarize, it seems like your position is halfway a between “keys have intrinsic emotional meanings” and “players play in different keys differently and it changes the feel of the tune.” the former is complete bullshit; we’re equal tempered. the only reason to play a song in the key of E as opposed to F is due to quirks of instruments and the voicings and register of that instrument playing that part in that key. the latter is...almost complete bullshit? a competent player should be able to play anything in any key, so again the only difference is things like “does my guitarist have the tonic on an open string” or “can my trumpet player hit these high notes”. if the musician playing your piece portrays the key of C by playing amateurishly, find a new musician to play your piece.

  4582. musictheory 2019-08-02 00:45:45 sdokum
    Don't tell me to calm down when you're the one who turned this into a childish argument with your stupid response. I'm not debating that individual pipes have some harmonics, but they are a hell of a lot closer to a pure sine wave than a vibrating guitar string is, so the whole underlying point of your initial reply - that power chords are "just added harmonics" is completely false. You're only trying to change the subject to organs because you know you are wrong about that.

  4583. musictheory 2019-08-02 01:00:46 sdokum
    > So according to you music theory is defined by how close you are to a sine wave ? So you realise how stupid this is ? WOW - if that's how you interpreted my response not only do you not know anything about acoustics but you also have a complete lack of reading comprehension. You're obviously just trolling at this point so this really isn't worth responding to. It's a simple concept that you might be able to understand if you stopped being a stubborn ass, or maybe even if you did calm down you're still just too stupid to understand it: A guitar string generates harmonics - it is not a pure sine wave, so when you play two non-octave notes together, you are adding sound at frequencies not included in the first note, thus not "just adding harmonics" but also adding new frequencies not included in the first note. I will not be responding to whatever immature bullshit you chose to write next, because it's clearly not worth wasting any more time arguing with someone who doesn't know the first thing about what we are talking about.

  4584. musictheory 2019-08-02 09:57:22 Unarmed_HiHat
    It’s less of the actual notes, more of what playing in certain keys allow for. For example, for stringed instruments, keys like E, A, and D allow for open string vocabulary. For piano, some techniques are impossible to do in C, like a pentatonic glissando (possible only in Gb maj, Eb min). Likewise, a diatonic glissando is only possible in the modes of C major. Trombone (ignoring bass/F-trigger) can’t scoop or gliss all intervals successfully. F to Bb is fun and easy, but F# to B is annoying and choppy. They’re subtle, but they’re there. (Yes I ripped half of this from Adam Neely)

  4585. musictheory 2019-08-02 22:35:27 bartonsmart
    Get a seven string guitar, tune it down to A or Ab, distort the shit out of it and only play in minor, phrygian or locrian.

  4586. musictheory 2019-08-03 09:12:04 Stringmaster29
    lol, been a session musician for about 3 decades. piano is *NOT* considered a perc. its considered a string. hahahahahaha

  4587. musictheory 2019-08-04 23:17:27 ifftw
    Right, thanks! The apps I’ve sound so far are giving me a way to learn something when I’m away from the cello and taking a break from work for a bit. I did find this, which is helping me memorize where the notes are in the staff, then which finger positions to use in general. http://cello.school.nz/. I don’t want to waste time in my lesson trying to remember things I should be able to memorize ahead if time. It’s super basic, but that’s my current level (still in my head I go through “that one is one above D, so it’s E sharp, that’s one finger on the D string.....”)

  4588. musictheory 2019-08-05 01:28:33 theoriemeister
    I found it rather 'meh.' At 1:25 of the video we see the few chords that make up the vast majority of all the chords Beethoven uses: Major mode: I, I6, V, V7, IV Minor mode: i, i6, I (probably secondary function?), V and V7 (noticeably absent is pre-dominant function) &#x200B; The harmonic content of Beethoven's string quartets are made up mostly of tonic and dominant chords. This is no surprise.

  4589. musictheory 2019-08-05 02:14:54 Xenoceratops
    > The harmonic content of Beethoven's string quartets are made up mostly of tonic and dominant chords. This is no surprise. Right, so most first-term theory students should be able to write like a Beethoven. Because, you know, chords = style.

  4590. musictheory 2019-08-05 02:58:00 65TwinReverbRI
    Take a step back. Take a breath :-) You have to be careful here. Every time I post something on this very forum, someone will pick one word out of it and have a semantic argument about it. Or, if you say "most" they read that as "all". Or "often" as "all the time". Also, you have to be careful with something like a number - I often will say "millions" when I don't specifically mean exactly 2 million, or 3 million, etc. but just "a lot". Because people get so miffed about this stuff sometimes I've caught myself second-guessing myself and using "countless" when talking about large numbers because I'm actually concerned that some poster is going to fly off the handle if I say "thousands" - actually it's happened. You get the smart aleck with "well, statistics actually show it's only in the hundreds". Ok ok, you know what I meant and you're just being - well, a douche. That said, I'm sure I've been guilty of it myself, so there's that. I'm still waiting at this point to use "countless" and someone will go, "but they're hours, you can't put countless hours in because you can actually count hours". It's just a phrase. ___________ Now, I'm going to say, I don't watch Beato. I saw one video when I was looking for information and the video was labelled one way, and presented something different. I therefore made the wide brush assumption that a mistake like that generally tends to indicate a more widespread lack of - at the very least - "class", and given the click-baity nature of the whole "You Tube Host" culture, I find that kind of behavior off-putting. There have been a few other things I didn't intentionally watch but was exposed to that also - at the very least, were off-putting to me. Now, I'm sure a lot of people here have read posts by me and been put off by my approach. But off-putting does not necessarily mean the information is wrong. But I don't really have any love for his videos, I just ignore them and go on with my life. So I'm not trying to defend him because I have no real reason to and I would be probably kind of quick to jump into the anti-Beato camp but honestly I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - I have a band mate who watches more and says negative things but also has some positive things to say - at the very least, we could give him credit for starting conversations about music - I suppose that's a good thing. So, since I'm not going to read the whole argument or thread, and I'm only getting one side of the story here, I would at least like to say, have you considered the possibility that you maybe took some things too specifically? Or even, just went in looking for a fight? You may not admit to that even if (or especially if) you're that way, but he might not be the only one being a douche here. Now, I don't know you, but given the very little experience I have with Beato, I also wouldn't say it's out of the realm of possibility for him to be wrong, exaggerating, trying to jump on controversial subjects to get views (how many seconds after the Katy Perry verdict did he have a video up?) or come off as a douche. He kind of came off that way to me the brief amount of time I spent with his videos. That said, I think most of the people doing this kind of thing are kind of "taking advantage" of people. Whether they intend to or not, they come off as, or are perceived as assuming an air of credibility and authority (but I can say the same thing happens to me here, so I think it's a natural thing). And I think people can be put off by this as well - so they're that much more likely to enter into an argument or try to disprove them. I can guarantee you that if I didn't have the "Music Professor" flair on my screen name that a lot of people who want to get into disagreements with me and pick on specific semantic issues and pull things out of context do so because they have some chip on their shoulder, and want to "get back" at someone they think is "abusing" a position of authority or "pretending" to be something they're not. However, I'm not going to insult someone or call them names if they respond negatively to something I've posted. I might inform them that they're getting bogged down in some term that was just used colloquially (and they don't ever seem to be able to see that) and I can tell you've I've done the same myself when "correcting" people. Some people don't like to be "corrected" (even when they ask to be a lot of times!!!). I'm willing to make a mistake, but I think getting into a back and forth on an internet forum is juvenile and I personally have better things to do with my time. I ignore it and move on. _______ I agree that we don't really have any evidence that "all", "most", or even "many" great composers had Perfect Pitch aside from Mozart. I think we can assume "some" of them did just by the nature of its natural occurrence within the population. But it's kind of like thinking that all of the people who survived the Plague had a natural immunity. "Some" did, but some people just weren't exposed to it. Now, since we can't check if these people truly had a natural immunity or not, the number could be higher - OR LOWER - than what we would assume. That's all supposition. ______ Now all *that* said, are there benefits to having PP? Absolutely (pun intended). To think there are not would be silly. It's an ability just like any other. Is it an asset to be tall in Basketball? Yes. Pretty obviously. Does that mean shorter people can't play? No. Does it mean they're at a disadvantage? Only in that one aspect. Is that advantage crucial? No. Is it beneficial? Yes. We have a student at my university who sings in a vocal ensemble and who has PP. Ordinarily they'd use a pitch pipe to get their pitch. Now they have him - a human pitch pipe. If they forget the pitch pipe, or there's no piano or other reference pitch available, and no one has their phones, they've got him. But, another example is, if someone is playing back a score, and there's supposed to be an A, a person with perfect pitch could tell you that there's a wrong note, it's not A, and is X instead. Could a person with great relative pitch do this? Yes. But the advantage here would be that it takes a person decades to achieve great relative pitch that would operate at this level where a person with PP just has it. There are as many examples as there are to having a 22nd fret on a guitar, or a 7th string on a guitar. Or the low B foot on a Flute. They're not NECESSARY for making music, or even making good music or being great at music, but they can certainly have small and useful benefits. And I think that's where some people get a little "anti-PP" - they feel the need to go the opposite and disprove how PP is in any way advantageous. _____ It is a useful ability - if you know how to put it to use. It's just like anything - a tool. I have 5 students right now with PP - they can tell you the names of the notes of a chord I play on the piano - BUT - because they don't have as much knowledge as they ultimately will, they can't name what kind of chord it is. "It's got an E, G#, D, and G" but they don't know it's an E7#9 (in some cases). Sometimes though, I've heard it can be a disadvantage as well. When a friend of mine in grad school took his entrance exam, he couldn't do the harmonic transcription that was on tape - because the tape ran at an inconsistent speed. He has PP, but couldn't identify the notes because they were "between the cracks" because of the out of tune tape. See me, that didn't bother me because I had no clue what the starting pitch was unless someone told me :-D. But because he had relied on his PP his whole life, his relative pitch had been ignored, and here was a situation where he floundered - though it's not the PP that caused this, but his sole reliance on that and not gaining more knowledge/skills beyond it. So it probably becomes a shortcut for some and in that way is not a great thing. Finally, there are enough people with PP who do NOT become great musicians or composers. So it's a useful ability for a musician to have if they learn how to use it to their advantage, as well as not ignoring the other things every other good musician learns, but it's not a necessary element to being a great composer and not the sole element that makes those with it automatically better or greater than those without it. More importantly maybe, we need to encourage those with it to learn to use it to their advantage while also learning everything else a mere mortal musician does, and those who think they have it or seek it to stop worrying about it so much and learn to read standard notation.

  4591. musictheory 2019-08-05 06:52:08 HyperDaarkness
    So I played this progression today, I played it in an arpeggio, from the lowest notes to the highest. And it gave a feel like it's building up towards something. In the key of Dm, i-III-VII Which are these chords (Dm | F | C) on the last chord I play the C note that's on my 8th fret of the lowest E string, instead of the 3rd fret of my A string. Which sounds better for some reason imo. So what is it that makes this progression feel like it's building towards something and what do you suggest I play next to relieve the sense of building up and the tension.

  4592. musictheory 2019-08-05 08:14:06 65TwinReverbRI
    I think so (side effect). I remember being young and into metal and the whole "rebellious youth thing" and I didn't really like "pretty music" - you know you want loud, angst-ridden, moody, brooding music and all that. You want that aggressiveness. Now I lie a bit - I really liked the guitar solo in "Keep on Loving You" by REO Speedwagon because I thought it was so beautiful. And there were certainly things like the opening to "Women in Love" by Van Halen that I liked - but usually there was also something else going on like some complexity in the writing, or sustainy guitar tone and so on. But yeah, mostly "heavy" "hard" "fast" "punk" etc. stuff. I though Journey ballads were nice, but Neal Schon still played heavy guitar parts a lot of times and often had some out of left field shreddy like that was just crazy. I studied Classical music in college of course. And I tended to gravitate towards the same stuff - Beethoven 7 is essentially "heavy metal" to me. Loud, bit, orchestral stuff. I was over the moon with Stravinsky (wow, where did that colloquialism come from - I think I just channeled my grandma for a minute there), R. Strauss, the Prelude to Tristan und Isolde, I even liked the crazy dissonances of Monterverdi and Gesualdo. Worst thing you could do at that time was have a Slow Movement (Adagio) in C Major. I wanted the agony portrayed in Dido's Lament, or Purcell's funeral music for queen mary. I wanted the soundtrack to Forbidden Planet rather than some C Major "pretty" tune. I think the turning point was when I heard a Haydn Symphony with something in a Major Key (not necessarily C, but Major) that was just sublime to me. Then for a while I remember saying, "I don't like most Major Key movements especially slow movements, except by Haydn, he's the only one that can write them and not be CORNY!". To this day I'm not crazy about the B section in Beethoven's S7 slow movement - the Am section is just amazingly sublime - but then it gets what I'd call "corny" in the B section (where it moves to Major). I still kind of feel that it "ruins the piece" in a way. But the Haydn Symphonies I listened to (or maybe it was a String Quartet or something) had these amazingly beautiful moments that were essentially very "tame" compared to other music - at least on the surface. This is not the piece, but this is an example of something I might have thought was too "pretty" or "corny": https://youtu.be/aojgXEZ86xI?t=337 I guess this could be sappy but what I came to realize with pieces like this is that while they're not overly dissonant or "aggressive", there can still be this subtle tension going on but most people wouldn't describe it that way (funny correlation in a different setting - I find the vocals in a lot of Tool songs to be that way - there's this "subtle intensity" going on a lot of times when he's not pushing). So there's this subtle intensity that doesn't sound harsh, or tense. And this is a basic C Major Melody. The melody is almost just a simple folk tune or nursery song. but what Haydn does with it is just amazing and sublime - how he maintains interest is something that everyone interested in composing should study. Subtle variation with chromatic passing tones - but not in a "sappy" way like a Schubert might have done (ducks head as Schubert lovers throw lace handkerchiefs at me - that's a joke, people, sorry couldn't help it). There is of course some dissonance, and some chromaticism, but it's all very tame by some other standards. And as the piece goes on , more cool things happen with this (that make it subtly build in even more intensity, with some additional dissonance and chromaticsim, but not over-the-top). Now again this isn't the piece that turned me on to it and maybe if this one was the one I listened to I might not have gotten it. Here's another one, this time actually in C: https://youtu.be/ZeDpjfrIoW0?t=2094 Again, a stupidly simple C Major melody. The important thing is this downward leap. I call this the "Can do" sonata because it reminds me of that old song "can do, can do..." But what he does with this downward leap motive is brilliant. It's pure craftsmanship all the way. I mean it's all just chords in the key with some chromatic notes and of course a V7 but nothing I think most people would call "tense" or "dissonant". And it's not even "subtly intense" like that slow movement above. It's just, well, Happy. So again I was like, "Haydn is the only one that can write happy music in major without it being corny". But what I realized along the way is that very often this is as brilliant as the writing in a lot of the brooding pieces - and maybe harder to pull off because you don't have that facade of brooding to hide behind - one that automatically sort of gives you a "cheat" (though at the time I'm sure that was not the case as this is more how we hear these things now). But something else I realized is that the simplicity is NECESSARY in order to focus on these other ideas like the motive development - you can't have "emotion" getting all in the way here - it would detract from the craftiness of the writing! So again, I was like - and still am like - Haydn is the master craftsman. Now I've picked up on this in other music by other composers as well but it kind of took that "breakthrough" for me to - I guess, "mature" and stop playing this game with myself of trying to always be angry and rebellious and try to let myself appreciate happiness that is crafted in brilliant ways. It's what allowed me to like movies like Mary Poppins which I would have never been caught dead watching as a teen, but came to appreciate as an adult because of the pure craftsmanship and talent in the writing and performances - and everything about it. It didn't all have to be "The Wall" (which I saw multiple times in High School). Still won't be caught dead watching a chick flick and I commented once at a Schubert recital "if I hear one more appoggiatura I'm going to scream" (I kid, I pick on Schubert, but I did actually say that). I'm not a fan of gratuitous stuff - shreddy guitar solos for the sake of shreddy guitar solos, virtuosic violin pieces for the sake of virtuosic violin, sappy music for the sake of being sappy, or overly bombastic music for the sake of you've heard nothing past the Romantic Period and are stuck in it, er, I mean for the sake of being bombastic. But I can appreciate being corny for effect, or having a shreddy lick in for effect - i.e. when they suit the music. But I've realized a lot of what I thought was "corny" was not so corny after all (though I still think some things are corny, and some are intentionally corny to good comedic effect). But I had to learn to find something "deeper" than just "this is slow, and major, and sounds "too pretty". Pretty is not so bad, when there's a lot of depth there.

  4593. musictheory 2019-08-05 08:46:31 PoggersLro
    Yea of course, but that's equal temperament. That's when you have complete control of tuning like in a fretless string instrument or singing. Most others don't tune perfectly.

  4594. musictheory 2019-08-05 10:47:06 SkyhouseStudio
    No, not at all. - Pretty much every singer is better in some keys than in others, and by far the most common reason to record a song in an "odd" key (e.g. C#/Db) is to accomodate a singer's range. Tons of classical and operatic pieces were constructed to showcase a particular note that a particular singer was great at singing. If the singer could hit a beautiful high F# at the top of her range, that might be set as either the fifth for a cadence or as the root key of the song. - Different instruments lend themselves to different keys. How many jazz songs are written in Bb to accommodate the horns who will be playing lead? And like, every metal song is either written in E minor, D minor, or some drop-tuning version of the open bottom guitar string. Open strings on string instruments have a different tonal quality, and it makes sense to exploit that. And so on...

  4595. musictheory 2019-08-05 14:28:21 SirCacto
    I think that playing scales on your instrument thinking about the notes (and not fingerings) is the best way to do it. For guitarists, single string scales are the best for this purpose. Everyday I shuffle the 12 keys (use also modes to increase difficulty) on a Excel sheet, then I start from the low E string and play the first major scale. The thing is that you don't start from the tonic of the scale, but from the lowest possible note. For example, if C came up as first key, on the low E string I'd play: E F G A B C D E. Then move on with the 2nd scale on the A string. It's great because moving horizontally and always starting from a different grade really forces you to think about notes.

  4596. musictheory 2019-08-05 17:06:18 Jongtr
    > I can typically do this with guitar and identify E and then figure out what it’s doing from there Me too. This is called "pitch memory" or "tonal memory", and I think of it as a kind of "imperfect pitch". It's actually pretty common (much more common than true absolute pitch.) I can tune a newly strung guitar to within a half-step of concert, because I know what the 6th string sounds like when it's in tune. I'm not so good with the other strings (I know when they're out, individually, but not always by how much).. And what helps with the low E is that's about the lowest note I can comfortably hum - I can go lower, but I know how it *feels.*

  4597. musictheory 2019-08-05 22:56:14 sdokum
    Don't memorize them, understand them by studying the circle of 5ths. C is at the top. Moving clockwise goes up a 5th from C to G to D to A etc, and a sharp is added to the key signature at each step. The added sharp falls on the 7 of the key you just moved to. Move from G to D for example and you add a C# since C is the 7th note in the D major scale. That's sometimes easier to think of as the last sharp being a half step below the tonic. Moving counter-clockwise (going down a 5th) we add flats, with the added flat falling a perfect 4th higher than the tonic. For example when we go from C to F we add a Bb a 4th higher than F. If we go from F to Bb we add an Eb a perfect 4th higher than Bb, etc. So when you're reading a key signature, if it's a sharp key you take the last sharp and go up a half step to find the tonic. If it's a flat key (other than F which you just have to memorize as the key with one flat) you look for the second-to-last flat to find the tonic. For example in the key with 3 flats they are listed in order as Bb, Eb, and Ab. The second to last flat is therefore Eb, which is the tonic of the key - this is the key of Eb major. Part of this involves the ability to quickly identify which notes are separated by fifths, or how to quickly find the note a perfect 5th above or below a given note. There are a number of ways to do this: - Count. C-D-E-F-G for example - 5 notes, so C to G is a 5th. Then you just have to remember that all natural 5ths are perfect except for the one between B and F which is diminished. - Use a mnemonic device like the one /u/throwawayAcc16777216 suggested - Picture the interval on a keyboard. Place each of your 5 fingers on white keys to find the fifth between the note on your thumb and pinky, which is perfect unless both natural half steps (B-C and E-F) are both within that range from thumb to pinky. - (my preferred method) Picture the interval on lowest strings of a guitar or bass. A perfect 5th is up one string and up to frets. For example to find a perfect 5th above F (first fret of the E string) go up to the A string and up 2 frets from the 1st to the 3rd to find C.

  4598. musictheory 2019-08-06 20:56:10 Musicalassumptions
    You can develop your relative pitch to be reliable, but developing perfect pitch is like changing your physical height if you don’t have it hard-wired from the get-go. I know. I come from a family where almost everyone has perfect pitch. I wanted it since childhood, and have tried in every way to develop it. I do have very good relative pitch, and good instrument-based (timbre) pitch recognition, and I can feel the emotional relationships of harmonies between keys, but I cant identify a chord out of context (knowing intellectually what is going on) or pull any pitch out of thin air. My brothers could. Immediately. Take the instrumental crutches away, and I’m lost. But I’m not lost because I know my musical experience is rich, and I know that I can hear in a way that goes beyond the basic pitch: tone colors, overtones, and density or transparency of sound. I can write original melodies that sound interesting because my memory is free from the labels that come with the notes for people who have perfect pitch. Sure, I often have to figure out what a note is in order to write it down, but I have come to see it as a benefit rather than as a handicap. A side note: I was playing along with an old LP recording of a Haydn string quartet the other day, and noticed that my open strings seemed to be out of tune. Otherwise everything was fine. Then I realized that the recording was about half a step sharp. I just continued, and avoided open strings. A person with perfect pitch would not have been able to do that. Or enjoy the recording while following the score. This is a long reply, but you might save time and frustration by accepting your ears as the personal wonders they are, and spend your time developing as a musician instead of wasting it by trying to develop perfect pitch.

  4599. musictheory 2019-08-06 23:07:49 kamomil
    It's unnecessary, for sure. At one level, a piano player never needs to worry about the pitch of the keys because they are all fixed anyhow. The same for a music producer who plays sounds from a DAW program. A violinist or other string instrumentalist, needs to worry more about pitch because they are directly in control of the pitch. However, it's all relative to the other notes of the scale. If they are a quarter tone flat, as long as all the notes are in tune with each other, it should sound fine. As long as all the musicians in a band are playing to the same reference note, no one needs to have perfect pitch. What's necessary is good relative pitch, and learning every scale and chord on your instrument.

  4600. musictheory 2019-08-07 06:35:46 Jongtr
    I assume you mean what scale from the open strings and those frets on each string? The notes would be: D string: D-F-G G string: G-Bb-C B string: B D E It is very close to a kind of mixed G blues scale: G minor blues = G Bb C Db D F G major blues = G A Bb B D E In fact, blues usually combines those two scales anyway: giving you G A Bb B C Db D E F. You're just missing the A and Db.

  4601. musictheory 2019-08-07 21:19:47 Jongtr
    The rabbit hole it leads down is a mathematical one, not a music theory one. :-) Consonance is down to simple ratios between frequencies. The frequencies of the notes in a perfect 5th are in a 3:2 ratio (almost exactly). The tritone ratio is a lot more complex. The reason simple ratios work is that every musical note contains overtones, which are multiples of the fundamental frequency (the main pitch we hear). So notes in simple ratios will share overtones, giving a sense of blending. For notes in more complex ratios, their overtones will all clash. If you happen to be a guitar player (sincere apologies if not :-D), the fret layout is revealing. When you halve the string length, you get an octave above the open string note. That point is marked by the 12th fret. So the octave itself appears as the first division we make. It's a 2:1 ratio. The next division of the string is into 3rds, and those points are marked by frets 7 (2/3) and 19 (1/3). Fret 7 is the perfect 5th, the note with a 3:2 ratio with the open string. So already, the first division of the octave - according to *acoustic* principles - is an irregular one: 7+5. The next simplest division is 3/4, which is marked by fret 5. Fret 6 - the tritone - is not a simple fraction of the string at all. *The division of the octave is a result of simple string divisions* (or similar divisions of a pipe in a wind instrument, and so on). If you want to go further down this rabbit hole, I recommend [this site](http://www.peterfrazer.co.uk/music/tunings.html). But remember - none of this matters to a musician! You don't have to understand any of it. Follow as far as your curiosity takes you.

  4602. musictheory 2019-08-07 22:52:34 ChekYoPrivilege
    Thanks for the detailed reply! It is indeed a rabbit hole I do not want to go down. I'm learning guitar now, but I also play another stringed instrument, and it is as you say. Halfway down the string you get the octave and the harmonic, which I suppose is both halves of the string vibrating at the octave. The overtone thing was especially cool because that means that particular keys and chords probably have more or less consonance and dissonance based upon the physical structure of the instrument, so I'll be listening for that.

  4603. musictheory 2019-08-07 23:54:48 conclobe
    String orchestra+Jazzquartet (drumset, bass, piano, guitar)+percussionist

  4604. musictheory 2019-08-08 03:44:45 BartoksDick
    Bro, lay off the B-string bRo; ain't no chromatic mediant shit goin' down those parts brO

  4605. musictheory 2019-08-08 05:00:21 Laogeodritt
    Also worth noting that in just intonation, the perfect fifth is exactly a ratio 3:2, so for A4=440Hz that's exactly E4=660Hz. (You'd be most likely to hear this in a symphonic or chamber string ensemble or similar, or tuning symphonic strings by ear.)

  4606. musictheory 2019-08-08 07:29:13 kaumaron
    The first four bars are octaves with the open string (E) functioning as a pedal tone/note. The next couple are power chords (root-fifth) with the open A as a pedal tone. The way I think of it is that the functional part is the octave or the power chords that drive the rhythm or Melody while the pedal tone is keeping the medoly line connected or grounded because of the common note.

  4607. musictheory 2019-08-08 07:43:30 65TwinReverbRI
    No prob. Yours is a common situation - or, we could call it "rookie mistake" - and that is composers (or fledgling composers) trying to tackle forms and ensembles they're not ready for (also people who write a Symphony, String Quartet, etc. as their first piece). If it sounds "clunky" it could be that it is clunky! MuseScore is free and you can create something and then post it to the site and then link to it. It's pretty easy. Not sure how similar Noteflight is.

  4608. musictheory 2019-08-08 11:25:20 Aethenosity
    > Like a piano or guitar Guitar isn't fixed pitch. You simple bend the string

  4609. musictheory 2019-08-08 15:06:40 The_Original_Gronkie
    A guitar could bend a string up, which would raise it a quarter step, so you would have to bend the note that is a half step down.

  4610. musictheory 2019-08-08 17:54:23 Robot_Embryo
    The Persian instrument is called Setar; Sitar (seetar) is Indian. The first vowel rhymes with "bed" or "led". It's name comes from the words "seh", which means 3, and tar, which means string. It was originally a 3 stringed lute, before a 4th string was added a couple hundred years ago in response to the increased sonic range of western classical instruments. .

  4611. musictheory 2019-08-08 18:16:01 Kemaneo
    The string is divided where the right hand hand touches the string.

  4612. musictheory 2019-08-08 19:08:52 Jongtr
    Pinch harmonics are a type of so-called "artificial harmonic", meaning they are normally played from fretted notes, not open strings. But the principle is the same: you are stopping the whole string from vibrating - by touching it - but touching at a fractional point so the string can still vibrate in those fractions when you pick it (to one side of where you're touching. You know about the nodes (touch points) at frets 12 and 7 - and 19 is the same as 7 (3rd harmonic). That's dividing the string into 1/2 (12) and 1/3 (7 or 19). Artifical harmonics - whether you play them "harp style" or "pinch style" - will also work from fretted notes, if you find those same fractions of the *active* string length. E.g., if you are fretting a string at fret 6, then the octave (1/2) harmonic node is over fret 18, and the 1/3 is over fret 13 (and would be over fret 25 too if you had one). I.e., a lot of pinch harmonics are found at string fractions measured from the bridge, the nodes being somewhere between the highest fret and the bridge. But they are always exact fractions of the string lenghth netween the bridge and whatever fret you're playing. The most useful pinch harmonic is probably the 4th, the double octave (1/4 string length), because it gives you the same note you're fretting, just two octaves up. If you want to find that distance from the bridge, just look at the distance between your fretted note and 5 frets above, and estimate the same distance from the bridge. NB: assuming you're playing electric guitar, nodes that are directly above a pickup won't work - at least that pickup won't (er) pick it up, simply because the string is dead at that point, not moving. You need another PU to be on. I.e., always have at least two PUs on to be sure of catching whatever pinch harmonic you're finding. Most players who use pinch harmonics don't - of course - measure distances, they just find them as happy accidents.

  4613. musictheory 2019-08-08 19:42:59 Jongtr
    >tremolo pickup Treble pickup. ;-) Yes, that's one least likely to have a node above it. There's no such thing as a "sweet spot" in the same place on any string (that's one of those myths that some guitarists love). It's about fractions of the string from wherever you are fretting, so the node positions will change all the time. No doubt - due to pickup position - some nodes (i.e. from some fretted notes) will work better than others, but that only means the "sweet spot" depends on what fret you're playing.

  4614. musictheory 2019-08-09 00:23:53 Kemaneo
    Eb minor, Bb minor and G# minor are all associated with deep regret because you'll deeply regret your choice of key during the string recording session.

  4615. musictheory 2019-08-09 00:23:54 caters1
    So, wait a minute, are you suggesting that I focus on the Fate Motif subject and make my fugal variation of Beethoven's fifth a stretto heavy fugue instead of trying to incorporate all of the first theme of Beethoven's fifth like I would in say another variation where I try to fit the theme into triple meter? And yeah, I do notice that similarity between Bach's subject and Beethoven's Fate Motif(starts off the beat, accenting the note after the eighths making it feel like the downbeat, 3 eighths before it moves down). The only real difference I hear besides length(Bach's subject is longer), dynamic(Beethoven's Fate Motif is louder), and instrumentation(Solo piano vs Orchestra(though for my Theme and Variations, I decided to trim it down to a string quartet to make things easier)), is that it moves down a fifth after the eighths in Bach's fugue and it moves down a third in Beethoven's fifth. But, even Beethoven does have the Fate Motif move down a fifth when he gets to the second theme of the first movement.

  4616. musictheory 2019-08-09 00:24:00 conalfisher
    There are 2 real answers to this question and they're both technically correct. From a purely theoretical standpoint, they're all the same, in out tuning system the distance between each note is exactly the same so they all sound the same regardless of the root note. However, while this may be the case for an instrument such as the piano, for an instrument such as the guitar or violin or pretty much all woodwind instruments, certain keys will sounds slightly different. Not hugely different, but there will be a noticeable difference between certain keys on certain instruments. On a violin, for example, the keys used are often based on the open string notes, the notes played without fingers. These being G D A E. For one, it's *generally* easier to play in these keys, but also the open string notes sound a lot richer than others. So if you're in G major and you play a big V-I and land on the open G chord, it'll sound really, really nice. So from a theoretical standpoint there's no difference, from a timbral perspective there is, though the differences are not very defined, certainly not into different emotions. Generally this isn't something you have to worry about unless you're doing something really advanced, which you shouldn't be doing at this stage. When picking keys, just pick whatever key you want really. If you're planning on playing it on an actual instrument, you'd want to think more about what keys are easier to play rather than what minute differences there are timbrally. If you really want to go off the rails with this (which I highly advise against), you could experiment with older tuning systems. In our system of 12 tone equal temperament, all keys are the same, but in an older system, such as meantone temperament, there are real tangible differences between keys. Of course, tuning to meantone is pretty much impossible on most modern instruments. You could find a piano to it maybe, but not much else (also tuning a piano is expensive as fuck). You could do it with a fretless string instrument I suppose, if you could work out where to offset your fingerings when playing, but that'd be, like, really fucking hard. Also, as a warning, if you're going to research tuning systems you're eventually going to come across the A=432hz idea, and I'd just like to say that you should completely disregard any of that bullshit. It's all based on making tuning numbers look nicer while never actually playing music with it and showing that they sound terrible, and shrouding it all in a bunch of spiritual nonsense. Unless you want to indulge in microtonality (don't) don't bother with changing the pitch that A is tuned to.

  4617. musictheory 2019-08-09 01:13:52 nthexum
    A lot of unaccompanied string music will automatically use intervals based on just intonation, because the players will adjust their intonation to resonate against the open strings, giving them the fullest tone. Instruments that are capable of changing their intonation will often use these intervals when tuning harmonies together as well. You've probably heard a lot of good music that is technically "microtonal", but only noticed when it creates a jarring sound you don't like. Usually when JI is used, to most people's ears it will just sound in tune.

  4618. musictheory 2019-08-09 06:53:17 Cryptonomicon63
    I am pretty much in the same boat, bought a second hand guitar perhaps 25 years ago as one of those great ideas which proceeded to sit in the corner for quarter of a century. Decided to dust it off and replace all the parts. While waiting for the usps and australia post to do their glacial thing have literally spent the last month learning the patterns and relationship of notes on just the neck - no body, no strings - just a piece of wood... To make some sense of of things I asked myself the question of what is the closest note in terms of the ratio between the length of the string - if it had strings - and the distance that I would put my finger on the piece of wood. Half would be an octave - but what is the next closest? Turns out it is the fifth - which I find out the music guys called the dominant. - its ratio in terms of the the number of multiples of its wavelength (distance up the piece of wood I am trying to work out) and the wavelength of my original note is 3:2 - its sonically "close" in terms of integer eigennumbers for those that have studied math. The fourth that is called the subdominant is pretty close as well. So now I had a root note - any place I put my finger on the fret board - and the note five notes away and it turns out the basis for a lot (but not all) chords and modes. Anyway with my root and newly discovered dominant (and subdominant) I have a scale of sorts, Root (space to be filled in) Subdominant (Whole) Dominant (more space). So how do I fill in the missing spaces on each side? Lets try: (Root) W W H (Subdominant) Whole (Dominant) W W H Turns out this is the major scale - light bulbs go off - fingers start tingling - am getting real impatient now - pickups are at LA airport according to usps . All the other modes just fall out including some non classical ones. Your fourth and fifth notes together with the root form a sort of mathematical and sonic framework that you will in with a sort of "colour" different permutations of WWH on each side. ie WHW (Whole) HWW which it urns out is the minor scale. You can also try separating the fourth and fifth by half a note which leaves you with WWW on one side and various combinations of WWH on the other. Turns out there are more of these ways of filling in the space than the 7 modes - but the 7 modes are nice easy cycles of the same pattern of WWH W WWH that can be found by starting the sequence of intervals at a different step. So now I am at the point of learning to visualise where the half note groups BC and EF live on the fretboard. On a guitar these form groups that cluster next to each other. If I can visualise where these are, then I know whats on either side of them. On the piano I would say the same thing. Pickups across the pacific, australian customs - australia post .... maybe another week. Anyway short story went long - am like an old dog with a new chew toy here that every time I look at it reveals a new and exciting dimension Its like an abstract mathematical puzzle of amazing complexity - and that is without playing a note.

  4619. musictheory 2019-08-09 07:20:54 No_Vi
    I've been using it with a constant E pedal, playing a melody on the A string with the E constantly ringing out below it. It forces E as the root but it still sounds sort of on edge and unresolved, but I like that about it.

  4620. musictheory 2019-08-09 10:14:53 AENEMIAH
    Whatever the first chord us. But Make sure to downstroke and hit every string.

  4621. musictheory 2019-08-09 11:26:02 BadMotherFolklore
    If it's guitaristic, sometimes all I need is the clue of an open string or a first position chord and then the rest of the analysis falls out of that. I I only know one note and it's a standard progression or related to one, I can fake the song from there.

  4622. musictheory 2019-08-09 17:02:16 MaggaraMarine
    It's important to remember that not everyone can do this. This is either absolute pitch or really good pitch memory. People without these skills will not be able to accurately memorize keys of songs (and to my understanding, these are skills that people either naturally have or they don't, though pitch memory can be developed to some degree). When I hear a song in my head, I may hear it in the original key or in a completely different key, so I couldn't trust this method. To me, no key has a certain character that I could associate with a certain song. I'm pretty familiar with the sound of the low E string and certain open chords, so when I hear that, I can tell what they are without a reference, but if someone asked me to sing the low E, I couldn't do it. I can only hear it, and it's probably about the combination of the note and the timbre of the instrument. When I recognize the key of a song, I listen to tension and resolution and find the note that sounds most resolved/stable/like home. Then I sing that note and find it on my instrument. Listening to the chords makes this easier.

  4623. musictheory 2019-08-10 08:17:42 sdokum
    > The keyboard gives the most transparent and straightforward view of pitch relationships While I agree that the keyboard is your best bet for learning theory, there are some things about "pitch relationships" that knowing a chromatic instrument like the guitar makes a lot easier. Specifically what I mean by this is intervals - easily being able to determine the interval between two notes by picturing their positions on the fret-board and knowing the intervals as the shape made by connecting the two points. A perfect 5th is up two frets on the next highest string. A minor third is down two frets on the next highest string, etc. Where the piano becomes the better instrument for theory is in understanding keys, since it is not a chromatic instrument but instead with a distinction between notes in the key of C (white keys) and notes not in the key of C (black keys).

  4624. musictheory 2019-08-10 09:40:37 sdokum
    The B sting doesn't really get in the way of the interval reference idea because you cover a full octave in the first 3 strings. So no matter what interval you are trying to figure out you can picture it without using the B string. Now I'm curious - what is your process to do this? If you want to figure out what note is a minor 6 above B, what is your mental process like? What I do is picture B as the 2nd fret of the A string, than either go up 3 frets on the next highest string (the D string) to the 5th fret which is a G note, or figure the inversion by going down a major 3rd to the G on the 3rd fret of the low E string.

  4625. musictheory 2019-08-10 10:22:46 sdokum
    Oh don't get be wrong - the B string definitely makes it more confusing and harder to learn, just doesn't get in the way of the interval trick. What you describe - minor 6 because the G is natural in the key of B minor - is what I learned in high school music theory. If it works for you there is no reason to change but to a beginner student who hasn't yet internalized all of the major and minor key signatures it works something like this. 1) forget about the key of the song you are playing 2) find the key signature for B minor 2.1) remember that the relative major is 1-1/2 steps above the minor, so B minor shares a key signature with D major 2.2) remember that D is a sharp key and a half step below D is C# so that is the last sharp and the order of sharps is F,C.... so C is the second sharp thus the key signature has 2 sharps 3) count up from B to C, D, E, F, G - minor 6 above B must be some kind of G 4) the G is natural in the key of D major so minor 6 up from B must be G natural! Confusing to say the least. I distinctly remember the whole class stuggling with it except for me and one other guitar player.

  4626. musictheory 2019-08-10 11:27:29 Cezoone
    It wouldn't be too hard (just a lot of busybody work) to define parameters which make up a correct measure in some time signature. Additionally there are rules for converting between certain time signatures so any measure of ie quarter notes in 4/4 can be converted to a measure of eighth notes in 2/4, etc. So there are a lot of methods like that you could use to generate all the permutations. Generate every possible measure and string them next to eachother in an extremely large document with Lilypond (sheet music typesetting) if you wanted, perhaps make the typeset insanely small so you could fit it into a large book, afterall it doesn't need to be a useful document, just contain every permutation. Ahhh I'm realizing now you were talking about the recognition part of it. Well yeah, that's definitely a lot harder than the generation, and I'm not sure of the state of that. I could indeed be wrong, I'd assume that the algorithms youtube or anyone else does to attempt to identify a song playing is more analyzing its waveform and comparing it to a known waveform, with some transformations and whatever else. Thinking more, I can easily believe that auto-transcription is a hard and essentially open problem.

  4627. musictheory 2019-08-10 17:42:43 GretschElectromatic
    The piano is like a guitar with one really long string. &#x200B; Oh yeah, the guitar is an octave instrument. You have to shift the sheet music up one octave.

  4628. musictheory 2019-08-10 18:51:53 victotronics
    You say "producer" and "engineering". I suggest that you need a broad music knowledge rather than proficiency on any instrument. And please more than just keyboards and guitar. Pick up a flute and some reed instrument, learn why flute parts written on keyboard are usualy nonsense, and why a flute and a clarinet behave differently. Pick up a bowed string instrument to learn about bowing and string crossing, and again why string parts written on a keyboard are regularly unrealistic. Find videos by David Bruce and see what he has hanging on his walls. He probably doesn't have profiency on any of those instruments, but as a composer it's good taht he knows the mechanics of those instruments.

  4629. musictheory 2019-08-11 05:05:26 65TwinReverbRI
    You make a Major Scale by using the following pattern: W W H W W W H This means that that interval (distance) between the 1st and 2nd note is a Whole step, 2-3 Whole step, 3-4 Half step, and so on. You'll also sometimes see this represented as T T S T T T S - which is Tone and Semitone. A Whole step or Tone is from any fret (or open string) to 2 frets higher. So fret 1 to 3, 5 to 7, or 0 to 2. A Half step or Semitone is from any fret (or open string) to 1 fret higher. So if you wanted an A Major scale, you'd start on the note A on the 5th string open, and then go up 2 frets, then 2 more frets, then 1 fret, and so on following the W W H W W W H pattern. This ends up giving you the notes A B C# D E F# G# A. If you go here: https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/music-theory-made-simple-0-index-toc.1371119/ This is explained in a series of posts/articles specific to guitar. It's #3 but it would be helpful to start at the beginning. HTH

  4630. musictheory 2019-08-12 01:03:19 zanalau
    “Melody” can be defined as a string of timed musical notes that listeners perceived as a single entity. And musical notes exist in 2 axes (or dimensions): - Y-axis (Space): Pitch, ie perceived height of sound - X-axis (Time): Duration, ie placement of sound in time What I was trying to do was breaking down the 2 most important areas of studies in learning music theory for the questioner. Melody is indeed an important element of music. But most of what we hear today, and what our friend seek to do, is based on tonality. In short, learning the fundamentals of harmony is essential for him/her to understand how music we hear (and he/she want to write) works in tonal music. Chromaticism will arrive at the right time as a by-product of this learning. Broadly speaking, melody makes no sense if they are mere random notes with no connection to tonality or time. Unless you’re talking about non-tonal music but that’s not what we’re discussing here.

  4631. musictheory 2019-08-12 04:45:43 ChuckEye
    No. They would not need to know the scale. They would only need to know intervals. And they wouldn’t even necessarily need to *know* them if the shapes are the same (depending on what instrument they’re playing.) Take guitar. If somebody knows that a fifth is one string up and two frets up from the root, and that the b7 is two strings up from the root in the same fret, and they know where G is as a root, they don’t need to know that D is the fifth and F is the b7. But they can still play them because they know the shape.

  4632. musictheory 2019-08-12 06:10:20 RichardPascoe
    I don't know if this helps. When you play C7 chord in first position if you move the finger on the lowest note up a string, keeping the fret the same. you have a C7 chord with the fifth in the bass. So if you playing E- C#m - A - B7 you can play the B7 at the seventh position and alternate the bass just by moving the finger up

  4633. musictheory 2019-08-12 12:42:34 eringm00
    It makes tuning much easier if you can hear the discrepancies between the intervals, as well as tuning your guitar in general. I’m not an experienced player, but I think it’s something like each string is a fifth? If you learn your intervals well, it makes it easier to learn melodies on the spot, and understand why/how songs are the way they are.

  4634. musictheory 2019-08-12 14:03:41 Masterkid1230
    I don't think elaborate melodies are necessarily dying out (they were never present in some genres), you do hear your long melodies every now and then in popular music, but yeah generally, texture and especially timbre is the main development of the 21st century so far. Just listen to the amazing synths in stuff like Post Malone or Kanye West. Great timbres all around. And then you have the more niche stuff like Aphex Twin, Clipping or Death Grips and the absurd complexity of texture and timbre is sweet. Compare that to a String Quartet, or a Romantic Lied, which have very little timbric development.

  4635. musictheory 2019-08-12 21:36:26 autumn-grace
    i think this might be a nuance of the genre; if you listen to e.g. glenn miller, count basie, etc, their rhythm sections (usually string bass, very very occasionally piano) are playing quarter notes with accents on 2 and 4. there’s definitely a two-feel of (weak, strong) that loops. in the band. on the other hand, the ensembles on top are seldom playing anything that sounds like 2. they’re phrasing melodies in 4/4, in bars that encompass two of the rhythm section’s two-feels. so while the baseline rhythmic feel fits pretty well into a push-pull 2/2 thing, i think the rest of the music around it means that it “ought” to be written in 4. (writing in 4 also frees the rhythm section from that string push-pull, also, which means they have more space to do cool shit while comping.)

  4636. musictheory 2019-08-13 16:16:50 barfingclouds
    Yep you definitely need it. Sure it’ll be tough but there’s going to be so much of it you already know intrinsically but you just don’t know how to put into words. I took it in high school, and though it was taught by an incompetent person, it helped me get a full rung up as a songwriter above the average musician, though I’m still 1-2 rungs below people who went to Berklee and stuff. Stuff you’ll be able to leave knowing: Chords, all kinds. Using chords that are in well written pop music or less in your face mind if music. In the sense that say many rock bands just play power chords and major chords. But there you can get more exposure to 7ths, diminished, augmented, inversions, combos, etc. I’m sad to say I’ve lost my ability to apply diminished and augmented chords well, I wanna get back to that. -part writing! Very important, for string parts, voices, keys. You’ll start with basic 4 part writing which is stiff and formal but it will teach you a lot. Now that I think of it, one of my best strengths is my vocal harmonies (often 3-4 part harmonies) and I think that can be directly traced back to AP music theory. I’m much more intuitive about it now and not formal, but that training helped. About what does parallel action feel like? Or counterpoint movement? Stuff like that. It helps you learn how to keep those things fresh. The Beatles were great vocal part writers. Other bands, sometimes much less inventive. I could say more stuff but these are the biggest points that come to mind. And reading sheet music is always a good skill. And being able to instantly know an interval. Which here’s a trick: Ennnn Beeee Ceeee (nbc logo song) the first two notes are a sixth. Here comes the bride. “Here comes” is a fourth. Somewhere over the rainbow. “Some where” is an octave.

  4637. musictheory 2019-08-13 16:39:14 Jongtr
    It's a kind of modulation, but in the verse they are keeping the key ambiguous. It's all diatonic to F major / D minor, but as there is no F or Dm chord it doesn't make a lot of sense to say it#s "in the key of" F major. The key centre is ambiguous, and that's the point - it never resolves anywhere. But there is clearly a key centre in the chorus: A major, supported by the constant A bass as well as the other chords. Still no cadence, of course, nothing *leading to* A, no E or E7 chord. In this sense, you could say (IMO) it's "modal", a kind of A ionian vamp, with almost random harmonisations of the mode - prologations of the tonic, if you like, without any real functional changes at all. >i want to add some cool changes like those but don't want to steal it and if I can't understand it I can only copy how it sounds Well, firstly, you can steal those chord changes, they're not copyright. Those ideas have been used before - maybe not quite exactly the same, but there's nothing original in the changes themselves. Secondly, if you can "copy how it sounds", why do you need to "understand" it? Surely, copying how it sounds is what you want to be able to do? Thirdly, the sound of the track us much more about the dreamy effects, in particular the amount of reverb washing over everything, and the string sound on the synth. To be fair though, I get your point. You want the principles in action, so you can apply them in your own way. Essentially I'd say there's two things about the chords, one each in verse and chorus: Verse: take a diatonic scale, harmonise into the usual chords, but use inversions (non-root bass notes) and move two or three voicings up and down the scale. Avoid the usual tonic chord - or, if you use it, put the 3rd or 5th in the bass, and put it in a weak position between other chords. Chorus: hold one bass note (pedal) across all the chords. (It's the tonic note in this case, but try it with any note in the scale). Experiment with various different chords over that bass note. Notice the "dreamy" effect you get from maj7s (C#m/A = Amaj7) and the suspension effects of other combinations. The chord sequence in the chorus reminds me of [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2xODjbfYw8) old folk/rock tune. It's the same idea of keeping the tonic in the bass (E in this case) and running chords up the scale on top (E, F#m, G#m). The Allman Bros also used it in [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwbowi-8Yoo). See, you *can* steal that idea! :-)

  4638. musictheory 2019-08-13 22:37:10 Altazaar
    True. On guitar it's kinda obvious if you do a maj7 bar chord. The bottom 3 strings are a simple minor triad, and if you move up one string, those 3 strings are a major chord. I've also noticed that chords like Am / C and Em / G kinda sound the same and it's literally because C is an inversion of Am7, where the 3rd is the root.

  4639. musictheory 2019-08-14 00:52:22 MiserereMeiImperator
    That's the point of using bass 8va clef. It makes it easier to compose; and when your done you can replace all the bass 8va clefs back to alto clefs. I like tenor clef 'cause I see it as a 5th (string) above bass clef; and it at least has historical practicality (cellos with an E-string)

  4640. musictheory 2019-08-14 01:07:54 spellingishard27
    I don’t play any string instruments. I play piano and low brass. That’s why I don’t like tenor clef but to each his own

  4641. musictheory 2019-08-14 03:51:27 65TwinReverbRI
    Music Professor here, and I sit on the audition panels. The first thing you need to do is go to the Music Department website of any university you're considering and thoroughly check out the audition requirements. If you have questions, contact the Music Department and/or the Guitar Instructor there. Get your answer from the horse's mouth! ________ Most universities with a BM require you to be able to read music, and play music proficiently. So the next thing you need to do is get a teacher - one who's been through a university-level Music degree who can get you prepared. As I said, I sit on the panel and at our university, one of the big things I see - especially with guitarists (and other "pop" players) is that not only are they not very proficient at their instrument, but they're just totally clueless when it comes to "academic" music - largely because they didn't come up in the typical private lesson/HS Band et al kinds of programs. _________ There is hope - but you need to FORGET THEORY. You need to PLAY. We don't care if you "understand" the Major Scale. We're going to say: "Play a G major scale". If you can't, you're not getting in. I'll ask guitarists for G, Ab, and Eb - one they should easily know, at least in Open Position, the other shows they know how to handle sharps and flats, and the last shows that they know how to find notes not on the 6th string, and start a scale form from the 5th string (it's playable from the 6th, but if they just use the form for Ab and move it up the neck I'll ask them if they can do another form of it in a different position). The music you need to play needs to be something "more intricate" than strumming through a chord progression typically. One guy came in and did "Something" by The Beatles. He played through the chords (which have some nice chords besides just major and minor and power chords) and has a nice solo he played note for note. Then he improvised a solo over the chord progression. Another guy came in and played a nice Acoustic piece that was finger-picked and rather intricate, with harmonics, a few taps on the top of the guitar, and was a melody that had accompaniment. Those are the kind of things we're looking for (outside of jazz, where we like to hear someone comp, play the head, and improvise) That second guy above - I talked to him when he was in high school - his responses were kind of like yours - and I told him just what I'm telling you - get a teacher, work towards the audition requirements first and foremost. Well, he didn't. He came, and auditioned, and while he played that acoustic piece really well, he could barely read music (learned if from tab and by ear/video) and couldn't really find where the notes are. He got accepted "provisionally", which means he took lessons for a semester, with our instructor, and then re-auditioned then got in. So he's a "semester behind". _____ So you're not dreaming - it's surely possible, but not by fantasizing about it and being aimless about it. You don't need to be online trying to learn theory - your SOLE goal is to prepare for that audition. You can of course work on some of it on your own, but you're basically increasing your chances for failure by not getting with a qualified instructor who's familiar with these programs. Don't forget that every kid who comes through a band program has a band director who has a BM in Education and who's been through all that stuff themselves. Many piano students study with a teacher who has a BM in performance or education or at least some kind of certificate and so on - again they know what it takes to get in. Sitting around "hoping" you're going to get in is not going to get you in. Finding out exactly what you need, and having someone help you determine if you currently have what you need, and if not help you get it, is what's going to get you in. ______ Music programs are pretty rigorous. You WILL get better at your craft IF you INVEST in your education. However, be careful because some programs are still very "Classical" based, and others are very "Jazz" based, because as a general rule the pieces get to greater complexity levels than a vast majority of pop tunes (not including technical virtuosic pieces). That means you're going to study a lot of Jazz and/or Classical guitar - which may not be what you want. However, the knowledge from either/both is certainly transferable to the pop genre. The guy above I was talking about - the first concert they did with Guitar Ensemble he did great! The most recent Jury (which is your end of year performance for grades) he did was excellent - he's essentially "caught up" to where he should be! And while he's getting much better at guitar with all this "academic" study, even though it's more jazz-based (though the Guitar Ensemble concert was arrangements of Beatles tunes!) he still plays in a pop band and gigs around town. So one doesn't preclude the other. ______ All this said, you can still "further your education" without getting a music degree. Obviously most of the worlds most famous pop musicians don't have music degrees, and those that even have degrees often have them in different fields (marketing, communications, theater, business - things that someone in the Entertainmen **Industry** needs to know). And of course many of those did that because they didn't want the "traditional academic" music degree (and didn't "need" it, though they could have benefited from it possibly). But there are also plenty of people working behind the scenes that are very well-trained and that might be your cup of tea - or, of course if you like Jazz or Classical, win-win. ______ Just so you know, our audition requirements for Guitar are basically: 2 pieces of contrasting style, mood, or technique. We ask for a couple of Major scales. We ask for a couple of chords - Major, Minor, 7, m7, Maj7 - Open chords are OK, but Barre chords are kind of expected. We give them a Sight-Reading example - usually the melody from something like "Autumn Leaves" - half, quarter, and 8th notes, mostly in a key (a key with accidentals in it, so not C Major!). Then we test pitch-matching (a note played at the piano is asked to be sung back - we do a couple of notes, and a couple of melodic intervals). On that same day, the students take a Theory placement exam, and a Sight-singing placement exam. If they can't do ANY theory, they're placed in "level 0" - Music Fundamentals. If they can do a bit, they go into Level 1 of both. So knowing theory is not a make or break thing for us - in fact, we don't really expect students to know ANY theory beyond fundamentals - reading music, knowing basic note values, meters, reading their clef, and that's it. Flute players typically don't come in being able to read Bass Clef nor do they know anything about Chords. So that stuff just doesn't influence whether they get in or not, other than if they just simply can't read music at all. Playing well, but not being able to sight read well will get you in provisionally (as the sight reading portion is used to determine not really how well they sight read, but if they can even read music at all). Not being able to play every single scale on the planet doesn't keep you from getting in. We ask Major scales, and that's it. No minor, no modes, etc. And generally speaking, if a student doesn't really know their scales, and can't pitch match, and can't sight read, they typically won't be able to play their pieces very well anyway. Those other things are all basically checks to make sure the student just didn't spend two years learning the crap out of 2 pieces and can play them great, but can't play anything else! (could happen). If a player plays "so-so" and does well on the other things, we can accept them provisionally. But generally, we expect the pieces they pick to be performed well, correct notes and rhythm, in time, with musical expression, and that they can get through the other stuff pretty well. It's not like if they miss a note we don't let them in or keep them in provisional, but there needs to be a **reasonable level of proficiency** on the instrument. And for guitar, I can tell you that strumming through chords and wanking a pentatonic blues scale ain't it (we also want to hear students play existing music, not just a jam or improv). _________ All schools are different through - I'm sure there are institutions that are much more competitive and if you mess up a basic Major scale, you're probably going to be put at the bottom of the pile if not outright rejected. And I'm sure there are programs where just being able to strum chords and wank blues scales would be OK. So that's why it's so important to get it from the school you plan to attend. But I wouldn't automatically say, "well I'll never be able to do that so I'll just apply elsewhere" - don't sell yourself short - YOU CAN DO IT!!! **Research** the programs that are available and do some **soul-searching** to make sure it's really what you want to do. If so, **take the necessary steps to prepare for the audition** which would be getting an instructor who can help you prepare. And then, preparing for that audition needs to become your life (nerves even get the best prepared of students, and we understand that, but still, if you think you're prepared, prepare some more ;-) _______

  4642. musictheory 2019-08-14 11:11:44 let_talk_about_that
    > Now, chord progressions(from my experience)seem to be played on string based instruments. I'd further refine that to say fret based string instruments. YOu don't play chords on a violin. You do on a mandolin. > Any other instruments?? Keyboard based, along with percussion instruments such as vibes. > In my method book on Ukulele, one chord progression contains the chords:Am,G,C. My first thought was it's in the key of C or G. Probably C. Those chords fit nicely in both keys. It's a matter of learning the relationships between the chords that turns chaos into sense. > . They seem so different. THe C and Am are only one note apart (CEG for C and CEA for Am, normally spelled ACE), and the G moves smoothly to Am by moving each note in the chord up one note in the scale For the Key of C, there are 7 chords diatonic (in the scale of the key). C Dm Em F G Am Bº You see your three chords in that list. key of G G Am Bm C D Em F#º Again, you see your three chords there. HTH

  4643. musictheory 2019-08-14 21:11:23 Exige30499
    A tip I heard from a Nick Johnston clinic was to just loop a single chord, and to only play lines on one string. You can't really think in shapes anymore, and you kinda forced to get creative. Andy Timmons said the same in a video I saw from the TrueFire youtube channel. It works for me anyway, worth a shot :)

  4644. musictheory 2019-08-14 23:57:46 ColonOBrien
    This sounds silly, but it’s pretty effective: improvise on a single string. When you have to think about the individual notes more than a focusing on a scalar pattern, it forces you to pay attention to note placement and (at least for me) it’s easier to construct melodic phrases using this method.

  4645. musictheory 2019-08-15 03:03:53 FwLineberry
    Since this is a theory forum, let's talk about how scales are constructed. Then you can work out how to apply that knowledge to the guitar. Any given scale is constructed of whole steps and half steps: Half step = 1 fret distance Whole step = 2 half steps = two fret distance. The pattern of W/H steps is usually given in pitch order from low to high. Arguable the most important scale in Western music is called the Major Scale. The major scale is built from this pattern of W/H steps: W - W - H - W - W - W - H If you start on any note on the fingerboard and follow this W/H pattern, you will get the major scale for that given pitch. If you start on C, you get the C major scale - C D E F G A B C If you start on G, you get the G major scale - G A B C D E F# G Once you know the notes that belong to the scale, you can play that scale anywhere on the fingerboard. Most people learn scales on the guitar by learning prearranged finger patterns. In other words, somebody already took the trouble of figuring out where the notes for a given scale are located on the fingerboard and came up with a logical way of playing the notes across the strings in various "shapes" or "patterns". Some people prefer to use five different patterns to cover the entire fingerboard. Others prefer to use seven different patterns to cover the entire fingerboard. The nature of the guitar fingerboard lends itself to patterns and shapes. If you've been playing for eight years, you more than likely know how to move barre chords around to different locations to get different chords. Scale patterns work the same way. If you play the C major scale starting at the 8th fret of the low E string, and then play the G major scale starting at the 3rd fret of the low E string, the pattern (arrangement of W/H steps) will be exactly the same. So once you know a pattern, all you have to do is move it to the correct location to get whichever scale you need. Move that G scale up two frets and it becomes an A scale. All scales work in this same fashion on the guitar. I'm not touching your modes question with a ten foot pole. If you haven't got a handle on basic scale patterns, you're not in any position to understand how modes work.

  4646. musictheory 2019-08-15 05:05:29 Xenoceratops
    Music theory is the same for all instruments. Rather, it is independent of any instrument. Instruments merely let us reach into the infinitude of musical possibility and pull relationships out of it. Learn the notes on the E string and A string. Learn barre chords. Learn [fundamentals](http://www.musictheory.net).

  4647. musictheory 2019-08-15 06:23:22 Xx69YoloSwag420LITxX
    Start with chords, then basic note theory. Then keys. Then learn how to know how to find notes on any fret on each string (ties into the note theory). Then scales and barre chords. CAGED system. That should get ya a good foundation.

  4648. musictheory 2019-08-15 07:21:02 Musicalassumptions
    There is a physical process to singing. When a melody goes out of range the physical contortions necessary to sing the notes that may or may not be in your ear take more energy than most mortals can muster. Songs that are written to fit within a normal vocal range are things you should expect to be able to sing at sight if you have spent time practicing identifying and reproducing horizontal intervals. String music that spans four octaves and incorporates double stops is impossible! Piano music with many voices and counterpoint is equally impossible to vocalize. People with absolute pitch can hear multiple pitches in their head (with some experience reading music at a high level) when they read music. People without absolute pitch usually need a little help. I am always better at sight singing when I have an instrument in my hands.

  4649. musictheory 2019-08-15 16:57:50 Jongtr
    Mainly because the tempo is slow, the string sounds are smooth and mellow, there is no clear pulse, there is a fair amount of reverb, and the dynamics are sensitive. Its mood is nothing to do with whatever scales, modes or chords are being used; except that there is nothing *dissonant*, at least not in any surprising or unexpected way. The harmonies, as well as slow and measured, are all *familiar* and therefore *re-assuring*.

  4650. musictheory 2019-08-16 01:57:13 MaggaraMarine
    It all comes down to intervals. The term "major chord" is just a name for a certain combination of intervals. The chord tones are called "root", "third" and "fifth". If you play the three notes of the any major chord on one string, the third will be four frets higher than the root, and the fifth will be 7 frets higher than the root. The root is the note that the chord is named after (the root of C major is C). In minor chords, the third is one fret lower than in major chords. The third that is four frets higher than the root is called major third and the third that is three frets higher than the root is called minor third. So, major chords = root, maj 3, 5; minor chords = root, min 3, 5th. Remember that this is just the most basic form of the chord - you can play the notes in any order and you can double some of the notes if you want.

  4651. musictheory 2019-08-16 22:32:27 ferniecanto
    >The fatal paradox inherent to most Ultraserial music is that the more complicated the processes by which the music is created, the more random the music actually sounds when we listen to it. I don't think this applies only to music, but to, well, everything. And it doesn't necessarily related to the *complexity* of the process; even simple process can produce results that are either statistically random (this is entirely what pseudorandom number generators are all about) or look random. And this is another important distinction: being random and SEEMING random are very different things. This has been widely demonstrated; for example, if you set off a pseudorandom number generator to produce a string of digits from 0-9, people might not think those are "truly random", because you'll get sequences of repeated digits. If you ask people to produce strings of random numbers, people will try to make them "look" random, and therefore they won't be truly random. So, yeah, it's one hell of a fucking messy paradox. I think the quote is related to this. Our brains are just not very good at perceiving stuff, and too much complexity can be indistinguishable from randomness (didn't Xenakis say this in *Formalised Music*? One of his defenses of his stochastic processes is that serialism is just a phony attempt at doing what he achieved). And I don't mean this as a demerit to the music itself; if anything, it's very fascinating that serialism can sound "more random" than actual randomness, and it's worthy of artistic investigation. And I don't say any of this as a concealed reactionary defense of the tonal system either (I'm not Leonard Bernstein!). I'm actually *more* curious about those "ultraserial" works now, just to check out what effect they'll have on me.

  4652. musictheory 2019-08-17 01:11:54 65TwinReverbRI
    It would be, but you'd have to be able to do it consistently all the time with everything. Like if someone asks you to sing an Eb, you should be able to sing it, and then if checked on the piano, you'd be correct. If someone plays a chord on guitar, you would be able to pick out each note you hear. If you hear just a single note played somewhere, on whatever instrument, you should be able to say "that's a Bb" and be correct. This needs to be done when you don't already have a reference pitch to "judge the distance from" which is how Relative Pitch works. So, IOW, if you someone played a C without you seeing it, and you got it correct, it could have been a lucky guess. If they then play E, you're probably just going to know it's E because you're familiar enough with that from playing 15 years, but more importantly that you already heard C and know it's a C. See what happens with people with good Relative Pitch is, they'd hear a note, and not be sure what note it is. If you played a Major 3rd above that, they can identify that as a Major 3rd. Then, if they were made aware of what either note was, they'd be able to calculate the other - not by hearing, but by brain. People with perfect pitch will hear "that's an Ab", "now, that's a C". And they can do this without even knowing what a "Major 3rd" is, or what that interval sounds like out of pitch-name context. Many people do have PP, especially musicians, and especially those who've started young. However, it's one of the most commonly asked questions here and 99% of the time the person doesn't actually have PP, they just don't fully understand PP and RP, and just had some experience for the first time that we all have and it's not really that special but they think it is - or, they just got lucky, and so on. My son had a tuner and he said "sing a G" and I just randomly picked a note and sang it and it happened to be dead on G. Now, I did in fact sing in a range that I know is about where I can sing a low G, but I don't "hear" a G in my head or anything. I just sang something that my muscle memory for my voice-box knew in advance about where G is - so I just got lucky that I nailed it - you should have seen the shock on his face. I can also take all the strings off my guitar and put new strings on, and tune it up - many time perfectly, other times so close it's not worth arguing it's not perfect. But that's just because I've played guitar for 30+ years. So sometimes familiarity with an instrument, or your instrument can help you find notes because of timbre, or other characteristics (open strings on a guitar have a more distinctive sound than fretted strings for example). So that's something beyond "relative pitch" called "Pitch Memory" but it's fallible - if you just picked a note and played it on Guitar, and it was somewhere up the fingerboard on an inner string, I probably wouldn't get it accurately - if I did it would just be mostly luck, with maybe a little process of elimination. but I don't "hear" a note in my head when I think of a note, and I don't know what letter a note is when I hear it. That's perfect pitch. And to have it, it needs to be 99% consistent across all instruments and pitched sounds. I'd have a couple of other musicians test you. If you have it, cool. But it's not a superpower or not having it isn't bad either. If you do have it, putting it to use as a tool would be good for you though.

  4653. musictheory 2019-08-17 05:59:56 Jaywestfield
    If you want a technical answer, I'd say a melody is simply a string of intervals. Melody doesn't have to be pleasing at all - in fact, it's usually best to not write fully a fully pleasing line until you want it to sound cadential.

  4654. musictheory 2019-08-17 19:59:54 lemonloaf861
    You can make similar sounding melodies using the pentatonic scale. Getting something like the particular sound in that video will depend on what instrument you use and how. If it's guitar, you can try using lots of palm muting and firm plucking up on the b and high e string while using the pentatonic scale.

  4655. musictheory 2019-08-18 01:37:45 1906ds
    Borodin's Second Symphony has a scherzo movement in 1/1 time. The tempo is extremely fast and conducted in one. As for why he wrote it in 1/1 and not a different time signature is that with 1/1 you can write phrases of various lengths without constantly changing time signature to show the unequal phrases. In addition, there is a psychological element to the tempo, as quarter notes at such a fast tempo are going to be played with more sense of urgency than writing 16th notes in 4/4 time. Beethoven does a similar thing in the trio of the scherzo movement of his Harp String Quartet, where the overall pulse speeds up but he switches to running quarter notes. Gives the music a more wild and out of control feel to it.

  4656. musictheory 2019-08-18 09:14:16 Mathgeek007
    Well I opened up Audacity, recorded my beats, then did some neutral noise reduction ;P **So, in English, there are a lot of interesting things to pay attention to.** Read that sentence out loud, as a normal English-speaking person would. Note where the big down beats are. I read it as (downbeats in bold) **So,** in **Eng-lish**, there are a **lot** of **in-ter-est**ing **things** to **pay** at**ten**tion **to**. There are some down beats and some up-beats. In the phrase "To be **fair**", you have tail-beat triplet. In the phrase "**Par**lia-ment", you have a head-beat triplet. In the phrase "As**sign**ing", you have a gut-beat triplet, or a mid-beat triplet, or whatever you'd like to call it. I like calling it a gut-beat. Building phrases like above becomes "easy" if you're familiar with popular speech patterns and phrases and are able to string them together to make them work well. Let's make a cool one. Off-off-on-on. "This example is a new one, I will try hard not to fuck it, I'll use big words and some small ones, match the down tones using strong words, skip the up tones using weak ones. Find a short phrase with a short word that you skip past when you read it. All the fill words, and the pronouns act as off beats, where the long words and the info act as strongholds, as the bookends." Notice how articles act *really* well as uptones, and single-chunk single-syllable words act well as the down tones. Then throw in a few fancy words with odd timing and you're golden. Then if you give a hint to the reader that there's a meter, they'll read it that way. [Like such.](https://soundcloud.com/qril/off-off-on-on/s-RrkrZ) Isn't that *weird*? Use the worthless bits to fill in the gaps. It's not easy to say something meaningful, but it's really easy to make a paragraph with a functioning meter.

  4657. musictheory 2019-08-20 07:03:17 No_Vi
    A piece of classical music I was listening to was called Clarinet Quintet and features a clarinet and a string quartet.

  4658. musictheory 2019-08-20 07:16:05 17bmw
    In addition to the fact it's a shortened form of "quintet for clarinet and strings," there's a historical reason for naming music groups this way as well. The stringed instruments (specifically, the violin family) were the first to have their constructions and methodologies standardized. For the most part, violin family instruments are identical to their Baroque, Classical, and Romantic counterparts. Composers could be certain that a violin players in Hamburg, Florence, and London are (mostly) doing the same thing. Because these instruments reached uniformity earlier, they were *much* more common than their windy counterparts and thus are assumed "default" for a lot of Western music.^1 Later on, when other instruments got their grooves going, composers could add these newer, more colorful instruments to the relative "safety" of strings. So part of the reason we don't use the label "clarinet quintet" to refer to a group of five clarinets is because there isn't a strong precedent for doing so. I hope this helps and take care! 1.) It's worth noting that this reason factors into what ensembles we consider "harder" to write for. It's not that the wind quintet is an actual easier compositional puzzle to crack than the string quartet. Rather, the string quartet has plenty more history and thus, new pieces in the genre have a lot more to compare to than other ensembles.

  4659. musictheory 2019-08-20 08:29:08 Musicalassumptions
    Try improvising on an instrument in a different tuning (a guitar tuned in a different way, any string instrument with one or more strings moved half a step). Try improvising on a keyboard and restricting yourself to a proscribed set of pitches. Write down the results that please you most. Allow changes of meter to help you allow notes to be the best length for their horizontal purpose. Things always sound better when they are in the “heat” of improvisation. Writing things down often dulls them. Use your skills to give life back to them, and keep messing with that material until It pleases you. If it pleases you, leave it alone and return to it later. Allow IT to be your new frame of reference, and if something happens to it that brings another piece to mind, revert to what you had before, and go in another direction. I sometimes worry that, after putting days or weeks into a piece, that it might be an unconscious replica of something else I have written, but it hasn’t happened yet.

  4660. musictheory 2019-08-20 08:59:32 TheRealMongul
    A piano quintet is a string quartet plus piano. Brahms wrote a bunch of those.

  4661. musictheory 2019-08-20 19:41:19 bstix
    The tuning doesn't change. All frets are still the same notes. F.i. the 12th fret is still E on the E string whether or not a capo is holding the 2nd fret down or not. A capo only changes which notes are on the open strings. I get what you're saying, and it is definitely used to transpose easily by enabling the option to use the same shapes of chords in different positions, but technically, a capo is simply holding the strings.

  4662. musictheory 2019-08-20 22:06:19 Willravel
    I try to write bad music. Break rules. Make stuff I know won't work. Be like a Jedi who turns Sith: you know how to do all of this stuff for good and like I guess abstinence for some reason, so now do a little evil. Example: good voice leading with a lot of conjunct motion use of motivics and motivic development, and repetition are things that can make a melody work. There are a ton of rules and tendencies that can help you write a good melody. So what do you do? Make that shit disjunct af, use non-chord tones on strong beats, never repeat anything, and change instruments every few pitches in fact maybe throw a snare drum in there. 1) This is a lot of fun, like the adult version of when we used to draw on the walls with crayons, and 2) you create original music that can teach you things and give you new perspectives. My first serialist string quartet benefitted like crazy from this kind of mad music science because it helped me to focus on texture and shape and orchestration and range instead of obsessing over the pitches of a given set. I went from being a pretender that was doing a really bad impression of Webern to finding my voice when filtered through a serialist lens. If this can help with thinking about pitch-set differently, it can also help with thinking about rhythm or meter or instrumentation or orchestration or what have you.

  4663. musictheory 2019-08-20 22:20:04 Jongtr
    1. Learn the notes on the fretboard. Yes, all of them, but the natural notes will do: ABCDEFG. The sharps and flats are then the frets in between. Memorise the whole-half-step formula: |A|-|B|C|-|D|-|E|F|-|G|-|A| (1/2 steps between BC and EF, whole steps elsewhere), and you can work out any note on any string. I assume you know the open strings, EADGBE. ;-) Remember fret 12 is the same as 0, so you'll know if you've gone wrong, but also use your ear to check everything. 2. Learn all the possible shapes for every chord you know. The CAGED system shows you five overlapping shapes for each of the 12 major chords. Also learn the notes in each chord. Obviously step 1 will help you here - but also step 2 will help with step 1, because chord shapes are easier things to remember than scale patterns. The five CAGED shapes mean that you can not only play any chord in any position on the neck, but you can choose one neck position and play all 12 major chords within 4 or 5 frets. (Minor chords are a litle trickier because there are only three standard shapes for those - the CAGED system has a couple of gaps with minor chords.) 3. Learn about KEYS. 12 major keys and their 12 relative minors. The circle of 5ths is a useful device here. Learn the primary major chords in the major keys (I, IV, V) first of all. Those three chords contain the whole scale of the key between them, so this study will help with steps 1 and 2, just as they will help with this study. 4. Take a few of your favourite songs and - using the above knowledge - analyse them. What scale(s) are they using? What are the notes in each chord? Which chord is the "tonic" (key chord)? Take each chord and play it with a different shape in a different neck position. Do this with all the chords. That's all still in the *same key.* Next, transpose all the chords to a different key. Again, the above knowledge will make this easy. Changing key on the guitar is easy in one sense, in that you can just shift everything up or down however many frets you want. But being able to transpose shapes too is useful.

  4664. musictheory 2019-08-21 04:35:33 TheSOB88
    I dunno if you've read this yet, but the pitch depends on the length of the string that vibrates (also the tension and thickness, but we don't change those during normal playing). So, anything that effectively "shortens" the string, be it a finger or a capo, will generate a note based on the pitch associated with that length of string.

  4665. musictheory 2019-08-21 09:00:02 Jaywestfield
    Can you read sheet music or play piano at all? It helps a lot to be able to visualize it beyond a fretboard or wind instrument. If not, I suggest trying to learn how to read sheet music (even if it's just as simple as note names on the staff). Memorizing fingering patterns alone doesn't really help you understand why the patterns sound the way they do. Start with intervals, at first only using one string. Once you have a pretty decent idea of what they are, try building scales with these intervals, again with only one string. Last, start building chords. If you've become comfortable with that, add more strings!

  4666. musictheory 2019-08-21 09:06:46 treywarp
    Firstly, to ween yourself off relying on fret numbers and tabs, learn the actual notes of the fret board. This is less daunting then it seems, if you just remember something simple: there are only two pairs of notes that are one fret away from each other. E&F and B&C. Anything else is just the sharp (#) or flat (b) of the note you're coming from. So, ascending, starting on the open low E string, 1st fret would be an F. Second fret would be F#. 3rd fret would be G, and so on. The musical alphabet ends at G, so it would loop back around to A when you reach the the fret. Sharps are typically used when ascending, while Flats are typically used when descending. Secondly, why/how music works can be broken down into simple things called Intervals. Intervallic theory is a fairly simple to understand concept. Each scale has 7 different notes to its scale, with the 8th note being what's called the octave (Oct=8). Each note can be assigned an Interval. Simply put, the first note in the scale is called the "One/First". The second note is called the "Two/Second". The third note is called the "Three/Third". And so on. You don't event need to know the actual note name to use this method of thinking. You call look up any scale, and you can easily see the order of notes. Intervals can be moved up or down 1 fret to produce things like "minor thirds" and "major thirds", which are notes that change the scale/chord between major and minor. Shifted intervals start moving into different musical modes, but that's a lesson for another day. This might seems like a lot, but it's really easier than most people think. Just give it some practice and time. Hope this helped some, and I wish you the best of luck!

  4667. musictheory 2019-08-21 18:57:08 gabrihaze
    A cool way to learn notes on the fretboard is improvising over some backing tracks playing only one string at a time. Due to this limitation, you will learn more easily the name of the notes because you will see them in a straight line. Concerning music theory I suggest starting with intervals, then triads (maj and min to begin with) and then major and minor scale. After that you can learn the harmonization of the major scale that brings with it chord functions that explain the majority of modern chord progressions.

  4668. musictheory 2019-08-21 21:56:14 xcrissxcrossx
    Learning modes is helpful when understanding borrowed chords. Sure you're not going to find much music that's entirely modal, but you'll often find things like sharp fourths thrown into a string in major, or major sevenths thrown into a string in minor, and it's important to understand the logic behind this.

  4669. musictheory 2019-08-21 23:51:38 alfonso_x
    Disclaimer: amateur composer I’ve been studying counterpoint on and off for years now, and I’ve used it to write passages in string quartets and some choral pieces. Other than that what’s the big benefit of counterpoint, especially strict counterpoint? Is it mostly just to train you on good voice leading? It doesn’t seem like people are writing a lot of motets and fugues these days.

  4670. musictheory 2019-08-22 05:23:16 65TwinReverbRI
    "Jazzy" There's no name for this kind of stuff. It's a "chord progression". It uses "jazzier" chords in it. Chords with extensions. Orchestral Arrangement in the Ray Charles. But there aren't names for the "harmony" - it's just plain old "chords". If starting low and going high makes an "angelic, ethereal" feel, then do that if you want that same feel. It's got nothing to do with the chords being used, aside from them being more "jazzy" chords with moving string lines (which may also add to that feel). If you want to write like this, transcribe all the instruments and start to learn how these sounds are made from the ground up.

  4671. musictheory 2019-08-22 17:04:05 HashPram
    What's the make and model, and can you take a picture of the whole thing? The notation doesn't look like an especially good guide to what you're supposed to do, given that it says "E" but the notation is a D (assuming it's treble clef) I would hazard a guess that the right-most/left-most string will be the lowest string so C4 might be a better pitch to tune it to. I know on my autoharp (not quite the same as a chord zither but not a million miles away from it) the left-most strings are below middle-C.

  4672. musictheory 2019-08-22 20:52:05 Momogaa
    [https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/488103943210270740/614078257804869642/unknown.png](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/488103943210270740/614078257804869642/unknown.png) Please don't mind the string chaos. I decided to replace all strings and already started to tear her apart. She is a 1982 Musima 6/7 Chord Zither from the good old GDR.

  4673. musictheory 2019-08-22 22:43:32 powersurgeee
    The goal of counterpoint isn't to write fugues or motets, its goal is to develop the pupil's audiation abilities. Real music often has too many things going on at once for most people to tackle without adequate training. The limitations imposed by counterpoint present the student with one or two objects that they can actually *digest*. As the student progresses through each species, they are in effect, learning to hear more and more. Think about it - would you expect someone to write a 4 part fugue/choral/string quartet if they couldn't even control/hear 2 voice textures? That being said, solving counterpoint exercises like a puzzle, that is, simply plugging in notes that follow the checklist of rules, won't do much good. One should try and actively hear every decision they make, and strive to find the most elegant solution to their cantus firmus. If you're not playing, singing, and audiating every single exercise, you're not going to reap the benefits of counterpoint.

  4674. musictheory 2019-08-23 01:58:49 DRL47
    The last C in the picture is notated as C4, but is obviously supposed to be C3. You can tell by the diameter of the string. That is pretty usual for chord zithers.

  4675. musictheory 2019-08-23 08:57:01 tomaspaul
    F#Maj7. Specifically on guitar with root note on 5th string

  4676. musictheory 2019-08-23 09:36:23 Owlopolis
    I’m talking 2nd fret on g string and 5th fret on b

  4677. musictheory 2019-08-23 11:37:55 Scottacoman
    I prefer the G String. And yes I'm talking about Bach's Suite no. 3 bmw 1068. I love a beautiful thong. Sorry song. Did not mean to say thong. song. Sorry.

  4678. musictheory 2019-08-23 11:41:06 RemainingData
    Accents are an important part of rhythm considering how much they can reinforce the beat or make you lose sense of it, etc. Time signatures have natural accents which is why they feel different as well, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to tell a song in 3/4 vs one in 4/4 or 6/8. It’d just sound like a random string of notes regardless of their rhythm. A good example is rite of spring (past the intro part). All of the accents in odd places are what make that part of the music feel exciting/abnormal, even though there’s a steady pulse.

  4679. musictheory 2019-08-23 12:12:09 RemainingData
    Music is performed with accents whether or not it’s notated. So you can’t just remove it from the equation just because you don’t think it’s rhythm. That’s why time signatures exist in the first place. Even before music notation was a thing, people usually played music with groupings of 2 or 3, where every second or third note respectively was accented (known today as downbeats). Downbeats still exist today even with complex time signatures. Without downbeats, you wouldn’t have upbeats, meaning no syncopation, or really any interesting rhythms. If every note is played with the exact same emphasis people would get lost easily and couldn’t play together, dancing would be nonexistent since there isn’t a beat to dance to, etc. I’m not sure who taught you the definition of rhythm, but accents are ingrained to the idea of it. The other comments talking about a 3+3+2 or 3+3+3+3+2+2 rhythms are interesting because the accents don’t match up with all of the downbeats in a measure creating syncopation and rhythmic dissonance, whether or not the notes are tied together or played separately. Accenting those notes also keeps the rhythm from being symmetrical, like 8 8th notes would be if they were naturally accented on the downbeats. If you really want unique and interesting rhythms, you have to utilize accents, whether it’s by an actual accent, placing emphasis on an offbeat, creating asymmetrical rhythmic figures, etc. But if you try to make each note have the same emphasis, without accents whatsoever, it won’t really sound like music and all and would just sound like a string of notes, regardless of how simple or complex the notes durations are.

  4680. musictheory 2019-08-23 12:18:19 Skellysword
    So tell me how a 3+3+2 is a unique rhythm. Again, with our without accents, they’re just 8 continuous 8th notes. Yes accents are an important part of articulation, but they naturally don’t change the actual rhythm of a piece. >But if you try to make each note have the same emphasis, without accents whatsoever, it won’t really sound like music and would just sound like a string of notes, regardless of how simple o complex the durations are. No? It would then just be a piece without dynamics or notated accents

  4681. musictheory 2019-08-23 16:10:50 Xenoceratops
    Put a rhythm to it. Arpeggiate (i.e. play the chord one string at a time).

  4682. musictheory 2019-08-23 17:02:59 fabmarques21
    on guitar, i don't know the name of the chord to be honest but it's like you're doing an A minor but your 1st finger is placed on the 2 fret of the 4 string, the 2 finger on the third fret of the 5 string and the 3rd finger on the third fret of the 6 string. i found it by playing Stay by Post Malone, the 2nd Chord of the song ( as i learned it )

  4683. musictheory 2019-08-23 17:03:08 highbrowalcoholic
    If you don't play the B on the A string (and thus play 3x0003) the harmonics line up from the first harmonic to the fifth. First harmonic: G. Second: D. Third: G. Fourth: B. Fifth harmonic: G. This is why open G sounds thick and full; its notes are optimally harmonising together.

  4684. musictheory 2019-08-23 17:42:12 AngryPacman
    That's assuming he's not playing the D string, which would make it a Dsus2

  4685. musictheory 2019-08-23 19:55:34 toitnuts
    Gmaj7 (starting from D string to B string, G B F#)

  4686. musictheory 2019-08-23 21:37:29 DRL47
    "Rhythm" involves more than just the note values. It includes phrasing, accents, articulation, etc. A string of eight eighth-notes can be played many different ways. Note values only address when a note starts, not when it ends. Tenuto and staccato marks aren't always used, but a string of eighth-notes can have many different amounts of space between the notes. This obviously changes the rhythm.

  4687. musictheory 2019-08-23 23:32:29 Skellysword
    And the included rhythm was a string of 8 eighth notes. If the person meant there was an “implied” rhythm of two dotted eighths and a quarter, it should have just been that, because those are two different rhythms

  4688. musictheory 2019-08-23 23:35:47 Skellysword
    I agree that rhythm is fun and unique, but the one the person linked is a string of 8 eighth notes.

  4689. musictheory 2019-08-23 23:49:45 Verlepte
    Besides other suggestions here you can also look at chord voicings, i.e. which string of the guitar is playing which note. Do you let them play the a chord as a c# e, or e a c#, or an open voicing like a e c# etc. You can play around with that a bit to make the part more interesting.

  4690. musictheory 2019-08-24 00:57:22 Disney_Jazzcore
    Okay, you found the part. Thank you. Should've looked carefully. Sorry, but does authentic cadence means plagal. I am not familiar with some of the \*alternate\* words of cadences. So, only a certain type of inversions can resolve to a certain type of inverted tonics? I was given this by my theory teacher [http://www.clt.astate.edu/tcrist/theory1/dom7.pdf](http://www.clt.astate.edu/tcrist/theory1/dom7.pdf) My approach to voice leading is more on paper, and partially through listens (sadly). I can visualize where the notes must go, what is the \*closet\* note that the fifth chord must resolve to the first chord. Why do you think it's not popular in pop music or strict? I can think of one reason maybe? The use of MIDI. I have seen people who just stack chords up and down freely. I have had someone make a bassline that was literally out of the 4-string bass register (but thankfully I had another low-B string). I believe, the use of MIDI sequencers and lack of sheet music has led people astray from \*reading\* the voice-leading motions/contrary motions and just... well, playing and making chords as they please.

  4691. musictheory 2019-08-24 01:32:26 pr06lefs
    How about chromatic steps? As long as you end on a chord tone you can get away with a lot. For instance you can play chromatic steps 1-2-3-4 where 4 is a chord tone. Or do 1-3-2 where 2 is the chord tone. Or just 1-2 or 2-1. Or the same kind of thing with the major scale notes, or whatever scale seems to sound right for the song at that time. When the chord changes, you can step with chromatics or major notes from a chord tone in the old chord to a chord tone in the new one. Depending on the chord progression, sometimes you can string these together to make a single giant chromatic run over multiple chords. Nice to do for variety. Anyway, you can do a lot crazy stuff, but the main thing is to make sure you end on a solid chord tone. Timing is key! Don't get caught on the 'one' with some random chromatic note.

  4692. musictheory 2019-08-24 04:34:42 Skellysword
    Well yeah, of course you can change the rhythm however you want, for better or worse. But that’s not what was originally being discussed. I asked for unique rhythms and someone gave me a string of 8 8th notes. Accented or not, it’s not a unique rhythm.

  4693. musictheory 2019-08-24 12:46:54 Xenoceratops
    You should check out Bartók too. His contrapuntal style and harmonic language was an influence on Ligeti. [Mikrokosmos, No. 132](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLR6LdVVrHg) [String Quartet No. 4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_XNfKk-Qbs) [Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m129k5YcQnU) (Begins with a five-voice fugue. The subject is built using a technique called "polymodal chromaticism".)

  4694. musictheory 2019-08-24 15:15:58 Xenoceratops
    It's not really a scale. These are just little chromatic passing tone figures. >7 8 9 on the a string E–F–F# >7 8 9 on the d string A–A#–B >11 10 9 on the a string G#–G–F#

  4695. musictheory 2019-08-24 17:33:22 Xenoceratops
    If you can do both, do! You'll benefit later. Keyboard might make it easier to learn theory, but I attribute my understanding of how to write for string instruments (violin, viola, cello, double bass) to my experience with guitar. It also made it easier to pick up electric bass, mandolin, ukulele, cuatro, and banjo. And, guitar is not as limited as some folks like to say. Piano pedagogy is more developed and integrated with theory pedagogy, but if you know how the fretboard works and have the dexterity, guitar is a great instrument for working with ideas and translating them to and from a compositional or theoretical framework.

  4696. musictheory 2019-08-24 20:09:46 guitarelf
    So you need to learn the following- YouTube is probably your best resource but I’ll put other sites as needed. 1. You need to learn maintenance and string changing. 2. proper posture and hand position 3. open chords (cowboy chords). YT can work but maybe also head over to justinguitar.com 4. c major scale in open position 5. a minor pentatonic in open and 5th position 6. Some simple songs that you like. Beatles are great. Those are a really good place to start. Try to play every day and learn this stuff. At least 30 min every day and you’ll make amazing progress.

  4697. musictheory 2019-08-25 02:46:47 ILoveKombucha
    Singing is super valuable. It's not at all about performing as a singer (although that may be a happy byproduct - if you can sing well, it just makes you that much more marketable). It's about musicianship. Singing forces you to engage very carefully with issues of intonation and so on. It forces you to really hear what you are doing in a way that pressing a key on a piano, or pushing a string against a fret, does not. It's perfectly OK to only ever sing in private. That's mostly what I have done. I sing to practice musicianship skills.

  4698. musictheory 2019-08-25 12:18:11 Conrad59
    "Music theory" is probably not particularly what you want at this point. You might do better looking for "double bass lessons" or "string bass method". You would learn how to read music as part of learning to play bass, which I guess is one aspect of "music theory". To actually get value from playing classical bass, I assume you'll need to get into an orchestra, which might be the hardest part depending on your age and location.

  4699. musictheory 2019-08-25 17:38:03 joshpark62
    I think the real questions is why G# minor? I don’t think the string players will appreciate that.

  4700. musictheory 2019-08-26 00:38:16 RyanT87
    There is no definite rule for determining time signatures. The time signature is simply a key for interpreting the notation. Perhaps an apt metaphor is to compare it to money. If I say this thing costs 2, what is that 2 of? Dollars? Euros? Yen? I'd need to specify it by saying it's $2, but I could also technically write that same amount of money as 200¢. And I could even think of that in varying ways, i.e., as consisting of 8 quarters, 20 dimes, 40 nickels, or 200 pennies. This also makes me think of the story [Verizon Math](http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/verizon-doesnt-know-dollars-from-cents.html), where they quoted a customer .002¢/KB for roaming in Canada but then charged him $0.002/KB. The key thing to remember about musical notation (with few exceptions) is that the notation should be as simple as possible so as to facilitate ease of reading. In terms of pitch, it's a lot easier to read F than D#x, so we write an F even though the two pitches sound the same. (Of course there are times where we might choose a slightly more complicated spelling for some harmonic or melodic reason, but I won't go into that here.) Similarly, if we were to transcribe some pop song that had never been notated, we could choose any number of time signatures. Usually we'll try to match the time signature with the audible metric groupings (e.g., if we hear it in duple duple or groups of four, we'd choose four beats per measure rather than three—though technically we *could* write it in a triple meter and it wouldn't be entirely incorrect; it simply wouldn't necessarily capture the metric connotations of strong and weak beats...). But with these four-beat groupings, how do we choose to notate it? Should we make each beat equivalent to a quarter note? To an eighth note? To a half note? Ultimately, it doesn't matter what we choose; all the time signature tells us is how to interpret the notation. If we chose 4/8, that's telling the reader that in the notation we've chosen, there are four beats per measure and the eighth note equals the beat. As to 12/8 vs. 4/4, you are absolutely correct. If you're feeling four beats in a measure and there are three sub-pulses in each beat, you could write it in either time signature. When you decide which you'd like to use, keeping in mind that you want to try to make the notation as simple as possible, perhaps you'd want to choose 12/8 instead of 4/4 so that you don't need to add a bunch of extra notation indicating triplets everywhere. But if there's only a few places of triplets, it'd probably be simpler to see a bunch of quarter notes with a few triplets here and there rather than a bunch of dotted quarter notes. With 5/4 vs. 3/4 + 2/4, it's the same thing—again, you could do either. One on hand, 5/4 is going to be simpler to notate and to read because you won't have to write/read a bunch of changing time signatures or those little dashed barlines between the 3/4 and 2/4 measures. But maybe you might choose this latter and slightly more involved notation because it's really important to you to convey the sense of two "primary" downbeats. But neither is wrong. So all together, it's like this: if I were selling lemonade at a stand, I could write on my sign that one cup costs $.50 or 50¢ or 2 Quarters or $.34 AUD or €.44 and these are all the same amount of money, just simply written in different ways. In the same way, I could notate some music in 4/4 or 4/8 or 4/2 or 4/64 or two measures of 2/16 and so long as I set the tempo accordingly, these are all the same. All the time signature does is define the relationship between the beat and the notation (and with the tempo marking, the temporal duration of each note). There's another interesting aspect to this matter. Just like how sometimes authors will write words in unconventional ways to portray a certain dialect to achieve a desired effect, sometimes composers will notate things in a perhaps unexpected way to create a certain effect (even if it's only to create a certain mental effect on the performer reading the music). For instance, usually half and whole notes connote a slower feeling or tempo, so a lot of times you'll see sacred music notated with such a time signature (e.g., 4/2 instead of 4/4) so as to subtly infuse a broader and thus somewhat more reverent feeling; it sort of unconsciously causes the performer to play it a little slower, to linger on the note ever so slightly longer, almost as if meditating on each note. When I see these half and whole notes, it somehow makes me *feel* different than if I were seeing it in eighths and quarters. On the other hand, usually when we see sixteenth and thirty-second notes, it implies something fast. For example, in the [second movement of Schoenberg's Third String Quartet](https://youtu.be/K_0W5MIQrT0?t=498), he uses a lot of these sixteenths and thirty seconds in 4/8, but it's Adagio at eighth note = 60. To me, even though it's a slow movement, the sheer density of notation with all the beams creates a sense of anxiety or uneasiness in me when I look at it. There's really no good reason why he couldn't have notated this in 4/4 with a *lot* fewer beams necessary, but he made the conscious decision to notate it this way. Back in the eighteenth century, there were even musicians who would write theories about the meanings or connotations of certain time signatures, like how one connoted a pastoral sense, another a certain type of dance, etc. (This isn't my specialty and I don't have my notes handy to find more details about this, but I bet u/nmitchell076 could chime in with a bunch on this.) So as you're working on notation and transcribing, don't get hung up on the time signature. Focus on trying to understand the pulses and the meter and choose a time signature that you feel best captures these pulse groupings and meter. And always try to notate things as efficiently as possible.

  4701. musictheory 2019-08-26 10:06:22 cowsaysmoo51
    It comes down to the frequency ratios between pitches. To go up a semitone (based on our modern equal temperament tuning system), you multiply the frequency by the twelfth root of 2. Frequency and string length are inversely proportional, so the original string length would have to be divided by the twelfth root of two. This is where you put the first fret. Divide THAT length by the twelfth root of two, you get the location of your second fret. When you do this twelve times, you end up doubling the original frequency, which is the same note as your open string, but one octave higher. Since you multiplied the frequency by two, the string length gets divided by two. So you place a fret exactly halfway along the string, it creates an octave, no matter how long the string.

  4702. musictheory 2019-08-26 11:20:03 Sodahkiin
    Yes, It's measured in "Hz" pronounced "hertz". Hz is the speed of which a string vibrates or oscillates. The note A4 vibrates 440 times per second aka 440hz. One interesting thing to note is that the octave above A4 (A5) rings at double the frequency of A4, so A5 = 880hz. A3 = 220hz.

  4703. musictheory 2019-08-26 15:06:45 FwLineberry
    8 on the A string is pretty flexible. You can do a lot of different licks with that note that aren't just moving between 7 and 9. 8 on the D string I tend to only use when going between 7 and 9 or 9 back to 7. You should play around with it. You might come up with some interesting ideas I might not think to play.

  4704. musictheory 2019-08-26 20:37:33 schmook
    That's strange. If it was the reverse (playing an A causing stimulus on an E tuned string) I would suggest it was simply caused by an E tuned beating pattern caused by interference of the second and third harmonics of A. The second and third harmonics are a fifth appart, so when they interfere they create a beating pattern on the same frequency of the fifth of the fundamental harmonic. In the case of A, that would be E. This beating pattern can make E-tuned things resonate and vibrate on their own. You can read about it by searching for the (Harmonic Series)[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_%28music%29].

  4705. musictheory 2019-08-26 21:03:45 kugelbl1z
    Hey, thanks for all the information, I've heard about the harmonics series before but I don't really understand it, thanks for the link and the information! > Is the string somehow touching your pick or some flexible surface? No, everything seems pretty normal Since you found this strange I've shot a video with my crappy phone, it's less clear than in real life but I think you can still hear it: [https://youtu.be/3xECSYEZYjA](https://youtu.be/3xECSYEZYjA)

  4706. musictheory 2019-08-26 21:18:26 s-multicellular
    [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String\_harmonic#/media/File:Flageolette.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_harmonic#/media/File:Flageolette.svg)

  4707. musictheory 2019-08-26 22:43:01 heremeg94
    The chord is Bmadd9, also C#11b9(no 5) but if the bottom string is tuned back to E then it would be F#sus4 or Bsus 2. A great sound but not sure when I would use it.

  4708. musictheory 2019-08-26 23:20:47 Jongtr
    The A string is vibrating in thirds - 1/3 fractions of the string - because its 3rd harmonic is the same pitch as the top E. You should find the bass E string also rings in sympathy with the top E, this time at the 4th harmonic - 14/ string length. This is perfectly normal! Any other E of the *same pitch* should have the same effect - !n theory. However - having just tried fret 9 on the 3rd string and fret 14 on the 4th string - I can confirm that the sympathetic resonance these produce is weaker, which is interesting. (It still happens, just not as strong.) I can only guess this is due to the timbre of the 2nd and 1st strings, being brighter than the 3rd and 4th. The 3rd and 4th have fewer high harmonics than the 1st and 2nd. In fact, a little more experimenting seems to confirm this guess. If I pick the 3rd and 4th strings closer to the bridge - exciting those higher harmonics - then the A and bass E ring more strongly. Likewise, the E on 2nd fret 4th string has a weaker effect - although still noticeable. The fundamental pitch of this note is too low for an A string harmonic, but of course its octave harmonic is the same as the 1st string - so the A still does ring in sympathy (a little) at that higher pitch. The bass E, meanwhile, rings strongly in sympathy with 4th string fret 2, as that's the 2nd (octave) harmonic of the 6th string.

  4709. musictheory 2019-08-26 23:24:41 Jongtr
    You're quite right A is not in the harmonic series of E, but you're misunderstanding what's happening. The A *pitch* is not ringing. It's the 3rd harmonic of the A string that's ringing - the same pitch as the 1st string - same note as the 7th and 19th fret harmonics of the A string. The OP's video proves that, and you can indeed prove it yourself on your own guitar. No undertones or negative harmony involved! ;-)

  4710. musictheory 2019-08-27 00:45:29 mr_munshun
    Haha, I didn’t want to distract from the question because it’s an interesting one but couldn’t get it out of my head. For what it’s worth, on double bass I check my intonation for C on the A string by whether I can hear the open G string sing above it. But not used to hearing the perfect 4th do that.

  4711. musictheory 2019-08-27 00:48:54 kugelbl1z
    Thanks for the explanations! Yes I've played around with harmonics, I find them fascinating but I don't truly understand how they work. I mean I understand that the string is static over the 12th fret for example but then why does resting my finger there does not make the exact same sound as when I play the open string ? The string was static there anyways, what does my finger change ?

  4712. musictheory 2019-08-27 00:56:25 kugelbl1z
    Oh okay so it's something that works on all guitars, interesting. I did not know that specific notes could make the harmonics of a string resonate, I thought it could only make a string resonate as if it was played open. How can a sound make the string resonate like if I rest my finger above the 7th fret ? But then, this be happening with a lot of other notes on the guitar, right ?

  4713. musictheory 2019-08-27 02:06:33 dresdnhope
    He's just indicating the tuning on each string with the letters, and the fretting on each string with the number. That is 6th string tuned to D played open, 5th string tuned to A, 4th fret (so, C#), etc.

  4714. musictheory 2019-08-27 02:52:58 Jongtr
    >I did not know that specific notes could make the harmonics of a string resonate, I thought it could only make a string resonate as if it was played open. Well, your A string is open and free to vibrate. The high E is transmitting its vibration through the body of the guitar (primarily via the bridge of course), and exciting the 3rd harmonic of the A string (making it vibrate in fractions of a 1/3). As I said, it will doing the same thing to the 4th harmonic of the 6th string (making it vibrate in quarters). Try muting the A string while you play that B string on 5th fret, but leave the 6th un-muted. You'll hear that ringing too. >How can a sound make the string resonate like if I rest my finger above the 7th fret ? Not sure what you're asking. Resting the finger above 7th fret is what you do when picking the same string to get the 1/3 harmonic. If you rest it there while doing your experiment, you'll find the A string still rings, because the point you're touching will not be moving anyway. > this be happening with a lot of other notes on the guitar, right ? Yes. Any string free to vibrate - open or fretted - will resonate with another if the strongest overtones match. E.g., you could adapt your experiment as follows. Fret the A string on fret 1. While you're holding that Bb note down, play the 1st string on fret 1 - quite loud and mute it quickly. You'll hear the 5th string ringing with the same F note, because F is the 3rd harmonic of the Bb you're fretting. Harmonics can, of course, be used creatively (as that demo showed) - there are classical guitar pieces with harmonics notated - and even sympathetic resonances are not necessarily a problem - usually they just double the note you're playing, which can be an attractive effect: a kind of reverb.

  4715. musictheory 2019-08-27 03:04:07 Jongtr
    I don't follow. When you play the open string, the whole string vibrates. Over 12th fret is where most of the movement is, in fact. Taking the A string, the open string has a frequency of 110 Hz (cycles per second). If you *fret* the string at fret 12, you're halving its length, which doubles the ferquency, producing the octave (220 Hz). It vibrates between the bridge and fret 12, of course, but not the other side (nut to fret 11). If you play the 12th fret harmonic, you get the same 220 Hz A octave, but this time the string is vibrating in two halves, either side of the 1/2 way point (fret 12). IOW, you could pick the string between nut and fret 12 and get the same harmonic. If you play the harmonic at fret 7 (or 19), the string vibrates in thirds, at 3x the open frequency: 330 Hz, which is very close to the open 1st string. (In the "equal temperament" system, E is tuned very slightly flat of 330, at 329.6, but the difference is negligible to the ear.) The physics is that the string contains all kinds of partial vibrations all the time. That's what gives it its *timbre*, why it doesn't just sound like an oscilloscope producing a 110 Hz sine wave. When you play a harmonic, you're cutting out the fundamental vibration, but allowing the smaller partials to continue.

  4716. musictheory 2019-08-27 03:16:53 Jongtr
    The effect here is actually the reverse: the higher string exciting an overtone of a lower string. So there's no 4th involved - if there is, it's an inverted 5th, or rather 12th. What you hear on your G is actually the octave (2nd) harmonic, matching the 3rd harmonic of the C. To repeat the OP's experiment, you'd play a high E on your G string, and listen for the E harmonic of your open A to ring. The A itself doesn't ring, because A is not an overtone of E.

  4717. musictheory 2019-08-27 03:22:19 kugelbl1z
    As I said, it will doing the same thing to the 4th harmonic of the 6th string (making it vibrate in quarters). Try muting the A string while you play that B string on 5th fret, but leave the 6th un-muted. You'll hear that ringing too. Yes I definitely noticed it! Thanks &#x200B; > Not sure what you're asking. Resting the finger above 7th fret is what you do when picking the same string to get the 1/3 harmonic. If you rest it there while doing your experiment, you'll find the A string still rings, because the point you're touching will not be moving anyway. Sorry for poorly wording it, I mean that to produce that harmonic, I have to rest my finger on the 7th fret, but with the sympathetic resonance it happens with the string not being touched at all, why is that? &#x200B; >Fret the A string on fret 1. While you're holding that Bb note down, play the 1st string on fret 1 - quite loud and mute it quickly. You'll hear the 5th string ringing with the same F note, because F is the 3rd harmonic of the Bb you're fretting. Nice ! I did not realise this was possible too, fascinating!

  4718. musictheory 2019-08-27 03:33:33 kugelbl1z
    >I don't follow. When you play the open string, the whole string vibrates. Over 12th fret is where most of the movement is, in fact. Oh okay! It seems I had a bit misunderstanding of what was happening. > The physics is that the string contains all kinds of partial vibrations all the time. That's what gives it its *timbre*, why it doesn't just sound like an oscilloscope producing a 110 Hz sine wave. When you play a harmonic, you're cutting out the fundamental vibration, but allowing the smaller partials to continue. Oh waw, fascinating ! I guess I'll have to study this more in depth how all of this work to stop asking nonsensical question ahah

  4719. musictheory 2019-08-27 05:43:20 Foxflitz
    I have just recently started learning about theory as a self taught guitarist of 10 years. I know I put it off way too long. One of my early songs has been confusing me lately, I love the sound of it but I can't figure out why I like it if I am going off of the Nashville Number System or the roman numeral thing. The progression is played on a guitar half a step down using all major 6th string barre chord shapes: Eb > Gb > Ab The rule says: I ii iii IV V vi vii Eb Fm Gm Ab Bb Cm Dmdim Is my key not Eb Major? Or am I just breaking rules and it sounds okay?

  4720. musictheory 2019-08-27 06:19:45 ChuckEye
    By ear? Or know that the low E string is `E2` which is the same as the second E below middle C.

  4721. musictheory 2019-08-27 06:47:16 ChuckEye
    Let's see… the 2nd octave C on the A string should be C3, one octave below middle C. The 2nd octave E on the B string should be E5, the E an octave above middle C. and the 2nd octave B on the E string should be B5, a halfstep below 2 octaves above middle C. If my math is right.

  4722. musictheory 2019-08-27 07:00:27 Jongtr
    Guitar actually covers piano double stave quite comfortably. Bottom E is the ledger line below bass clef. 12th fret 1st string is the top space on treble clef. The C on fret 1 of the B string is middle C. Obviously that aplies to all C's of the same pitch, which includes the one on fret 15 of the A string in your tab. You should be able to work out all the others from there. So, the E on fret 17 is an octave and 3rd above middle C, so the E on the top space of treble clef. The high B would then be a 5th above that. Guitar notation is transposed by an octave, so middle C appears in the 3rd space up. So if you were working from guitar notation, you'd just lower everything by an octave for piano.

  4723. musictheory 2019-08-27 07:11:42 Jongtr
    >Sorry for poorly wording it, I mean that to produce that harmonic, I have to rest my finger on the 7th fret, but with the sympathetic resonance it happens with the string not being touched at all, why is that? Well that's what sympathetic resonance is. The string is *capable* of vibrating in 3rds. You are kind of shaking it into action at that frequency. The vibration of the guitar caused by the E note you play tends to make the other strings all move too, but they won't move unless they can move easily in the required fraction. So, the D string won't vibrate when you play that E, because there is no division of the string (no "partial") which will produce E. (Actually there is, it's 1/9, but that needs too much energy to evoke through sympathetic vibration - and also, that E in the D string is two octaves above the 1st string E.) But the A and E strings contain simple partials equivalent to that 1st string pitch.

  4724. musictheory 2019-08-27 08:36:03 Filostrato
    You can easily memorize all the 6 notes corresponding to the 6 open guitar strings, i.e. E2-A2-D3-G3-B3-E4, and then moving one fret up on a string corresponds to moving one key up the piano, i.e. a half tone. No diagrams needed, and no idea where you're even getting perfect pitch from, that has nothing to do with this; even if you're able to hear that a certain string played open or on a certain fret corresponds to a certain key on the piano, that's not what perfect pitch is.

  4725. musictheory 2019-08-27 08:47:14 seveneightnineandten
    He's wrong though, he didn't know that you don't know note names, and instead were putting fret numbers. He thought the strings were the note names. Your actual notes are: D C# D B C# F# Because of the voicing, it's kinda messy to place. What you may be hearing in your head that feels "not major" is the Bm9 over a D (written as Bm9/D) that is within your chord. If you re-voice it as a Bmin add9: A - 2, D - 0, B - 2, E - 2 it has a similar quality to your chord. (no notes on the low E string or the G string) However, if you play a Dmaj7 add13: A - 5, D - 4, G - 6, B - 7, E - 7 it also has a similar quality to your chord &#x200B; I tried your chord out, and I take you are arpeggiating this chord. Played at once, it sounds like mush. But played out, note by note, it sounds lovely. Since this is the case, what you are most hearing is the pleasant dissonant clash between the C# and D (on the A string and D string respectively). It is made extra clashy because it is in the baritone register, and because it is underneath the rest of the chord. This is the probably another key reason your chord doesn't feel like a major to you. Lastly, your 3rd is on the top, hanging above a ton of dissonance. When a chord is built, the lower down stuff informs the upper stuff more than the upper stuff informs the lower down stuff. Your bass note always ends up baring the greatest harmonic responsibility. So when we put in a major third nearer to our root, down under everything, we easily hear that major third, and that relationship then informs all the notes above it. Since you have it on top, separated from the root by a moat of tension, you can hardly hear that major relationship. It's there, it's just hard to hear.

  4726. musictheory 2019-08-27 17:42:00 Jongtr
    Hold on, is this April 1st? If not, maybe the appropriate response would be 0 posts.... Damn, there goes that idea... >A bass can be used medentonically if only one open string is played and it does not form either harmony or melody with other pitches. Well, now you seem to be redefining what "medentonic" means. Obviously if's it's playing one note, then its scale has one note, not zero notes. The relation with other pitches is irrelevant, except that it adds its note to those other pitches - and obviously it will "form either harmony or melody" (in fact both) by simply being heard alongside those other pitches. The big flaw in this whole idea is that if a scale has no notes, you have no scale. I mean, duh! So there's no sense in talking about it. Except that it does arguably tie into John Cage-style ideas about silence and *conceptual* music. Can music exist purely as an idea, without having to be heard? If so, what exactly would it consist of? If not notes (or percussion sounds), then what? A blank sheet of manuscript is just a sheet of paper with lines on. Zero notes = no scale. If you imagine a scale, then there are notes, if only in your head.

  4727. musictheory 2019-08-27 17:53:41 jerdle_reddit
    There are no other pitches. It's all drums and noise with a single string.

  4728. musictheory 2019-08-28 02:05:11 Jongtr
    But the single string is making a note, yes? You don't have to define the note, or see it as part of a scale, but it's obviously not zero notes. It's one note. OTOH, if the string is making a kind of thump with an indeterminate frequency, then it becomes a percussion instrument like a (unpitched) drum. Maybe now I'm understanding you! You're not talking about "0 notes per octave" - that's a conceptual distraction. You're talking about unpitched percussion. Unpitched percusion still makes sounds with frequency content, of course, and we can define "high" and "low" sounds - and even notate them on a staff - so we could then make a "scale" of a kind, but presumably with notes named after the instrument making them, not specific pitch names. Drum kit notation already uses 2 or 3 different notehead symbols for different sounds, and it's easy to see how that could be expanded into a variety of notehead shapes for different instruments. Is this more like what you mean? It's certainly a lot more sensible than a "scale with 0 notes".

  4729. musictheory 2019-08-28 03:50:18 Beastintheomlet
    Sorry, to add, the change from E standard to C standard is the same as moving down 5 frets. The reason you got different answers on forums is because if you changed say from EADGBe to DADGBe you only moved one note, so your fingerings would be different on the lowest string.

  4730. musictheory 2019-08-28 16:49:42 DeadSea11
    What you have in mind I believe is a concept of musical voice: basically it's a string of notes played one after another, one note at a time. Counterpoint is a logical "commutation" of two or more voices so that they sound coherently together. There are many systems that conceptualise how one can do such "commutation" effectively. For example, there is strict style counterpoint, there's 4-part harmony, there's fuges and so on. You can even come up with your own ways of interweaving voices!

  4731. musictheory 2019-08-28 17:11:15 HashPram
    4-part harmony is music written with four parts, but those parts aren't necessarily sung by voices and they're not necessarily played on different instruments. Bach's chorales are (mostly) in four parts and they can be sung by a group of singers (Soprano, Alto, Tenor, Bass), a large choir, or one keyboard instrument (piano, harpsichord, organ, ...). You get 4-part harmonies in string quartets (mostly - many string quartets use double, triple and quadruple stops in places), you'll often find 4-part harmony in full orchestral works, and music for string orchestra and so on. Counterpoint OTOH is the art of combining melodies that are harmonically related, but independent in rhythm and contour. Counterpoint can be written for singers, or instruments, or combinations of the two. Schoolroom species counterpoint involves writing one or more counterpoints to a cantus firmus. The cantus firmus is written in semibreves (= whole notes), and "first species" refers to the rhythmic duration of the counterpoint being written by the student. First species involves the student writing a counerpoint in semibreves, second species uses minims (half notes), third species uses crotchets (quarter notes), fourth species involves using suspensions, and fifth species involves using all previous species. The type of species doesn't tell you how many voices are being used. Typically students write a counterpoint in one voice, then two voices, then three voices against one cantus firmus - so you get a progression of 2 voices (in total - cantus + counterpoint), 3 voices, 4 voices. Etymology of "counterpoint" is via Old French "contrepoint", from Medieval Latin "contrapunctus", where 'contra' means "against" or "opposite to" and "punctus" means "point" or "dot" - referring to the dots that make up musical notation - the whole word meaning something like "one point against another" with the sense in modern English of "one note against another".

  4732. musictheory 2019-08-29 08:12:44 cellomold
    They are different frequencies but the ratios of each interval are approximately the same. Differences will occur slightly due to how we tune. A C major triad uses the notes C E G and the intervals are a major 3rd and perfect 5th above the root. The same goes for the D major triad but the notes are D F# A. The effect is the same but the sound is different because the frequencies are different. The easiest way to think of it would be if you play guitar. With a guitar you can use a capo to change the notes of the open strings because it acts like a movable nut. You can also tune the strings down to change the open string notes. Because of this, you can essentially play any song in any key with the exact same fingerings. What you will notice though is that changing the key up or down by up to about a whole step won’t really effect the sound of the song much. Beyond that however and you will notice that it really starts to sound wrong.

  4733. musictheory 2019-08-29 11:50:10 17bmw
    Can I just say I absolutely **love** band music? Like wind instruments are everything to me, have given so much to the community; they were the blueprint and without them, a lot of these string players wouldn't even have their careers. We need to recognize that and really start having that conversation. All jokes and memes aside, there's [this awesome site](https://ww2.lipscomb.edu/windbandhistory/index.htm) I found a while back that details a lot of the history of wind bands, gives an overview of their various orchestrations, and a little bit about repertoire. You can find [another repertoire list here](https://wasbe.org/repertoire-list); listen to some pieces there to get a sense of how composers use concert bands. Also worth looking into are the handling of winds in jazz idioms; I like [this site](http://northernsounds.com/forum/forum.php) for that sort of thing. That said, unlike the traditional orchestra (with those finicky stringed instruments), the wind band is...different. It's a weird and wacky genre so a lot of the rules (formalities, really) that apply to traditional orchestras simply don't mesh with symphonic bands. If the instrument plays low enough/reads bass clef(double bass, tuba, euphonium, bassoon, saxophone, clarinet) it can hold a bassline. Any of the instruments could be given a melody or an accompanimental pattern. Sky's the limit, really. This feels like a poor answer to your question but I hope those links at least get you started with the possibilities for the concert band. If you would, listen to something by a living composer. Cloudburst by Whitacre is a fan favorite but [Frank Tichelli](https://youtu.be/ag5HkuojW_g), [John Mackey](https://youtu.be/7ulk28Z4bwk), and [Samuel Hazo](https://youtu.be/yqBWNNhPnHU) all write incredibly transcendent stuff. And that doesn't touch on what older composers (Hindemith, Stravinsky, Copeland, Schoenberg, Holst) could do with it! Still I hope this helps. Have fun exploring/composing and take care!

  4734. musictheory 2019-08-29 16:48:07 HashPram
    Might be worth asking your teacher for clarification on that. Piano and guitar chord voicings are different because the instruments are constructed and played differently. Unless you dick around with the internal mechanics of the piano you can't play two pitches that are the same simultaneously on the piano, but you can on the guitar (open string + fretted string). The guitar makes it quite easy to play chords that are spaced quite widely - there are occasions where this may be impossible on the piano. On the other hand playing close harmony on the guitar can be complete headache (depending on the key and register), whereas it's relatively easy on the piano. You can pull-off and hammer-on on the guitar - you can't do this on the piano The piano can play ten-note chords (+ 1 if you use your nose - I'm just kidding, although it wouldn't surprise me if there are avant-garde pieces that require this), the most you can get out of the guitar is 6 notes In terms of general skills, the left and right hands perform physically different mechanical actions on the guitar and piano. On the piano * Both hands move left-right * Your fingers press down * You hold your hands above the piano keyboard * You pivot your fingers over/under each other in places On the guitar (if you are right-handed) * Your left hand moves left-right but the range of movement is more restricted than on a full piano keyboard * Your left hand presses down (but slightly harder than on the piano) * You don't pivot any of your fingers * You only use the four fingers of your left hand and the thumb supports those fingers * The fingers of the right hand pluck the guitar strings, or hold a pick * If you're using your fingers classical style then you use the thumb and the first three fingers - the fourth is held above the instrument * Your right arm rests on the body of the guitar * Your right arm moves left-right to adjust the tone of the instrument but the range of movement is much more restricted in relation to a full piano keyboard * Your right hand finges play either rest or free stroke I'm not sure I would say that the one is necessarily going to "harm" the other. Perhaps if you're learning two instruments and they're competing for practice time then you could view the one as harming the other, but that's one of those teacher-style complaints that means "You're not practicing the thing I'm teaching you as much as I would like - devote all your time to *this* and ignore those other things".

  4735. musictheory 2019-08-29 17:11:07 0nieladb
    Same, my dude! I actually find having a variety of defaults makes it easier! Some of the more time-saving ones I've got are: DEFAULT_bigband with wider margins, slash notation on the rhythm section and horizontal score set to default. DEFAULT_rockband with tab under my guitar notation so I can think in standard notation and copy/paste instead of struggling with tab. DEFAULT_girlfriend to avoid having to make a new instrument anytime she needs me to arrange for her weird 5 string electric violin. DEFAULT_drums for when I don't want to spend 10 minutes setting up a 2 voiced, varied notation staff just to do a simple transcription. Now I just feel like I'm trying to sell you the idea of defaults so I'll drop it here, haha. If you do a lot of writing in Sibelius though, I can promise you'll be thanking yourself for dealing with the headache before starting!

  4736. musictheory 2019-08-29 17:28:54 HashPram
    Depends on what you're intending to achieve. You could do worse than listening to a bunch of 1970s classic salsa albums ([here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl5pX5MZPHQ) [are](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g29_PweYFU) [some](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGVV-KKII_M&list=OLAK5uy_l_Gan7MNnPp4Sj_0OKMT99_RlscoNw2sM) [examples](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB5glke81u0)) and listening to how the rhythm is being structured there, and back that up with a bit of reading (search Amazon for "Afro-Cuban Rhythms" and go with star reviews, or google search the same string and dig around a bit). You'll find that the way this music works is due to: * The interlocking rhythms of the individual parts (claves, bongos, congas, timbales, cabasa, bass & piano - they're all playing slightly different rhythms but all grounded in the tresillo rhythm known as "clave") * The fact that although the players are right on groove, the groove has a somewhat loose feel to Western ears - almost as if the players are slightly off the beat while not being off the beat. You get a similar thing with 1970s funk.

  4737. musictheory 2019-08-29 19:42:13 Jongtr
    Well, "usually" is the question. This bunch of chords is common in rock music, for various reasons. It's common for them to all be major. It's also common for the E to be minor, and maybe for the A to be minor - not always at the same time. The "rules" here are not much to do with the rules of classical theory that you get in music theory books. They do relate, but in a pretty loose way. So you can use conventional terms like "mode mixture", and "borrowed chords". You can even use "key" (E in this case), although few if any of the classical habits of key will apply. There are two other big reasons why chord progressions like this are standard in rock music: 1. The chords are all easy. The common open position "cowboy" chords that all beginners learn: E, D, A, G, C, Em, Am. E makes a good sounding central chord, because its root is the open bass string. So, naturally, if you are writing a song, you're going to start by experimenting with those - seeing which ones sound good together. You're not going to read books on music theory or songwriting! 2. Everyone does it. Beginners hear songs they like (probably written by people using the above process), and copy them. So the "common practices" become even more common.

  4738. musictheory 2019-08-29 23:53:20 drugwarsurvivor
    >You only use the four fingers of your left hand and the thumb supports those fingers The thumb can play the low E string(A string also, sometimes barre both). I learned that way, even classical stuff on a classical guitar. I also use my right pinkie to anchor on the pickup with electrics.

  4739. musictheory 2019-08-30 00:23:58 yeahmakessenseyeah
    I think what the issue might be here is that you shouldn’t create piano voicings with intervals that are too close in the lower register of the keyboard. This is usually fine on guitar because the only way to make intervals less than a fourth is to depress one of the strings, which decreases the resonance it has when it’s open, so the clash between close tones in the guitar’s lower register are attenuated. However, on a piano, even fifths can become muddy the lower you progress to its lower registers. As an example, here’s a common guitar voicing for a Gmajor chord: G B D G D G. This is with the D and G strings open. All of the other ones, including the A string, are depressed, meaning that they don’t resonate as much, so the G-B third in the bottom doesn’t produce many issues. However, if you want to produce this same chord on the piano, I think you’re going to find a lot of interference between the partials of the low G and B. This being said, I think that most guitar voicings are fine for piano, though I do think that there are specific voicings that work best on piano. My general formula is to use more open voicings in the left hand and less open ones in the right hand. That usually roughly mirrors the harmonic series, so it’s hard to go wrong there. :)

  4740. musictheory 2019-08-30 09:58:43 65TwinReverbRI
    Look at some string orchestra scores and see what the Bass does. Often it just doubles the cello, but sometimes it does stuff like play pizzicato notes on the down beat - depends on the effect you want.

  4741. musictheory 2019-08-30 15:46:11 Jongtr
    One way of looking at it is that you start with a 7-note scale, and any of the chords you can make from those notes. They are all "diatonic", or what you could describe as "in key". You can use them in any order, they'll all sound like they belong together, because - they do. Obviously most of the scale steps are whole steps (only two half steps). You may decide, as you're stringing these chords together (or making a melody to help string them together), how about sticking a note in the middle of that whole step? E.g., as a D notes moves to an E note (in melody or in chord change), why not ease the movement by putting D# in between? This is "chromaticism", which means using any of the 5 missing notes from your 7-note scale. You can use any of them at any time, but - once you've established your "key", your family of diatonic chords - they work best as transitions across those whole steps, in either direction. (You might not want to stick that D# between a G and A...) If you do this with chords, try to keep the other notes in the chord *diatonic.* E.g., if the chord change is from F to G, you could use a whole F# chord in between. But it's more subtle to just change the F note to F# and keep the A and C in the F chord. You don't have to know what new chords you are creating when you do this. Just use your ear to decide which notes need altering. Of course if you do know a whole load of other chords that "don't belong" in this key (and you probably do), you can experiment wth inserting them in different places - especially where you want some kind of surprising sound, or just a break in the monotony of all those diatonic chords... (Tip: diatonic harmony needn't be boring. Simple is good.) Your ear is always in charge. Theory just has a whole bunch of suggestions of what you CAN do: "how about this? Or what do you think of this? I bet you never thought of *this*?" It never says what you CAN'T do. Your ear is reliable enough there.

  4742. musictheory 2019-08-30 20:48:34 Jongtr
    *Commonly* they are two chords at the same time, one on top of the other - pitch-wise and in the symbol. Sometimes they will be "dissonant with no resolution" - because they would be essentialy atonal, or polytonal, i.e., ignoring any concept of a single key. Stravinsky's "Petrushka chord" is one example, a C major triad on top of an F# major triad. No functional meaning, just a nice juicy [crunch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et9hU7QMDYU&t=55). Dissonant for sure, but no particular resolution implied. (Actually, in jazz, that chord could resolve to B or Bm as an altered dominant...) Other times - as I said - a polychord *symbol* can be used to represent a complex functional chord. Such as Bm above C to represent Cmaj9#11, or D above C7 to represent C9#11. But these are - arguably - not true polychords, because they work like single chords with extensions. (You could call them "monochords", but actually that's a term for an instrument with one string. ;-))

  4743. musictheory 2019-08-30 21:27:43 RFrobisher
    You can think of them like adding another bar underneath the first one, turning each 8th note into 16th notes. It's pretty common in string music and percussion music.

  4744. musictheory 2019-08-30 23:36:24 DeWayneKong
    The pedals let you raise or lower any string a half step or whole step (or more if you don't mind breaking strings). This lets you change the intervals between notes without re-attacking. The best way to do this on a standard guitar would be something like the the Bigsby Palm Pedal. If you don't want to do that, the only way to emulate the pedal sound is to slant the bar, which would limite you to two notes at a time. That would be enough for most of Together Again and Blue Jade. You would have some drastic slants right at the beginning of Blue Jade; minor 3rd to major 2nd to perfect 4th.

  4745. musictheory 2019-08-31 01:06:14 0wlpasta
    This notation is really common in orchestral string parts. Violin parts can have whole pages of this notation, and they'd be a lot longer and more tiring to read without it. Beethoven symphonies come to mind as using this a lot, but it's pretty ubiquitous in my experience.

  4746. musictheory 2019-08-31 01:06:46 telperiontree
    It's very common in string music. Trumpet is a little weird, though.

  4747. musictheory 2019-08-31 01:19:47 Draculasaurus13
    Do you need to play it live? For recording, I bet you could rig up something pretty convincing. If you removed your G string, recorded the song and then overdubbed the same thing using only the G string, but just went a fret lower when you want to go to a minor chord, that might work just like a pedal steel. You'd have to do a whole other string if you wanted to go to a seven chord too though. Sounds like a lot of work. Maybe you could figure out a way to mute certain strings by taping them down or something. ?

  4748. musictheory 2019-08-31 01:27:41 Boundarie
    I’m a string player and I see it all the time in orchestral repertoire, it’s not so common for other instruments though.

  4749. musictheory 2019-08-31 05:11:06 Xenoceratops
    This is better suited to /r/classicalmusic or /r/composer. I'll leave this up for a little while then lock it. Try [Debussy - Masques](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9cmc5NMJ2w) (1904), [Webern - Op.5, 5 Movements for String Quartet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELAKF8ZxDmg) (1909), or [Richard Straus - Op. 58, Elektra](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXnoxs5WDTA) (1909).

  4750. musictheory 2019-08-31 05:30:11 Frank9991
    That's very interesting. So whenever you're playing any note a minor chord is essentially being played except that it may be too subtle to be noticed. Right? I expect certain instruments might happen to have those particular overtones relatively loud and that might give them a "sad" sound. You can play the 19th harmonic on the guitar by plucking really close to the bridge (which amplifies the harmonics). I find it fascinating how the timbre changes depending on where and how the string is plucked. I'm curious regarding the physics involved. Must have something to do with transverse waves on strings and how they work. As you get closer to half way point of the string the quieter the harmonics get and it starts sounding more like a piano. I was also wrong about the neutral second thing, I was playing the 9th harmonic there. The nineteenth would be at the 1/19th point which is a little above the first fret.

  4751. musictheory 2019-08-31 09:15:16 Jongtr
    >So whenever you're playing any note a minor chord is essentially being played except that it may be too subtle to be noticed. Right? Not really. I mean, yes, you can pick three harmonics out of the first 19 and say "that's a minor chord", but so what? You can pick three other harmonics and make all kind of other chords. One pitch is a whole soup of overtones, and the most noticeable ones - the lowest and loudest - form a major chord. But obviously even that chord is not strong enough to affect how we use that note as part of other chords. >You can play the 19th harmonic on the guitar by plucking really close to the bridge (which amplifies the harmonics). Yes, I know where I have to pick and (more importantly) exactly where the node is, I just can't get an identifiable pitch. >I find it fascinating how the timbre changes depending on where and how the string is plucked. I'm curious regarding the physics involved. Must have something to do with transverse waves on strings and how they work. Yes - the nearer to the end of the string you pick, the more you enhance the higher overtones, the shorter partials, making the tone brighter. The hearer the centre of the string, the more you promote the fundamental. >As you get closer to half way point of the string the quieter the harmonics get and it starts sounding more like a piano. I wouldn't say that personally, but it interesting how piano hammers are designed to hit the strings at specific fractions of the length of the string, in order to produce the most favourable mix of overtones. It took me a fair amount of googling to find this, but the optimum strike point is apparently between 1/7 and 1/8 of string length. The equivalent position on a guitar string would be a little over 3" from the bridge. But of course piano strings are hammered, not plucked, which is obviously mellower. To make a guitar sound like a piano, then, you would hit the string with a small felt hammer 3" from the bridge!

  4752. musictheory 2019-08-31 09:16:13 johnsmusicbox
    **Alt-Pop:** [Oh Land](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_Land) \- The daughter of Danish organist Bendt Fabricius and opera singer Bodil Øland, Nanna Øland Fabricius - better known by her stage name Oh Land - writes and performs music that, quite honestly, is pretty damn hard for me to describe, as it takes influence from so many different genres, including pop, classical, dance, folk, jazz, and many more. Professional music reviewers can probably describe this strange but enchanting mix a lot better than I can, so I'll just post a few snippets from a couple reviews of her material: "Oh Land embraces the open-ended world of pop, creating an “anything goes” mix of club, dance, and nocturnal electro-pop. Like Lykke Li, she sometimes comes across like a flower child in a DJ booth, blissfully grafting together genres that may not be entirely compatible. But Oh Land’s combinations always work, whether she’s layering spoken word verses over disco beats on “Voodoo” or splitting the difference between Motown, tropicalia, and synth pop on “White Nights.”" -Andrew Leahey "Standouts like the string-laden "Doubt My Legs" and "Hot 'n Bothered" show off her penchant for mixing rich orchestrations with glitchy pop. With their strong, hooky choruses and quirky rhythms, they're right in her wheelhouse. Similarly, "Flags" marches to Oh Land's particularly strange drum, percolating with intricate rhythms and idiosyncratic backing vocals that probably wouldn't work if the song wasn't so damned catchy. Taking a more lonesome tack, the title cut floats along on a bed of hazy synths with distinct echoes of Goldfrapp as she reaches sweetly into her upper vocal register. Opening ballad "Machine" has a similarly attractive lost-in-space feel, building into the first of Earth Sick's many memorable choruses." -Timothy Monger FWIW, she also wrote what is probably my favorite song of all time: the spellbinding ballad *Frostbite*. I adore every single song she's ever released, but here's a quick playlist of some of my absolute favorites: [Audition Day](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WD1X3KFkuw) (live, original version from *Fauna*) [Heavy Eyes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIG9w4wiKWU) (mv from *Fauna*) Frostbite ([album audio](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSldUohee5s) and [live performance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hFr2kvOeAg)) [White Nights](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LcL7MAqwOc) (mv from *Oh Land*) [Wolf and I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF6J_Z4MH2I) (live, original version from *Oh Land*) [Renaissance Girls](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFCYo3XocIM) (mv from *Wish Bone*) [Love You Better](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDxs8TuRp58) (mv from *Wish Bone*) [Half Hero](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh-KioVFXDo) (live, original version from *Earth Sick*) [Doubt My Legs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOqzsNLd0tE) (live acoustic, original version from *Earth Sick*) [No Particular Order](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zITOUIpxIeA) (mv from *Earth Sick*) [Trailblazer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNIriUZfAT0) (lyric video from *Earth Sick*) Oh, and as a drummer, ya might dig this live version of [Green Card](https://youtu.be/Fgc7N-5suls?t=105) (check out the super sweet fill at 6:03)! If ya do get a chance to take a listen (I know there's a whole lotta stuff to listen to in this thread!), please do let me know what'cha think!

  4753. musictheory 2019-08-31 12:04:09 GonzoBalls69
    Neither band is really metal. BtBaM has harsh vocals sometimes, but they’re by far more of a theatrical prog rock band than a metal band. And Animals as Leaders might use 8 string guitars but if you look more analytically at what they’re doing stylistically and what musical elements they pull from, it’s pretty obvious that they aren’t really metal, to me anyway. They site Meshuggah as an influence, sure, but they also site alt-rock bands like Incubus and Deftones, and a million different jazz and fusion artists, and I hear those influences in their music way more than I hear any of the metal influences.

  4754. musictheory 2019-08-31 12:49:50 BundleOfJoysticks
    Here's a few. **Michael Hedges** is the greatest steel-string acoustic guitarist who ever lived. He invented so much in terms of tones and techniques it's mind boggling. He was to the guitar what Chopin was to the piano, and more. Tracks: Ragamuffin, Aerial Boundaries, Because it's There, Spare Change, Point B. **Shawn Lane** was the most astounding guitar and keyboard player the world has ever seen. YouTube him and your jaw will drop. Tracks: Paris, Get You Back (live). **Allan Holdsworth** in jazz is as significant as John Coltrane was. His harmonic inventiveness and limitless mastery of his instrument have not been touched. Tracks: the whole Wardenclyffe Tower and Sixteen Men of Rain records. **Steve Vai** can literally hear, write, and play *anything*. That's why Zappa hired him as a transcriber at age 17 and band member shortly thereafter. He's credited as "Impossible guitar parts" on a FZ record. He's also a composer, producer, arranger, and singer. Tracks: Blue Powder. **Jonas Hellborg** is a Swedish bass player. His music is extremely varied, from funk to metal to jazz to fusion to delicate solo bass to an amazing acoustic bass guitar + frame drum album. Tracks: Ars Moriende (the whole album), The Word (whole album) **Tigran Hamasyan** is a jazz pianist with limitless technical ability, monstrous rhythmic chops and sensibilities, and some gorgeous compositions. Tracks: Fides Tua, Entertain Me, the whole Aratta Rebirth record.

  4755. musictheory 2019-08-31 12:54:48 HideousRabbit
    Another reason to use double sharps is to maintain compatibility with older meantone temperaments, according to which e.g. the major third of an F# major chord is lower in pitch than G. Some string players will still play Ax slightly flatter than G, because, in the keys in which Ax occurs, it tends to sound more harmonious.

  4756. musictheory 2019-08-31 16:19:52 Evan7979
    I'm not sure about videos, but it's a very possible skill. While a little rusty now with anything other than classical/easier rep it used to be a staple part of my job and there's concrete things you can do to sight-read full orchestral scores. The two things that make it difficult are transposing instruments and the voice crossing. Transposition is an easier one to tackle. The trick is, learn how to play very very fluently in treble, bass, tenor and alto clef and all their combinations together. There are tons of books for exercises on this. Then, if you come across a clarinet in Bb for example, pretend it's in tenor clef and play it fluently. So you're just imagining different instruments have different clefs. Secondly, voice crossing. This is hard because when a cello goes above a viola for example, it can be hard to play parts written higher that appear lower on the score. Usefully, if the basses are playing, they'll usually be at the bottom and be at the bottom of the score. Then, it's all about contour and pattern recognition to top it off, as regular sight-reading is. There's quite a few books on the subject so start with them and clef exercises. Simple sight-reading in every clef until completely fluent. Then try a few easy string quartets by Mozart or Haydn - try the slow movements and take your time. You'll find as you expand the size of orchestra as your skill improves most of what you're looking for is in the strings anyway. Good luck!

  4757. musictheory 2019-09-01 00:02:57 dubbelgamer
    No it wasn't completely, around Mozart's time that started to transition. Improvements and the rise in popularity of pianos, sheet music, guitars, marching bands, brass instruments, opera buffa, chamber ensembles etc. made music increasingly popular. While probably in the very most isolated towns they would still play only folk music, in the denser populated Germany and Italian areas the music of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven grew ever so popular. With the creation of string quartets you and your buddies could play music with your fiddles, without needing an orchestra. Sheet music and transcriptions meant you could play any piece you wanted from your living room. It went hand in hand with the growth of democratic ideals across Europe. Mozart stood at the beggining of that development.

  4758. musictheory 2019-09-01 06:01:21 zegogo
    > In my opinion, trap is the most rhythmically complex genre of music outside of any experimental sub-genres. You must not be familiar with Afro-Cuban music, which, like Hip Hop is essentially 4/4 dance music. The depth of rhythmic complexity in [Salsa](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgYrJ0g8Cf0), [Songo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKt7223rPn8&list=RDHKt7223rPn8&start_radio=1), or [Timba](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t389Y433F8M&list=PLpIfazT8KxHaQGgloYpkUL6dO0LVaQUWp&index=70&t=0s) is pretty astounding. There's countless layers of repeating percussive layers underneath interlocking horn, string, piano and bass loops.

  4759. musictheory 2019-09-01 20:12:13 gosports101
    Most likely slashes thru the stems should be a measured single stoke roll eg triple or double the note value depending on how many slashes. The tr would be a roll sounding like a long continuous sound eg not played in time as such. For reference, I noticed in Beethoven 6 a few weeks ago that the string parts have slashes thru the stems pretty regularly, meaning 16th notes to be played (sorry not sure of publisher). This leads me to believe the timp parts are probably written the same way, especially as this was originally from before the time of more or less standardised percussion writing. Hope this helps :)

  4760. musictheory 2019-09-02 01:57:04 sychosphere
    Maybe its not exactly the answear youre looking for but when ive been trying to learn the circle ive printed out the poster of it, put it on my wall to have a reference (its still there as a decoration!) and every night before falling asleep i would recite it both ways semi-out loud. Of course at the same time i was practicing all the scales/triads etc using circle of fourths. Slowly with an intention of learning the order. Did the same with minor keys. I also have this excersise for fretboard memorisation (dont know if youre playing a guitar tho) in which i follow the circle of fourths and play the notes on each string. 1 chord per 1 bar. 8th notes starting from lowest E string so its like this (note-string): C-6 / C-5 / C-4 / C-3 F-2 / F-1 / F-2 / F-3 Bb-4 etc... Then all thirds, fifths, sevenths I helped me tremendously. Hope I helped in any way, cheers ! ;)

  4761. musictheory 2019-09-02 06:11:49 elbigote
    A quick way to remember them for me. You think of 'C' as the center tone, which has no sharps or flats and is the starting point of the circle. If you want to know the circle starting from the sharps, you start in G third fret of the sixth string, the next one is D which is the fifth space in the fifth string. The next one is A, fifth fret in the sixth string. Next, E which is the seventh fret of the fifth string, and so on. To easily remember the flats, you start in F, sixth string first space. The next note in the flats is Bb which is the same space but now in the fifth string. Next? Eb, again first space in fourth string. Ab first dpace third string. Now for Db and GB you start in the second space second and first string, respectively (why? those two strings are a 'half step lower'). I don't know if that's the best way to remember the circle, because in the piano you get a better understanding, but if you want a quick way to find out what sharps or flat you have in a guitar, it's fast.

  4762. musictheory 2019-09-02 14:42:55 SteinSteenStern
    with a guitar it's easy if you know the fret board notes. Just start on the 3rd fret of 5th string, C, the fifth of that is right above it, G, on the 6th string, 3rd fret. then go two frets up on the 5th string, D, 5th fret. 5th fret, 6th string above that is A. follow this pattern and that's the circle of fifths. Find a youtube video afterwards to understand this better

  4763. musictheory 2019-09-02 17:05:09 nobbers12345
    On the guitar there are a handful of ways to play a specific pitch. Your high open E is available on the 5th fret of the B string, 9th on the G string, 14th on the D string, 19th on the A string, and 24th (if you have a 24 fret guitar) on the low E string. That being said, there can be a great number of ways to play the same lick all around the guitar. Some may be more practical than others. That's one of the tricky things about guitar, you get to decide where on the instrument to play anything if there isn't a strict tab - it's all about ergonomics and what comes to you first. This also assuming that it's a correct transcription. Hopefully if you're learning something you've listened to it enough to know how it sounds. If it sounds right though and it feels comfortable to you, then the "right" way to play it doesn't matter too much.

  4764. musictheory 2019-09-02 17:14:05 MaggaraMarine
    Guitar is a really easy instrument to learn the intervals on because the same interval is always the same shape. I'm pretty sure you know the basic power chord shape - that's a perfect fifth. You can also look at your basic open chord shapes and you'll find the major third shape this way, for example the two lowest notes in the open G major chord form a major third, same with the notes on the D and G strings in the open E major chord (notice how these two major thirds have exactly the same shape). Then there is the fourth shape that is an "inverted power chord" that you know from "Smoke on the Water". You get the point - do this with all intervals and figure out their shapes. The only thing that makes it a bit more complicated is the major third between the G and B strings. This means, the shapes are different between these strings (you use the same shapes, but the note on the B string needs to be one fret higher than normally).

  4765. musictheory 2019-09-02 17:25:00 Jongtr
    The secret to the chord is really George Martin's piano. Most of the wild theories about the chord don't consider the piano (although the link given earlier by [GreenGageGenie](https://www.reddit.com/user/GreenGageGenie/) does). I saw one "scientific" analysis which came out with the most bizarre suggestions of how it was played. In Dominic Pedler's [book](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Songwriting-Secrets-Beatles-Dominic-Pedler/dp/0711981671/ref=sr_1_1) he spends an entire *chapter* (40 pages) on that chord, interviewing various people. Randy Bachman's analysis is convincing - he had access to the original tapes and certainly produces a convincing sound - but he has George Harrison playing an almost impossible G-C-F-C-A-G chord. Harrison himself referred to the "F chord with G on top", but he would have meant 1-0-3-2-1-3, the low F played with the thumb. In fact, the audio spectrum supports this - according to the waveform there is no low G and C in the chord at all. The mystery is about what Lennon played. Bachman identifies his chord as Dsus4, which is consistent with the audio (see below). It seems an odd idea for him to play a different chord from Harrison - and in a live video you see him play the same Fadd9 as Harrison - but Pedler quotes Martin as saying "Lennon hit a chord which to this day I still don't know exactly what the notes were - but it was *almost* the open strings." That doesn't really equate to the usual Dsus4 - unless perhaps he played the open 3rd: x-0-0-0-3-3 (including that low A) is consistent with the audio waveform. But Bachman missed the piano. George Martin is on record (presumably unknown to Bachman at that time) as saying that he added piano because the chord needed beefing up. It was the sound that would open the film, not just the single, so needed maximum impact. The song has a double-speed guitar solo, doubled by George Martin, which would explain why piano would be on the same track. Remember they only had 4 tracks to play with in those days. Meanwhile, Paul played a D bass which was slighly out of tune (sharp), and resonated loudly at the octave. [Here](https://imgur.com/D1ptrj6)'s the frequency spectrum of the original (from Transcribe). This combines two moments in the chord: red early, blue later, because there is a subtle change in the timbre through the length of the chord. The key to the frequency peaks is as follows: 1. George Harrison's Fadd9 (main strings F3 A3 C3 G4 in black, octaves F4-A4 in blue. The green arrows allow point to the likely 6th and 5th strings if he played all six: F2-A2, whose octaves are already on the 4th and 3rd strings of course. The A2 could also be Lennon's 5th string, or George Martin's piano. 2. Paul McCartney's bass, D2 (slightly sharp). Look how much louder its octave is. 3. John Lennon's Dsus4 - if indeed that's what he played. The dotted line is the open G string, if he played that. 4. George Martin's piano, according to Dominic Pedler. Like Bachman, he also hears a low G2. The spectrum disagrees, but the G3 is plainly there. There is of course a whole forest of harmonics there. The bass produces more out-of-tune overtones at A3, D4 and A4, while the in-tune D4 would either be John's supposed 2nd string, or Martin's piano. Notice the complete absence of the G2 and C3 Bachman claimed to have identified - no need for that awkward chord at all! If he did really hear those notes - audio spectra can sometimes mislead - they would be the piano. There are still some little mysteries: what's that blue peak just sharp of F2? (It's blue because it only appears towards the end of the chord.) Just imagine what a modern producer would have done with all those pitches... Melodyned them into in-tune blandness?

  4766. musictheory 2019-09-02 19:35:55 joefourstrings
    Learn the fret board. The fifth of any note is always either the next lowest string on the same fret or two strings up and two frets up. This won't unlock all the mystical powers of the circle of fifths but if you start on C, you will know the order and number of sharps in each key.

  4767. musictheory 2019-09-03 01:30:41 TehNatorade
    Glad to help! Felt like I was rambling a bit, but hey, a simple google/YouTube search on basically any of those things should open up a whole world of knowledge to explore. I’m no expert guitarist myself and am still learning/practicing a lot of those things I mentioned myself, but another big tip I can think of is to really try to digest what’s going on during each topic. Like rather than rote memorization, try to hone in on the _why_ of everything. For example, I think you’ll end up learning much more during arpeggio practice, if in your head you’re thinking “okay, I’m going from the root to the third to the fifth” rather than “from this fret to that fret and down a string”. One last thought I had: not sure if you have any piano experience or a keyboard laying around, but it’s an incredibly visual way to learn chords and theory. For instance, watching your middle finger drop half a step to go from a major chord to a minor chord is really rewarding and translates well to guitar (i.e. going from a major to minor barre chord... what do you do? Drop the third a half step / one fret)

  4768. musictheory 2019-09-03 07:00:51 neopolitansix
    This is what I did in college. Along with taking some lessons, I ended up being able to play in the percussion ensemble for 2 years, an experience that was invaluable to me both as a string player and a composer. (Plus I got to hang out with the percussionists a lot -- pretty cool people.)

  4769. musictheory 2019-09-03 14:01:14 nmitchell076
    I posted it in a bit of a rush, so I didn't have a lot of time to talk about what I did. But essentially, I started rummaging around for model themes. And I ended up starting basically with the "star" powerup theme from Mario, which is the basis of the riff. I was originally thinking about the melody as more of a sliding, 64-bit era thing. A la the lead sound in [bomberman hero](https://youtu.be/Y50q6h4FyMA). But the main melodic idea sort of just came to me prefabbed. The part I had to really "work" on was the departure bit. I like how it ended up though, especially with the little descending line with that one measure of counterpoint against it. I think that works pretty well. I'm not happy about the ending, maybe I'll try the ABBC format and see how that works. As I was adjusting my basic chord voicings and whatnot to the 3-voice limitation, I became struck by how similar my thought process was for when I'm composing three-voice stuff in eighteenth-century galant style: if you are vamping on a chord, play thirds and roots; if you want an accompanying voice, just write it in parallel thirds or 6ths with the main voice. That is like textbook galant string voicing, and it ends up producing nearly optimal results here too. If you just restrict yourself to mostly using thirds, the voice leading just happens to work itself out for the most part automatically. Just don't even have fifths, who needs them?

  4770. musictheory 2019-09-04 02:25:31 toughenough6
    How long is a piece of string?

  4771. musictheory 2019-09-04 02:40:43 brain_damaged666
    I saw a video where a saxophone player talked about how he memorized the individual tambre of each note on his sax. and in this way, he was able to listen to an alto sax and know what each note was without reference. like certain notes on sax are weaker, or more pronounced. He associated it with vowel sounds. some were more of an "oo" and others and "ah". once he was good enough at this, he could listen to other instruments, remember what tambre would go with that pitch on saxophone, and thus know the note. It wasnt as fast as perfect pitch, but it was reliable. it was at least quick enough to say, figure out the key a band was playing in within a couple seconds, so he could join in. ive also heard of experienced piano players just knowing what the notes are when hearing a piano, just by the tambre of each string. For me, as a guitar player, it goes a little deeper. I havent memorized every pitch tambre. but I can tell the tambre which string and generally how far up or down the neck someone is playing. its only a matter of time before the gap narrows from an area of frets down to a single fret, especially if i intentionally try to use this tambre memorization method. But as you say, relative pitch is still more important. this trick isnt as fast as perfect pitch, and even perfect pitch itself isnt fast enough for higher tempos. at some point you need to start sequencing, and for that you need relative pitch.

  4772. musictheory 2019-09-04 07:56:04 peduxe
    that is one cool voicing but imho the barred one (x32333) sounds a lot fuller with the 1st string note.

  4773. musictheory 2019-09-04 16:31:30 Xenoceratops
    More importantly, what elements are consistent across preludes? And, as you've pointed out, it's an inconsistent type of composition owing to its open-ended definition. Hell, just looking at the Bach 48, there are lots that don't even contain the "fast, arpeggiated notes" you mentioned earlier. For a lark, I'll pull out some preludes that don't fit the mold of the preludes everybody knows (#1 and #2 from WTC1). WTC1: * [#4 in C# minor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5lOLZsjOp8) * [#7 in E♭ major](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMdJLEGrUrg) (**Contains a double fugue!** This thing is supposed to be the introduction to a fugue, remember. "Now that we've gotten that fugue over with, who's ready for some more fugue?") * [#8 in E♭ minor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXwCryMItHs) * [#24 in B minor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRJlm0lCyoI) (Repeated binary form, unlike any of the other preludes in WTC1.) WTC2: * [#2 in C minor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwwHuxHMIpc) (Repeated binary form.) * [#5 in D major](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZY8du940Mw) (Repeated binary form. There are more of these in WTC2, but I'll stop here.) * [#8 in D# minor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=temhRLKXAfE) (Repeated binary, imitation at the octave followed by free counterpoint; sounds like a 2-part invention.) * [#10 in E minor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDAqbGDOtzI) (Repeated binary form, imitation at the octave followed by free counterpoint; sounds like a 2-part invention.) The point here being that "prelude" doesn't mean anything other than that it comes before something, or later (Chopin, etc.), it's a variable/free-form standalone piece with some loose, loose, loose character expectations. The length on these things is variable but usually short, they are typically through-composed but not necessarily so. I think we have to look at Persichetti though. /u/a916ww, would you care to give us a page number? I presume this is the exercise: >>Write a four-part prelude for string quartet employing three-note chords by seconds (with doubling), four-note chords by seconds, and chords by fourths (with the inverted seventh). (133) You could replace the word "prelude" with "piece" and come away with the same prompt.

  4774. musictheory 2019-09-04 17:22:51 MaggaraMarine
    You memorize the order of flats that is Bb Eb Ab Db Gb Cb Fb. The 6th from Bb is some kind of a G, and because Bbm has a Gb in it, it must be a Gb. But when it comes to keys with a lot of flats, I may use the key that is a half step higher as a reference. Because B minor has a G natural, Bb minor needs to have a Gb. Notes in B minor: B C# D E F# G A Notes in Bb minor: Bb C Db Eb F Gb Ab Notice how the sharps in B minor turn into naturals in Bb minor, and the naturals in B minor turn into flats in Bb minor. Similarly, if it was a key with a lot of sharps, for example F# major, you could use the key that is a half step lower as a reference. F major only has a Bb, so this means that in F# major, the only natural is B. Notes in F major: F G A Bb C D E Notes in F# major: F# G# A# B C# D# E# Notice how the naturals in F major turn into sharps in F# major, and the flat in F major turns into a natural in F# major. Then again, I may not start counting sharps or flats (though I do have them memorized too). I usually think more about scale degrees. This is probably because I play the bass guitar where thinking in half steps and whole steps comes naturally. I know that the 6th degree of the minor scale can be found a half step above the 5th, and the 5th is really easy to find on bass (it's the same fret on a lower string as the tonic). So, I have the structure of the scale memorized. I know where the half steps in major and minor scales are.

  4775. musictheory 2019-09-04 18:19:44 taddpole78
    Get on YouTube. You can make major and minor chords all up the fretboard on the 5th and 6th string with barre chords

  4776. musictheory 2019-09-04 21:30:08 smk4813
    It's a crowded fingering, for sure. x32333 fingered as x-middle-index-ring- and then barre the top two strings with your pinky isn't particularly comfortable. For someone like myself with big bass player hands, it helps to have a guitar with a wider fretboard. It's practically a non-issue on a classical guitar or 12-string acoustic.

  4777. musictheory 2019-09-05 00:09:08 ttd_76
    > but when we are playing it on the guitar there is no G... is the open string? Yes, if you're playing the open string, then you're still playing a note. So in an open C chord, you are hitting both a G and an E on open strings. From low to high-- C, E, G, C, E. &#x200B; > So is there any way to find how to do all the chords just knowing where the notes are at the fretboard? Sort of. You need to know both the notes of the fretboard AND the notes that are in the chord. In your example, since you know the notes of a C major chord are C, E, and G then all you have to do is find all the C's, E's, and G's on the guitar and hit a C, E, and G together. In theory. In reality, it doesn't really work that way. Which brings us to: &#x200B; > Or do I need to memorize all type of chords, because that didn’t make sense in my head. Yes. you will need to memorize all types of chords. Because in reality, the mental process of knowing the notes of the chord, finding the notes on the fretboard, and then figuring out how to finger those notes is too laborious to go through each time you change chords. It is much easier to just have the mental knowledge and muscle memory in your fingers so you can change chords easily. As a guitar player, you get an advantage other instruments don't have. Which is that there are chord shapes that are moveable up and down the neck. So if you make a certain shape at the first fret, it's F. Move up two frets and it's G. Move up to the fifth fret and it's A. So you can just memorize a major chord "shape" and slide it up and down the neck to get 12 or more major chords, rather than having to separately memorize C major, D, major, E major, etc. But the reality is... you will have to know to memorize the notes of the fretboard AND you will have to memorize the notes and intervals that make up various chords AND you will have to memorize a bunch of different specific chord voicings. But, the good news is that even though it sounds like a lot, all of the above things reinforce each other. It's easier to remember chords if you know the notes that form them and can see them on the fretboard. It's easier to derive a new chord spontaneously if you know how it relates to a chord shape you already know. Perfect example is major vs minor. A minor chord uses the b3 instead of a regular 3. So if you know a major chord shape like C major, and you know where the E's are in that chord shape, then all you have to do is slide half a fret down on that string. It's basically like reading. What you're asking is sort of like "If you know all the letters, can you read?" Well you can, sort of. But the reality is, it would take forever to read anything if you read things one letter at a time, sounding out the words. Sometimes you do have to do this, if it's a new word. But most of the time the way you actually read is one word at a time. And it's really not even one word at a time, because you know common phrases and grammar so you can anticipate whole words or phrases ahead.

  4778. musictheory 2019-09-05 03:18:49 sigmundrs
    Unfortunately music is not a very prioritized subject in a lot of schools, which leaves a lot of people without the means to acquire more knowledge for themselves without paying for or having received private tutoring. Being a guitar player and teacher myself, I find the one good way to learn, and which I always encourage my students on taking when starting out, is to take into concideration the nature of the instrument itself. If you go at learning music from a strictly theoretical and overarching point of entry, it can very quickly be technical, difficult and discouraging. Learning to read music is a very useful skill, but I am of the impression that most guitar players do not start out here, and also it is quite difficult without guidance from a tutor. The guitar is a wonderful instrument in the way that it is quite versatile and diverse in its abilities. My recommended way of starting out is to start from the beginning of guitar specific learning, by that I mean start learning chords, play some songs, the most basic thing on the guitar. Sites like [ultimateguitar.com](https://ultimateguitar.com) and others have a large database of chords and lyrics paired with chord diagrams, that would enable you quite easily with some practice to learn what you need to get started. This method, IMO has some great advantages in that you can choose songs you like and start learning them, which makes practice fun and encouraging. Learning the basic chords of guitar (open string chords, not bar chords) offers the ability to play a lot of different songs. It also is a good way to start out training the muscles of your fingers for pressing the fingerboard and your ears. I would advice you to start here, and once you get a grasp of the different chords and get a look into how they work together to create harmony in songs, you can get into some theory much easier. And remember when learning new chords, you are actually training your fingers and muscle memory, so take your time, and practice changing between chords slowly and don't move on to the next chord until all of your finight place and you can strum the strings and have it sound nice. And then it is only repetition you need to worry about.

  4779. musictheory 2019-09-05 14:57:04 AnonymousBoiFromTN
    If you want to write music for other instruments play those instruments like, how my pastor (Church of God, offshoot of the Pentecostal church) said, "play any instrument like a pentecostal plays piano". Typically in churches, especially Pentecostal ones, the piano plays rhythm, lead, and harmony. Play bass like you play gospel songs with your left hand on a piano. Play rhythm guitar like you play Modern Christian music with your right hand, and play lead like you play any melody. The main reason i bring it up like this is because of your mentioning of being taught in a church. Good chord progressions are subjective and differ in any genre. The chord progression most popular songs are in (Let it Be, Dont Stop Believing, wagon Wheel, Apologize, Im Yours, Paparazzi) its the 1-5-6-4 progression. Alot of minor blues (gothic blues, delta blues, R&B) is the 1-4 prpgression in a minor key with an occasional 6-5. A good example would be Em-Am-Em-Am-C-B-Em. For bass try and keep it in yime with the kick drum, but my personal trick is what i call "the fifths". The fifth note of a chord doesnt change whther its major or minor thus adding the easieness factor. Its where you play the root note of the chord as a quarter note then the 5th as 6 eigth notes. This is a technique i picked up from listening to Eric Wilson from Sublime who does this a LOT. The fifth is one string down from the root note and two frets higher. As for guitar get as used to strumming as possible first and then test around with multiple genres. I hope you the best in the future

  4780. musictheory 2019-09-06 03:26:24 twinow
    In the real world music degrees are not necessary nor do they get you anywhere. Auditions are how you get into one of the few orchestras which pay a living wage. At the San Francisco Symphony 40 years ago, using fair auditions practices, a very talented young man won the oboe audition without attending college. Sadly, he died in 2013, onstage while playing the Strauss Oboe concerto. [Bill Bennet Principal Oboe SFSO](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett_(oboist)?wprov=sfti1) My point is that while getting degrees in music is fun and enlightening, it is practicing, studying and playing are that are necessary to win auditions. I am assuming you are in the US. Please correct me if I’m wrong! Lack if a Bachelors or masters degree in music is not the reason for getting invited to play an audition, nor for winning or losing at an audition. The competition for spots in orchestras in the US is ridiculous. In every major city in Europe there is funding for several orchestras and other ensembles. Not in the US. Here we have 100s of players flying in from all corners of the world auditioning against some of the best players in the country, every time there is one spot open. I know whereof I speak. My father played French Horn with the San Francisco Symphony and Opera for 35 years, then became personnel manager, and he had to run these auditions. 100s of resumes came in, but a player was invited to audition only if s/he was already playing in a major orchestra, or, in exceptional cases, if you were very young but had a very special letter of recommendation. While it is nice to have a degree(s) in music that was not important. BTW, I never applied for a job at the SFSO myself! I would not have been granted an audition. My father and I wrote a software application called SOLI in 1985. SOLI stands for “Symphony Orchestra Library Information”. It was used by all the major orchestras in the world until there was a hostile takeover - we were bought out by the aptly-named “ASOL” (American Symphony Orchestra League). I am not going to go into a lengthy description of what SOLI did but it was ahead of its time because at that time many major orchestra personnel managers and librarians did not even have computers on their desks, much less the network needed to make SOLI useful. Our first client was the NY Phil. The archives of the NY Phil were entered into the SOLI database and when you go to their website you can search those archives thanks to our 1985 software. So I became a software engineer and continued playing viola for fun. We even had a “Cisco Systems String Quartet” while I was working there for 5 years. I wore out my neck and shoulders completely playing on a big viola so it’s good I found a second career.

  4781. musictheory 2019-09-06 03:28:24 south87
    But thats just a comparison between Bach preludes! You have to compare across the whole keyboard literature starting from Bach. The easiest example: the Harmonic prelude with figuration (the "mold" which is the first prelude of WTC1) can be clearly seen in Chopin's first, fifth, Scriabin's first, Blumenfeld's second. The elements are the same: harmonic phrases and overall a consistent idiomatic figuration. Across the collections of preludes there are similar prelude genres that have become a sort of tradition. The Romantic genres were open and subjective, its no different with the different prelude genres. For some reason this is not vague or fuzzy for me. I can completely understand the character of said assignment. I could employ the same essence of harmonic phrases and a figuration idiomatic to the string quartet. The lack of familiarity of the literature is the real reason of this discussion.

  4782. musictheory 2019-09-06 04:37:00 TheZoneHereros
    You mean an upward strum, in guitar terms, right? Also it sounds to me like he’s hitting both 4th string 7th fret and open 5 simultaneously at the end of the strum.

  4783. musictheory 2019-09-06 05:22:24 Firake
    Every instrument and voice changes timbre as you change range so picking a different key signature changes the tone color of the piece significantly. For example, Dvorak’s cello concerto in B minor is written in the key that sits as high as possible on the instrument (The key of C allows you to use the lowest open string, where the lowest B available is a major 7th above that). However, the key of C is much more resonant on the instrument (and lower) so when writing a piece with a different purpose, a composer might choose that. Additionally, different keys are easier to play on different instruments. Typically, instrumentalists tend to prefer less sharps or flats, string players prefer sharps and wind players prefer flats. Vocalists don’t have a preference so you will often see choir music with many more sharps or flats than music written with an orchestra or band in mind. Picking a key signature is about making the music as easy to play as possible while having the timbre that you want. Beyond that, it’s entirely arbitrary. Despite what people will try to tell you, in 12TET, all keys sound the same when you disregard timbre which is instrument specific anyway.

  4784. musictheory 2019-09-06 06:49:59 Bxgatelle
    When you think about it piano is really just a string instrument.

  4785. musictheory 2019-09-06 08:01:22 Xenoceratops
    >But thats just a comparison between Bach preludes! >You have to compare across the whole keyboard literature starting from Bach. Keyboard preludes extend back far before Bach. Read [the Byros article](http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.15.21.3/mto.15.21.3.byros.html) I linked in another comment. Bach was drawing from an older tradition of partimento preludes and the compositional concept of inventione. This notion of "harmonic phrases and figuration" you mention is a huge part of 18th century composition pedagogy. Bach's understanding of a prelude would have been in line with how [Friedrich Niedt](https://www.amazon.com/Musical-Guide-Parts-Early-Pt-1-3/dp/0193152517) understood preludes: - >>Intrata is an Italian word that comes from intrare, to enter and means an en­trance or an entry. It is used for both sad and happy occasions, is short and long, with or without reprises, as the composer pleases and as circumstances require. Actually, it is nothing more than a Prelude. (138) - >>Praeludium is derived from *praeludere*, which means to play before, therefore Praeludium means an introductory piece. Musically speaking, it is a beginning before a well­-composed musical piece is begun, when the organ plays alone, so that the singers can check their pitch and the instrumentalists can tune properly without annoying the audience. Such a Prelude can be as long as the organist wishes, or until the instrumentalists have tuned and given him a sign to stop. This Prelude, however, is played with full organ or otherwise with strong registration, whereas with thorough­bass or fully scored music, no more than an eight-­foot Gedact is used. If a choir of many singers and instrumentalists is present, then an eight­-foot Principal, and, in the pedal, a sixteen-­foot Unter­-Satz or Sub­-Bass are used. More will be said about this in the following chapter. Anyone can play a Prelude on his instrument, whatever it may be. With dinner music as well, the instrumentalists usually play a little Prelude before the main piece begins. But they shall have rehearsed well together before and understand one another, or else such a Prelude would sound poorly indeed. (In French music there are still other Preludes, composed expressed to precede Recitatives or Airs, using instruments and written in the same time as the Recitative or Air that follows, according to this verse: 'a tender Ritornello prepares you for the Recitative which you are going to hear'.) (142) - Niedt walks the reader through realizing an entire suite from the same partimento, including a chaconne *within the prelude*, which involves a meter change. The options for figuration and manieren are consistent between each of these. The only things that change between them are the meter/rhythm (to accommodate different kinds of dances) and the temporal location of the piece (since a prelude is no more than a piece to be played before something else; a "musical appetizer," as /u/maestro2005 put it). - --- >The easiest example: the Harmonic prelude with figuration (the "mold" which is the first prelude of WTC1) can be clearly seen in Chopin's first, fifth, Scriabin's first, Blumenfeld's second. The elements are the same: harmonic phrases and overall a consistent idiomatic figuration. What about Chopin's (Op. 28) 4th, 6th, 7th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 22nd and 24th, which sound nothing like the WTC1:1 "mold"? Or Scriabin's (Op.11) 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 22nd and 24th? This is an easy game for me to play: all I have to do is go through these collections and pick out the ones that don't look like the Bach WTC1:1. Even a good chunk of Bach's WTC preludes don't look like #1, because the way he realized them had more to do with a process than specific figurations (which Niedt acknowledges: "Praeambulum, from *ambulare*, to go, to walk, signifies a process. It must be understood as a Prelude. (141)"). Preludes are not a thing but something you do (i.e., stick it before something else; I'm sure you're already aware that this does not hold true in most 19th and 20th century literature). - --- > Across the collections of preludes there are similar prelude genres that have become a sort of tradition. > The Romantic genres were open and subjective, its no different with the different prelude genres. > For some reason this is not vague or fuzzy for me. I can completely understand the character of said assignment. I could employ the same essence of harmonic phrases and a figuration idiomatic to the string quartet. Perhaps you could expand on this. Are you saying that Romantic preludes are their own genre, or that there are multiple genres of Romantic preludes? Certainly, by the late 19th century, the concept of a prelude or other pseudo-improvisational concert pieces has become reified: they are no longer before anything, they have been divorced from their referent. What comes after a Chopin prelude? More preludes. What comes after the last prelude? Nothing. Left without a definition, you can only scramble to assign meaning to the meaningless. >>By crossing into a space whose curvature is no longer that of the real, nor that of truth, the era of simulation is inaugurated by a liquidation of all referentials — worse: with their artificial resurrection in the systems of signs, a material more malleable than meaning, in that it lends itself to all systems of equivalences, to all binary oppositions, to all combinatory algebra. It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real, that is to say of an operation of deterring every real process via its operational double, a programmatic, metastable, perfectly descriptive machine that offers all the signs of the real and short-circuits all its vicissitudes. Never again will the real have the chance to produce itself — such is the vital function of the model in a system of death, or rather of anticipated resurrection, that no longer even gives the event of death a chance. A hyperreal henceforth sheltered from the imaginary, and from any distinction between the real and the imaginary, leaving room only for the orbital recurrence of models and for the simulated generation of differences. (Baudrillard, [Simulacra and Simulation](https://books.google.com/books?id=9Z9biHaoLZIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false), 2-3) - --- > The lack of familiarity of the literature is the real reason of this discussion. I agree. One more from Niedt, on the danger of using pure taxonomy to come to interpretation: >>a beginner will want to know why such pieces as Preludes, Fugues, etc. are so named, what they consist of, and how they are used. >>A self­-taught know­-it­-all will think that it is not necessary to know this, and that there are many pieces composed of which the Master himself has no idea why and from whence they have such names. If someone composes something that seems similar to a Sarabande or some other piece, it is named accordingly: the child is given a name and let loose upon the world. I will have nothing to do with these people, other than wishing them a good, healthy brain and self­-knowledge. (133)

  4786. musictheory 2019-09-06 19:45:57 MaggaraMarine
    Exactly. Arranging isn't about writing things that are fun to play. It's about writing things that achieve the sound that you are after. Now, obviously a horn player would probably have a better idea of all of the possible sounds that you can achieve with the horn and would be able to use those sounds more creatively than someone who is a violinist and is mostly familiar the "traditional" use of horns. But then again, a violinist might not like the arrangement style of a horn player because they would most likely only write "safe parts" for the violin. You can't really please everyone. The problem with the horn is the same as the problem with any middle register instrument (viola in the string section, bassoon in the woodwind section) - the range of the instrument naturally leads to a "supporting role". The "main melody" is usually naturally taken by the higher register instruments because higher notes are more easily perceived as the "main melody" and they generally stand out. So if someone decides to write a brass melody, they are most likely going to choose the trumpet as the "main instrument", and the lower brass instruments are going to take a more supporting role (similarly as if one is going to write a string melody, they are most likely going to choose the violin as the "main instrument"). Another problem with the horn is that it is a brass instrument, and originally brass instruments were fairly limited (because they didn't have valves, so they could only play a limited number of notes), which lead to certain kind of writing (you wouldn't use brass instruments as the main melody instrument, and instead, they were used more as an "effect"). Also, maybe non-brass players feel like brass instruments are only capable of playing loud and aggressive stuff.

  4787. musictheory 2019-09-06 21:51:10 fajita43
    on acoustic guitar (and ukulele): C - FM7 - CM7 - F the first three have open E string and then resolves to F. i like to play it with a G on the top also. there’s also an inner line that climbs G - A - B - C that you can hear since there aren’t a lot of changes in those chords. i play this all the time and the daughter is sick of it! haha!

  4788. musictheory 2019-09-06 22:00:54 Beastintheomlet
    Depending on the instrument, or if it's a training app the quality of the samples they're using you may be hearing the overtones and getting mixed up. When a note is played let's say an A4 on a piano due to the physics of the way the string vibrates and the way we perceive sound you hear more than just a single pitch playing at 440 hz, you hear what are called overtones, which are the multiples of that note. We call the main note, the one we played the fundamental. The loudest and clearest over tones are the 5th and octave (there's [many more after that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music)#Harmonics_and_tuning) which get harder and harder to hear). This is why jazz pianists and guitars will often drop the 5th when playing 7th and more extended chords, because you can already hear the 5th and by not playing it you don't have the overtones associates with that note, making your upper tensions easier to hear and sound clearer. So depending on the instrument you're playing or the quality of samples an app uses you can hear the octave over tone more clearly and hearing the inverted interval.

  4789. musictheory 2019-09-07 02:31:11 65TwinReverbRI
    I just want to throw something out here: AS a film student, you're probably familiar with "suspension of disbelief". That actually happens in music too. In many cases, Strings don't need to sound hyper realistic. I watched a lot of 60s spy stuff when the cold war was in full force and the order of the day was "US vs. Russia". So of course there were often Russian characters or settings with Russian language and writing. I asked my Russian colleague if they were actually speaking Russian and he said no - most of the time it's just gibberish or sometimes it'll even be something like a children's poem that is totally opposite the plot and it's hilarious. He said he and his wife will sometimes fall on the floor laughing about what gets put in - and we dumb English speakers have no clue! And sometimes it's just gibberish, and other times it's actually accurate. Music can often be the same way - as long as it sounds "string-like" behind the images, most people are just going to go "strings, cool, now I hope this character takes their clothes off". Now, of course with that said, there is an "industry" in the film world and certainly the trend has been towards "artificial orchestras" that sound as if they were real. Part of the key there is having "more realistic" sounding samples (even with suspension of disbelief, it may not be "up to the expectations" of a lot of Hollywood cliches) but the other part is BEING ABLE TO WRITE FOR THOSE SAMPLES IN THE WAY THAT REAL PLAYERS PLAY! So this means, you have to actually study how people actually play. I hope, as a film maker, you wouldn't expect the film to be edited on the free software downloaded from the internet. So the same is true of music - you can't expect professional results from Musescore alone. Look at what composers like Michael Giocchino use - Digital Performer - or other people who use things like Sibelius, great sample libraries, and a DAW for professional mixing. Most pro level composers though don't do all this stuff. There is a TEAM of people who make the music - just like there's a team of people behind the scenes - someone's got to run the camera, and someone's got to hold the mic, and someone's got to turn the wind machine on at the right time, and so on. Think of all of the things that go into the visual aspect of making a film - well, that's what has to go into the aural aspect as well - music is sort of like CGI now - there are entire companies with pro equipment who generate realistic (or fictionally realistic) landscapes and sets - well there are companies who do the same for the soundscape. In fact, many composers don't actually do anything but write the music - they do the NOTES - someone else does the orchestration, someone else does the mixing, etc. Again, it's a team or a company. Now, unless you're a John Carpenter and mostly write your own music as a film-maker (and that is a viable approach) if you want to break into the whole "hollywood machine" kind of stuff, then you need to spend the money on the gear, the time on learning to use it, and put in the time learning to make great music - or at least, music full of cliches (just like films typically are). And never forget that buying all the gear is not going to make you a great composer - it may sound realistic, but it may suck, just like there are plenty of movies that visually look fine from a camera perspective, but have crappy plots.

  4790. musictheory 2019-09-07 03:23:48 SciLiChallenge
    I disagree slightly with Ben there done that. It sounds like a II-, V, I, vi in Db. So Eb-7, Ab13 (Ab7 with an added F), Dbma7, Bb-7. You mentioned you had trouble with barre chords, but I don't think barre chords are used here. These sound like more jazz guitar voicings, which usually don't involve barring. These voicings sound right to me: Eb-7: x - 6 - 4 - 6 - 7 - x Ab13: 4 - x - 4 - 5 - 6 - x Dbma7: x - 4 - 3 - 5 - 6 - x Bb-7: 6 - x - 6 - 6 - (6) - x (I don't think the b string is played here, but it fits the chord)

  4791. musictheory 2019-09-07 03:27:20 SciLiChallenge
    I think the second chord is Ab13. You can hear the Ab in the bass and the F in the highest string.

  4792. musictheory 2019-09-07 04:07:00 jazzadellic
    Just think of it this way - when you cut the string in half, you now have two halves which also can be cut in half, or divided however the harmonics lay out, and each half of the string will have the same harmonics. At least that's how I look at it, though I don't really know all the math behind it.

  4793. musictheory 2019-09-07 04:36:42 tridecimalthirdtone
    I find this too on my viola, there's some leeway with the 2nd and 3rd harmonic and a tiny bit with the 4th. It affects the pitch of the harmonic as well, I can get around 30 cents either side of the correct pitch. I always assumed it was because of the imperfections of a vibrating string, as in no acoustic instruments are as perfect as the theoretical model. So brass, woodwinds and string instruments are all variably out of tune to the actual harmonic series. In my experience, it changes slightly depending on how old/new and what quality/material the strings are.

  4794. musictheory 2019-09-07 05:52:32 Jongtr
    What you're doing when you touch the string is preventing it vibrating at that point and allowing it to move either side (when you pick it). It's the thickness of your finger that's the issue. With the larger string fractions, touching a little either of the node may still work. Also it's easier get those large fractions moving. The smaller the fraction of the vibrating string, the more likely it is the sides of your fingertip will inhibit the parts of the string that need to move, so the more critical it is to find the exact node point to touch. Remember you also need to *pick* the string at the right point - ideally near the middle of the vibrating fraction, certainly well away from the other nodes. The smaller the fraction, the more critical that position is too.

  4795. musictheory 2019-09-07 16:49:40 Xenoceratops
    >So brass, woodwinds and string instruments are all variably out of tune to the actual harmonic series. In my experience, it changes slightly depending on how old/new and what quality/material the strings are. [Inharmonicity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inharmonicity) An ideal instrument string, from a physics standpoint, is infinitely thin and infinitely flexible. Obviously, neither of those things is true in reality.

  4796. musictheory 2019-09-08 02:12:13 65TwinReverbRI
    Try this experiment - go up the harmonics by playing 12, 7, 5, 4, 3, 2.75, 2.4 and so on. What you'll find is that with the higher ones, you have to be more dead on. But also, try it with your pinky instead of your index - or try to touch them with as little surface area of your finger as possible. It has to do with the "nodes" - you're touching a string at a node - which also happens to touch other waves' anti-nodes - so it suppresses them while letting the division you want sound out. But when the string is divided in half, the node is about the size of the diameter of the string - this is one reason it's easier to get harmonics on thicker strings - or rather, you can be a little less precise. With each successive division, the size of that node is divided up - so it's getting smaller by 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and so on - which means you don't have as much room on either side - you have to be more precise. (side note, on a thinner string it's actually easier to get the higher ones as long as you're precise because the original diameter means not as much is being taken away from each division as it is with a string of the same length but bigger gauge). You can move 2 frets between say fret 19 and 21 before you get the next harmonic. But if you do that at the 5 to 3, you're going to "skip" an available harmonic.

  4797. musictheory 2019-09-08 08:39:17 ok_reset
    The harmonics (really "partials") are always present in the sound of a vibrating string, but lightly placing your finger at certain points on the string (at one of the ["nodes"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Node_(physics)\#Sound) of the partials) will dampen the vibration of the some of the fundamental, allowing you to hear the upper partial more clearly.

  4798. musictheory 2019-09-08 09:08:47 65TwinReverbRI
    Let me explain it to you this way: Think about a weight, hanging from a spring, and the top of the spring is attached to the ceiling. Now let's say that the spring can be compressed all the way up so the weight is at the ceiling. Then you let go of the weight and gravity pulls it down, but let's say the spring is such that it can expand maybe 6 feet and then spring back up to the ceiling, and then keep this motion going for a long time. When the weight bounces up and down in a regular pattern like this it's called a "Periodic" Motion. Many objects "Oscillate" or vibrate in Periodic manners. In fact, when waves that produce sounds vibrate periodically, they produce notes of "determinate pitch" meaning we can identify what note it is, or whether it's higher or lower than another note, and by how much, etc. Now if you were to measure the distance the weight travels, it would be 6 feet. But think about this - how far does the spring move at the point it's attached to the ceiling? None right? What about the mid-point of the spring? If you think about it very carefully it doesn't travel the entire 6 feet - it actually only goes 3 feet. And a point that's 25% the travel of the spring only goes 1.5 feet, and one that goes 75% the travel actually goes 4.5 feet. What this means is that when a physical object oscillates in a periodic manner, it theoretically moves in an infinite number of divisions. Now what the harmonic series is, is when the divisions that are Whole Numbers - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or rather, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 etc. the sounding length. So a guitar string not only vibrates its entire length (that would be the weight) but it also splits in half (the mid-point of the spring) and in thirds, and quarters and so on up to infinity. It so happens that each of these additional parts of the whole that are vibrating - partials - are Sine Waves - which is what period motion like we're talking about creates (if you could only see the weight and not the rest of the spring, it would be a sine wave). We call this motion "complex" or "compound", because my spring, or a guitar string, are not only vibrating at the "base" frequency (the Fundamental) but also in all of these other smaller parts as well (Overtones, or Partials, or Harmonics). So it's just a natural result of periodic motion under certain conditions (like how the thing is set into motion, or what the thing being set into motion is made of, and whether its mass is consistent throughout the string, or air column, and so on). ok reset explained the rest. But here's a good video to understanding them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZKvLnf7wU&list=PL0CF041F562C5BE5E HTH

  4799. musictheory 2019-09-08 09:15:42 cowsaysmoo51
    There are harmonics that divide the string into 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. equal parts. When you lightly place your finger over one of these parts and pluck the string, you create a standing wave on that string with a frequency that is 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. times greater than that strings fundamental frequency. These string lengths follow the harmonic series (1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, etc.), so they are called "harmonics".

  4800. musictheory 2019-09-08 12:08:43 thotpolyglot
    I don't think I reached that level of knowledge although it doesn't feel that far off from what I already know. For me I also know that in C, going from the I to the V/ii and the ii has this ( at least to me ) charming bittersweetness or that an E7/G# ( voiced like a D/F# but two frets up and keeping the open D string ) into the Am has this fleeting, temporary sense of a "maybe" before the Am comes and you feel the "maybe not after all". I guess I just need more chords and chord pairings to be able to associate a certain feeling to them, so I'm getting there.

  4801. musictheory 2019-09-08 16:58:53 Jongtr
    It sounds like you have is what I might call an *incomplete* perfect pitch ("imperfect pitche"?), learned as a result of your early piano lessons. Perfect pitch itself - judging from research - is learned through intensive exposure to music in infancy - before the age of six. It seems to be a by-product of the instinct to learn language by ear, getting mixed up with musical information. The fact that yours is attacher to the C major scale as do re mi etc, strongly points ot being taught that association when learning piano. Of course most young piano students will be taught the same thing, but (it seems) the younger you are when it begins, the more your brian memorises those pitches as well, forming a perfect pitch connection. It wouldn't matter whether you loved or hated piano lessons - your brain would forge that link automatically. As you grow further into childhood - the theory goes - the language instinct wears off, having done its job, and learning stuff by ear alone becomes harder. Presumably, at the ager you were, it wore off (or music leassons stopped) before you'd heard enough music to memorise all the sharps and flats too. It does seem to be a myth that (a) a tiny minority are *born* with perfect pitch while the rest aren't - therefore it's hopeless for the latter - and (b) that it is all or nothing. Firstly, the incidence of perfect pitch is much higher among tonal language speakers (Chinese etc), which points to the link with learning language. Tonal languages don't *require* perfect pitch to be understood - otherwise they would all have it! - but they do require greater sensitiity to pitch. Secondly, there is the quite common phenomenon of pitch memory, or [tonal memory](http://cogprints.org/643/1/pitch.HTM), whereby people of any age can learn to memorise certain pitches through repeated exposure. It might be a favourite song that one can sing in the right key just from memory, or it might be a string player who can tune their instrument (to concert, or close) with no reference, because they just know how the strings sound when in tune. It's nowhere near perfect pitch because it only applies to those situations, and usually only for a few notes. In fact, there is a third myth: that perfect pitch is of great value to a musician. It isn't, and can even be a hindrance. That's because music works via *relative pitch.* Individual pitches have no meaning, until attached to others. A song has to remain the same song, with the same meaning, whatever key it's played in. A major 3rd is a major 3rd, whether it's C-E, D-F# or whatever. Perfect pitch is of *some* use, but certainly not enough to make it worthwhile trying to learn it (or to improve however much one has). Relative pitch is what matters.

  4802. musictheory 2019-09-08 17:13:57 MaggaraMarine
    To my knowledge, one in 10,000 has perfect pitch, so it's pretty rare. It's obviously a bit more common among musicians, because usually people who have perfect pitch also become musicians. But it's still not common for musicians to have a perfect pitch. Most musicians I know, don't have perfect pitch. BTW, the test that you linked tells you if you got it right or wrong, so it doesn't really test perfect pitch. One with a good relative pitch would also get close to 100% in that test because they can always compare the next note to the previous one. Only the first note would take some guessing (and even then, people usually know the lowest or highest note that they can sing comfortably, so they could use their vocal range as a reference - the first note played in the test was an Eb and using my vocal range, I knew it was approximately a D, so I was only a half step off). When it comes to tuning the guitar without a reference, that's not something that requires perfect pitch. I would probably be able to do it, even though I don't have perfect pitch. It only takes a lot of familiarity with the instrument and knowing the way the open E string is supposed to sound like (tuning it lower or higher just has a different timbre). I rarely use the "5th fret method" when tuning the guitar - I prefer just playing two open strings next to each other and tune it that way. But I'm still comparing the strings to each other, I just prefer listening to fourths instead of the same note - this way I can also tune at the same time as I play.

  4803. musictheory 2019-09-08 17:16:22 stevehollx
    When you add in guitar scales, can you consider supporting 7 string and alternate custom tuning for scales too? Also marking notes in colors consistent with your other parts of the app would be useful to identify the third, fifth, seventh, etc.

  4804. musictheory 2019-09-08 17:54:34 Jongtr
    The harmonics of the A string, up to the 19th. The FRET column is the position of the nodes or touch points. The number of the harmonic is the same as the string fraction, so the 3rd harmonic means the string vibrates in thirds, the nodes being at 1/3 and 2/3 string length. HARMONIC - FRET - FREQUENCY - NEAREST NOTE - cents away from ET fretted equivalent 1st 0 110 Hz A string 5 fret 0 2nd 12 220 Hz A string 3 fret 2 3rd 7, 19 330 Hz E (329.6) 2 cents sharp string 1 fret 0 4th 5, 24 440 Hz A " fret 5 5th 4, 9, 16 550 Hz C# (554.0) 14 cents flat " fret 9 * 6th 3 660 Hz E (659.2) 2 cents sharp " fret 12 7th 2.7, 9.7, 14.5 770 Hz G (784.0) 32 cents flat " fret 15 * 8th 2.3 880 Hz A (880) " fret 17 9th 2 990 Hz B (987.8) 4 cents sharp " fret 19 10th 1.8 1100 Hz C# (1108) 14 cents flat " fret 21 * 11th 1210 Hz D# (1244.5) 49 cents flat " (fret 22.5!) 12th 1320 Hz E (1318.5) 2 cents sharp " fret 24 13th 1430 Hz F (1396.9) 40 cents sharp 14th 1540 Hz G (1568.0) 32 cents flat 15th 1650 Hz G# (1661.2) 12 cents flat 16th 1760 Hz A (1760) 17th 1870 Hz Bb (1864.7) 5 cents sharp 18th 1980 Hz B (1975.5) 4 cents sharp 19th 2090 Hz C (2093.0) 2 cents flat * nearest fretted notes (noticeably out of tune with the harmonic)

  4805. musictheory 2019-09-08 18:26:09 EffeteFop
    Good idea! There’s already support for 7 string and other tunings so of course I’ll keep those for the scales. There’s also a setting to color code the root note in the chord charts so yeah good idea to color code the others

  4806. musictheory 2019-09-08 20:44:03 karlos_the_cat
    Like you know, string, brass, woodwind etc'

  4807. musictheory 2019-09-09 00:33:40 tapedelay
    I noticed a string of Bbs over a week or two once. Even got out the tuner.

  4808. musictheory 2019-09-09 02:34:45 KingAdamXVII
    Oh, I’ve got a decent way to play it on guitar with standard open chords. Dm-E-Bbm6, where the Bbm6 chord is an Am chord barred on the first fret but just with an open G string.

  4809. musictheory 2019-09-09 19:26:44 -codsworth
    A very blanket way to understand texture IMO is just this: Imagine any chord being played by a string quartet. Now, imagine the same chord being played by a brass band. Same for a woodwind ensemble, same for pitched percussion ensemble, or even a guitar. So clearly, each chord is the same chord, but the sound is different. That’s texture. The music is present, but the physical sound it embodies changes. You can layer different instruments or ensembles or varieties to change the presentation of your musical idea and thus the texture. Good luck!

  4810. musictheory 2019-09-09 19:53:17 HashPram
    Texture is how tempo, melody, and harmony are combined. Usually it has to do with: * The number of notes being played at any given time: Lots of notes = thick Few notes = thin * The register the notes are playing in and how widely spaced those notes are: High -vs- Low Widely spaced -vs- closed spaced Lots of notes clustered in the same register - you might call that a thick texture Not many notes and they're in very widely-spaced registered - you might call that a thin texture * Another way to describe texture is the homophony/polyphony split: Monophonic texture has one layer; Homophonic texture is basically organised around chords; Polyphonic texture is a series of independent melodic lines; There's a good introductory video [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTKTpY6PJL8). Texture can be described in terms of instrumentation, but it's usually to do with how the _layers_ of sound are organised and less to do with the timbre. If you switch between playing the same piece of music in string quartet, to wind quartet, to horn quartet and leave everything else the same then the texture remains unaltered, but the timbral quality changes. Likewise if you play the same music but add or remove voices as the piece progresses then the texture would thicken or thin as you add or remove.

  4811. musictheory 2019-09-10 02:25:15 MahlerFanBoy
    Ben Johnson’s string quartets. Specifically 10

  4812. musictheory 2019-09-10 13:37:53 aotus_trivirgatus
    >All professionals will play them differently in different contexts ...provided that the instrument doesn't have fixed pitches, such as a keyboard. I think you're thinking primarily about unfretted string instruments. I know there are tricks to be played with woodwind and valved brass instruments, but their pitches are not as free to vary as, say, a violin.

  4813. musictheory 2019-09-10 13:50:12 AD1AD
    In some ways, wind instruments are actually more free, since you can lip the note down without changing the fingering, whereas on a string instrument you have to change your fingers to change the pitch. Listen to brass choirs, and you'll hear them tune to pure JI for many chords, just like string quartets will. (With exceptions of course for melodic playing, where major seconds become larger, sometimes leading to even sharper thirds than standard western tuning.)

  4814. musictheory 2019-09-10 14:27:22 bookelly
    On guitar the notes along the neck and change tone regularly. The strings are thicker on the top, the fretting shortens/lengthens, and the pick-ups change intonation along the 6 strings. An open E 6th string on guitar sounds *way* different from all the other E’s. When writing for say...a choir...there’s tenors, sopranos, baritones, bass, etc. Often a baritone would only be given music/charts in the bass only. So that’s where it’s very helpful to extend the ledger line up of it’s just a few notes rather than have to carry around a treble staff that’s barely touched.

  4815. musictheory 2019-09-10 23:39:32 theoriemeister
    >In some ways, wind instruments are actually more free, since you can lip the note down without changing the fingering, whereas on a string instrument you have to change your fingers to change the pitch. Unless, of course, you're playing with a piano, which is the case with lots of chamber music.

  4816. musictheory 2019-09-11 03:16:44 GlassConcert
    There's going to be A LOT to absorb but you should at least learn your Maj 7, Dominant 7, Minor 7, diminished 7, and half-diminished 7 chord shapes with the root note on the E or A string. Knowing those, you can stumble through sightreading. Unless you're in a high level jazz ensemble, I'm imagine the music is fairly rudimentary (classic highschool charts like La Llama Azul) and you aren't running into a lot of important chord inversions or extensions. Beyond that, its probably helpful; to learn how the diatonic chords are constructed and how extended chords are constructed. That foundational knowledge will give you a better perspective on what these guitar chord shapes are actually achieving, how these chords are working together, and will be some foundational knowledge as you learn to solo over chord changes.

  4817. musictheory 2019-09-11 05:14:20 BeowulfShatner
    What others have said—learn the most common jazz chord shapes, mainly seventh chords. There are a few for each chord, the easiest ones start with the root on the low E string. If you’re saying you want to be able to figure them out without already knowing a chord shape/fingering...then memorize the rules of what each of those chords is made of. The notes and intervals within the chords I mean. For example, root, minor 3rd, 5th, minor 7th (m7 chord). Learn that a 9 chord means adding the 2, that kind of thing. Combine that with having the fretboard memorized, and voila. You can slowly find the notes and piece together any chord that you understand the composition of.

  4818. musictheory 2019-09-11 05:16:34 RatherDashingf11
    Lots of people here saying "learn theory, chord constructs" etc. Solid advice. As a guitarist, you can really just focus on the shapes you need to make. Have you memorized all the notes on the fretboard? It'll be super helpful to know where each note is, ESPECIALLY on the lowest 2 strings (Low E and A). That's because chords will be "rooted" on a note, and if you know where the note is, and what type of chord you are playing from that root, it'll come somewhat easily. Gmin7, for instance, is rooted on the G note. That's the 3rd fret, 6th String. If you know [the min7 barre shape](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/M4EGUsN_rg0/maxresdefault.jpg), you'll know you just need to make the shape on the 3rd fret. I'd say learn the barre chords for the 6th string (the one I just linked to) and learn barre chords for the A string, learn all the notes on those two strings, and you'll be able to at least strum along in any key.

  4819. musictheory 2019-09-11 05:26:43 OccupyBallzDeep
    Get a chord chart and try to learn 2 or 3 shapes from the E and A string each week. I was in your shoes in college when I could play basic major and minor chord shapes and started playing in a trio/quartet before I knew any jazz chords. I could play some blues and improvise by ear a little, but I just went to the woodshed on that chart a few nights a week.

  4820. musictheory 2019-09-11 05:27:17 Larson_McMurphy
    Well, the math involved starts simple, and gets complicated. Pythagoras discovered that small whole number ratios create consonant intervals. 3/2 produces a perfect fifth interval. When you sound a harmonic tone, you get frequencies that follow an integer progression. So an A at 110 hz gives you 110, 220, 330, 440 etc. In the case of a perfect fifth, it is consonant because so many harmonics are in common, specifically, every third harmonic of the lower note is every second harmonic of the higher note. Now the part where it gets annoying and becomes an engineering problem is when you stack fractions up on top of each other. Lets say you start on A 110, and multiply by 3/2 until you get to A again. 110 165 (E) 247.5 (B) 371.25 (F#) 556.875 (C#) 835.3125 (G#) 1252.96875 (D#) 1,879.453125 (Bb) 2819.1796875 (F) 4228.76953125 (C) 6343.154296875 (G) 9514.7314453125 (D) 14272.097167968 (A) Now if you divide that by 2 seven times to bring it down to the same octave as the original A, you'll find that it is around 111 hz. So it isn't the same A. So there is no way you can get an octave by stacking perfect fifths. Over the centuries, different temperaments have been created to address this problem, the 12 tone equal temperament that is commonly used today does this by making every fifth slightly flat (a just fifth of 3/2 is 702 cents, whereas a 12 tone equal temperament fifth is 700 cents), so that octaves are preserved. This also has the side effect of making major thirds pretty sharp. So when string players who don't have frets intonate slightly differently to make things more consonant, it is their ears wanting to adjust the slightly off 12 tone note value to make it a just interval. I'm sorry if this is a lot of information or poorly explained. If you research temperament, it's quite a rabbit hole to go down.

  4821. musictheory 2019-09-11 05:27:36 rhythmjones
    I'd add learn those chords with the root on the D string as well, and then learn them all in 2nd inversion. Then when you get a ii - V - I you can do the ii chord in root position, V chord in 2nd inversion, and I chord in root position. Memorize that little trick and you'll never be out of place when you hit a ii - V - I (and there's going to be a lot of those.) I'd also go through all your charts and highlight all of the ii - V - Is. It might take you some time to learn to recognize them but that's good practice too. You'll also find that there's going to be ii - V - Is that happen *in different keys in the same song* so highlight each key in a different color. (There doesn't have to be a key change in the notation for this to happen.) As for soloing. Start with the major scale (or natural minor if it's a minor key) that the tune is in until your comfortable. Then start learning some other scales for different situations. Or if the song is a blues, stick to the blues scale of the root note to start.

  4822. musictheory 2019-09-11 05:43:49 Spimp
    On graph paper make 2 vertical grids 6x12, write (e a d g b e) on top of the first row. Write every chromatic note all the way to the octave for each column. Mark out where every note of the major 7 (CEGB) arpeggio lies, transfer only these notes to the empty grid you drew in the beginning. Repeat this process for Minor7, dominant 7, half diminished 7, and full diminished 7 chords. If u do this you will be able to clearly see what the shApes for every inversions and string set you will run into. From here you can make yourself chord charts for each shape and start learning what notes can be subbed out for better fingerings I.e. 9th instead of the root, 6th instead of the 5th. This is only how I did it. But it has been most effective for me without relying on long videos riddled with promotions.

  4823. musictheory 2019-09-11 07:25:21 ErnerKerernerner
    This is a great place to start looking, you're smart to seek advice from real people before investing a bunch of your time in material you don't know how to judge effectively. Sometimes just picking up a few buzzwords from the responses in posts like this will guide you in constructive directions that you aren't even aware of yet. To respond to your question, I'd HIGHLY recommend learning how chord naming works, common shapes (as many have already recommended), and how the notes within those chord shapes relate to the root of the chord. For example, if you wanted to play an A13 rooted on the E string, a very common shape is: 5x567x. You want to know how each of the sounded notes relate to that low A, and how they all fit within that particular voicing of a 13 chord, each one of them provides an important sound that distinguishes that chord from any other kind of A chord. A big part of the fun of jazz is learning how you can add EXTENSIONS to various chords. For example, if the chart you're looking at has an A7 in it, it's very possible you could substitute a chord based on A7, such as A13, A9, A7b9, A7#9, etc. etc. depending on the context. You can't go wrong playing the chord listed, but the more you learn what you can get away with, the more room for fun exploration there is to keep you interested.

  4824. musictheory 2019-09-11 07:35:01 assword_69420420
    Someone recommended learning your maj7, min7, m7b5 and dom7 voicings for roots on the E string and A string, that's super essential. Also, make sure you memorize where the root, 3rd, 5ths and 7ths are in each of those chords (some wont have a 5th tho). Since a lot of jazz progressions move in 4ths, often you'll be able to at least get through most of the song without having to move more than a few frets in either direction. What helped me in my years in band as a guitarist was learning about and getting comfortable with Freddie Green comping. He was Basies guitarist for years and years and his comping style is all about taking those chords mentioned above and boiling them down to a couple notes (usually the 3rd and 7th, which will typically be on the 3rd and 4th strings). That way if you visualize the whole chord, you can just pick those notes out and get really smooth voice leading. Those are just some basics I'd suggest!

  4825. musictheory 2019-09-11 08:48:57 LeFauxPanneau22
    chord shapes are your best friend! learn where the root notes are on the lower E and A string. best of luck!

  4826. musictheory 2019-09-11 10:13:12 yourtypicallamp
    Hey! First thing I'd recommend is just look up how to play Maj7, Dom7, Min7, and Min7b5 chords in root position. Learn how to play all four of those types of chords with the bass note in the low E string and low A string (so altogether 8 fingerings). That will honestly get you really far, especially if you're playing fairly simple tunes. Next, you can learn inversions of those 7th chords, and common extensions/variations like 9, #9, 11, etc. Once you get a hang of those, you'll probably be able to develop your own fingerings for the wackier stuff. I never really shed the #11's, b13's, 6/9's etc. I just have fingerings I've found comfy and accessible to me, and lots of guitarists I play with have the same approach. Hope this helps!

  4827. musictheory 2019-09-11 10:20:00 ak_hepcat
    As smarter and more learned redditors have mentioned, your first task should be to start by learning movable chord shapes. There are three variations that will help you: root-6, root-5, and root-4 shapes (i.e., the root of the chord on that string) And of course, because the guitar duplicates the 1st and 6th string, you can play an easy inversion of root-6 by playing the root on the 1st (and therefore are only playing the highest 4 strings) After you're secure with 7ths (major and minor) and diminished (full/half) you can start to work on extensions. The fun part about extensions being built on thirds above the named chord is that they end up being another fully-formed chord stacked on top. Which means you'll end up spending time learning which "extension chords" you can play over the top of the named chord, whilst avoiding the notes of the named chord - this will save your fingers from stretching all over, and minimize the number of strings you need to try and play. As an example, Am9/11 looks like an Am (A C E) with G(1st inv - B D G) on top. So depending on what other instruments are playing, you can get away with playing that inverted G major, or maybe a Gadd4, or even C7/9. It'll take a while, but practice practice practice.

  4828. musictheory 2019-09-11 11:00:59 LongSchlongMan
    You know your major and minor scales? Most school jazz chords you're gonna see are pretty simple 7's. For major 7 (Maj7, can also be notated as a triangle) try to get the first note of the scale, third note, 5th note (not necessary and often ignored) and 7th note. For minor 7's (Min7, -7) do the same thing but with the minor scale. Dominant 7's (Dom7, 7), do a major scale but the 7th note of the chord is flatted (otherwise known as the mixolydian mode). Obviously every scale degree has to be on a different string, so experiment with many different shapes you figure out.

  4829. musictheory 2019-09-11 13:36:59 AbeCMusic
    If you think of your basic full F Major bar chord, if you pay attention, all you’re really doing is playing an E Maj, just slid up 1 fret, and you’re using your pointer to bar the remaining strings. So Now do this with the C Maj chord Eventually this helped me “tie the dots” Take 10-15min a day to study just the low E string, land at a random fret and see if you can immediately name the note. Once you get that string down, do that with the A string, once you get there, you should have no problem constructing chords on the fly. Trick that helped me Just let it “BE” So, after the notes B and E, there no sharps A - A# - B - C - C# - D - D# - E - F - F# - G - G# Hope this helped Sending good vibes And remember Have fun!

  4830. musictheory 2019-09-11 14:04:55 ark8908
    I was exactly in your shoes last year and still currently am lol. I was more of a rock/metal kinda guitarist so really only power chords and like Metallica type riffs I knew, so jazz was a huge change for me. I had a basic understanding of muisc threoy but couldn't sightread at all. So I recommend learning common jazz chords and inversions. By using inversions you dont have to jump around because you only know chords on two strings. ( I did a lot of this 2hen starting out, like playing a B maj 7 at 2nd fret on the A string but not remembering the shape for a F min7 on the E string. So I would just jump all the way to 8 fret to play F min7) but if you know a inversion you just need to shift your fingers. learn when to use a pick and when not to. take some time to practice some jazz strumming rythms so you dont end up just play quarter notes. If you would like I can send you a picture of this jazz chord sheet that shows a decent amount of jazz inversion so you dont have to Google every shape while learning.

  4831. musictheory 2019-09-11 16:23:25 HashPram
    It's a commbination of phrasing and knowing how to construct a good melody. Phrasing will help you make the most of out the notes you have. Knowing how to construct a good melody will give you decent notes in the first place. Both skills are going to take a bit of time to acquire. So, one way to think about phrasing and melodic construction is to limit the notes you're allowed to play. Limit yourself to one note ... how many different ways can you play that one note? Looking at the technical/mechanical aspects of playing ("how am I physically producing the note", "what are my hands doing") you could: * Bend the note or play it straight; * Vary the attack - soft/medium/hard; * Use other techniques to play the note - say pinch squealies, or standard harmonics, thumb slaps, Bartok pizzicato; * Vary the sweetness or dryness of the tone by playing the string nearer the neck, or nearer the body; * Vary the volume using a volume pedal or the old fashioned way (using the volume pot); * Use the tremelo arm to varying degrees, or (and this really isn't good for your guitar so don't do it a lot) hold the body and use it to sway the guitar neck; * Use vibrato - either classical or electric; * Gliss up to, or down from the note; and so on. OK, so that's "mechanical". What about phrasing? * Play the note once and let it feed back (Hello, Andy Summers); * Play a cluster of notes, rapidly. * Play a cluster of notes, languidly. * Play different clusters of notes - use different techniques on each note; * Play different clusters of notes - use the same technique on each note; * Play the same note, but at different octaves - if you pick the correct note you'll be able to hammer-on/pull-off. * Think about the rhythm you're playing - pull the rhythm around - play the notes on the beat / off the beat / on the beat / off the beat. * What about triplets? Sextuplets? Quintuplets? * Can you play an interesting counterpoint rhythm to the rest of the song? And now we're into melodic. Good melodies are about what's "the same" and what's "different". You want a bit of both and finding the right balance is just one of those tasks that is both rewarding and frustrating in about equal measure. * Find an idea - repeat the idea, but repeat it in a different place. Play a cluster of notes at the bottom of the guitar, then play the same cluster but an octave higher, then an octave higher; * Find an idea - play something else, then come back to the idea (technically this is called "reiteration" - it's only repetition if you play something and then play it again straight after without anything else between the two repeats). * Find a memorable idea and then go off and play something entirely different and never come back to it. And if you think "well one note can't possibly be enough" go listen to the solos to ["The Chain"](https://youtu.be/JDG2m5hN1vo?t=194), or ["Bring on the Night"](https://youtu.be/Bz1mEMiNPHQ?t=131). Memorable solos aren't about wanking your freboard, they're about finding the right melody or feel for that moment in the song and then milking it for all its worth. Both Andy Summers (the Police) and Lindsey Buckingham (Fleetwood Mac) could play the guitar just fine - maybe they weren't Steve Vai, but they had a really good sense of what was right for the music and weren't about to let their desire to show off eclipse that. OK, so that's one note. When you get to the point of having two or three notes you can experiment with the order you're playing the notes in - note 1, 2, 3; then 2, 1, 3, and so on. If you experiment with varying the rhythm as well you should be able to see how you can keep the note order the same, while varying the rhythm, then switch it around so you vary the rhythm and keep the note order the same. This gives your melody "internal consistency" and it's that internal consistency - keeping some things the same while varying other things - that keeps the listener's attention. You're not just throwing a billion ideas at them that are all unconnected - you're connecting the ideas but keeping enough changes going to keep them listening. There are other things that probably bear mentioning as well - we might call them melodic tropes. * Call and response is: A: "I say something" B: "and I answer" A: "I say something else" B: "And I could answer completely differently this time") * Imitation is stricter: A: "I say something" B: "I say something" A: "I say something else" B: "I say something else" If you're playing with a band you can use these ideas so that different instruments call, and others respond. * Augmentation is taking a series of rhythms and lengthening them all by the same amount _while keeping everything else the same_; * Diminution is taking a series of rhythms and shortening them all by the same amount _while keeping everything else the same_; * Melodic Sequence is playing the exact same melody, but as the chords change you transpose the melody so it now fits over the new chords; * Retrograde involves playing a melody backwards; * Inverting a melody involves working out what the intervals in a melody are, then inverting (2 becomes 7, 3 becomes 6, 4 becomes 5, &c.) them all. and so on. Some of these will be very difficult to do when improvising but not all solos are written on the spur of the moment. I know for a fact that many rock guitar players just learn complex solos by heart after improvising them out. Once they've got them down pat they then feel free to keep that as the base structure and improvise around that live.

  4832. musictheory 2019-09-11 18:47:29 peduxe
    all you need to know is that the G is on the 3rd fret 6th string and play the E shape min7 then you got to two options: omit the index barre from your open and play the E shape dominant 7 just using your middle and ringer finger or play a A shape E7 chord on the 7th fret of the A string.

  4833. musictheory 2019-09-11 20:55:38 consteppedoutside12
    First I'd say don't be scared by all the m7b5b13 blah blah crazy stuff you're gonna see on the charts---you can get by using simple chord shapes first. Now, assuming you know all your CAGED shapes and how to play every chord with each shape (i.e. you can play a C chord up and down the neck with all 5 shapes), you can easily modify these shapes to get your basic major 7, dominant 7, minor 7, half diminished chords. All 4 of these chord types can be played by modifying any of the CAGED shapes, so right off the bat there's 20 possible shapes for you that you can learn. Take the open A shape, playing a C chord (x35553). Make it major 7 by moving the G-string finger down 1 fret (x35453) Dominant 7 - x35353. Minor 7 - x35343. Half diminshed - x3434x. Figure these out for every CAGED shape and you've got your basic arsenal of jazz shapes to work with. From then on it's more or less just taking those core shapes and moving fingerings around to get a b9 or a 13 or something, which you'll figure out as you come to learn more about extensions and scales. Best of luck, and feel free to ask me any follow ups if you need clarification or DM me!

  4834. musictheory 2019-09-11 22:20:45 MixedPersonalities
    Hi really dumb question, where the chord shapes have a red triangle on a string, what does it mean? This was really helpful by the way thanks, I play piano but trying to learn guitar

  4835. musictheory 2019-09-12 03:19:25 sammyreynolds
    Limit yourself to one string and play a melody. Then add other notes. Sounds like you need to break out of the boxes so to speak.

  4836. musictheory 2019-09-12 03:36:05 Piano9717
    What do you mean by “limit yourself to one string and play a melody?”

  4837. musictheory 2019-09-12 04:57:29 theredwoodcurtain
    Tabs for four string bass might be rough considering he plays a six string. Four bangers just don’t have the same range.

  4838. musictheory 2019-09-12 11:31:16 65TwinReverbRI
    Most pop songs do not use Phrygian. Only in "experimental" pieces or in prog rock where people do that sort of thing - but nothing you're going to hear on the Radio or find commonly that most people would know. Some songs might have Phrygian passages, or maybe a whole verse, but otherwise it's pretty rare to be exclusively in Phrygian. You will have to look to either true modal music, 20th century art music that uses modes (Debussy's String Quartet begins in Phrygian) or other cultural music where modes like that are a bigger deal.

  4839. musictheory 2019-09-12 14:23:55 Aless-dc
    Well even playing alone, a G major for example will always sound like a G major regardless of which note sits at the bass. The notes don’t change. Could be a strumming issue highlighting the bass more than the rest or a pickup issue if one string is a lot louder than the others

  4840. musictheory 2019-09-12 22:01:43 mattclevenger
    I do a lot of electronic music production so often I can choose the key based on where the bassline sits because where the sub bass frequencies are present makes a massive difference in a mix. I wouldn't want to pick a key that leads my sub bass to be too high above 60hz while trying to make sure no note sounds below 30hz. That's personal preference though. Similarly, you may be writing for a particular instrument and usually each instrument sounds more resonant in a certain key. Violin, for example is really resonant in D and from what I understand, D feels quite natural to play in on the violin, though I am not a violinist so feel free to correct me there. If you are writing for guitar in standard tuning and want to make use of a bunch of open string sounds, avoid a key with a bunch of accidentals. Writing for a specific vocalist? I promise he or she can tell you what keys are the most comfortable for his or her voice. The bottom line is that they key of a piece can be heavily influenced by the instruments and effect you are going for.

  4841. musictheory 2019-09-12 22:27:34 Willravel
    This is where things like orchestration and having learned the instruments for which you're composing becomes really helpful. Back in college, for my first string composition assignment, I would listen to a diverse set of string composers and make note of what works, score study, talk to string players about their favorite composers and why, score study, go to the instrument room and check out a violin to noodle around on, score study. I'm a pianist and singer, so strings were quite an adventure in finding the odd parts of both of my instruments that fit together, plus the things neither could ever hope to accomplish. I started copying down gestures that I really liked, orchestrational tricks that worked really well, and especially writing out things that were very stringy like growing tremolo, bowing to create that wonderfully unique string legato, special string articulations like spiccato, timbral things like sul tasto, and just a set of tasty fragments that I thought sounded really stringy. As I got to writing and started showing my score-in-progress to string players, I got feedback and my inventory of stringy things grew. The more stops, the louder. No vibrato on open strings. This is how you write harmonics. I wrote out the entire piece, a simple, monothematic rondo, and the entire compositional process was less about the end piece being a work of art than it simply was to write something that worked and that was suited to my instrumentation. A few months later, I was on tour with my college choir on a particularly long bus ride and things had gotten quiet. I pulled out a piece of staff paper, flipped it over, and started writing out some of those cool stringy things. Bowing for legato, the tight dynamic control of a capable string ensemble, the timbral differences between the violin and viola and how cool it is to have the viola sing out over violins 1 and 2, etc. As I was writing these things out *I was hearing them* through audiation, even if vaguely. As I wrote out how a single string instrument sounds more raw and gritty than a string section, I was composing in my head a terraced entrance on a monophonic melody, creating a timbral crescendo. As I wrote out dynamic shading as a small ensemble, I was hearing a quintet play a series of homorhythmic harmonies with dramatic dynamic shading. As I wrote out the quick unison transition figure, I heard fragments of that figure. Because I'd previously written for strings and had much better ideas about friendly keys and tuning intervals, it wasn't a big deal to pick a key and just go from there with solfeggio (because it was pandiatonic, had it been more atonal or chromatic I might have gone with set numbers). In five hours, with a few breaks because of getting carsick, I had sketched out a sonata-like movement for string quintet. When I got back, I did have to clean up a few spots, but largely the piece from the bus was the piece I engraved and gave to my quintet. That's how I do it. I couldn't do this if I hadn't taken instrumental and voice lessons for quite a while, developing internal instruments. I couldn't do this if I hadn't taken dictation, audiation, and ear training very seriously in high school and college. I probably couldn't have done this had I not seriously studied the instruments for which I was writing, both from an orchestration perspective but also having handled and played and experimented with the instrument.

  4842. musictheory 2019-09-13 02:24:09 mr_munshun
    Or bass, don’t even have that weirdo B string to mess you up.

  4843. musictheory 2019-09-13 03:34:18 johnmatthewtennant
    You’re looking for an isomorphic instrument. Some niche instrument makers exist, but in terms of established instruments, the string family are good (violin, viola, cello, bass) also the guitars. Bass guitar especially because it is tuned exclusively in fourths. I play guitar tuned in 4ths and love it for this reason. EADGCF. You can look up P4ths tuning if you’re interested

  4844. musictheory 2019-09-13 12:22:46 Willravel
    I very specifically remember the melody of the viola jumping over the violin, but I can't recall the piece at the moment. If you have the musicians, give it a shot. The viola has this warm but pleading sound to it when it gets higher into the register. It's not as chocolatey as the cello, but it's darker than the violin. Dvorak's orchestration for strings is generally on-point, but his 12th String Quartet, "American" is a masterpiece. I really like Elgar, "Introduction and Adagio" (his dovetailing between the quartet and the tutti is delicious), and Bartok's done some amazing things even if he's not my jam. I think Ravel did the best work with harmonic color in strings, and any Buzzfeed Top 10 Hottest String Compositions list would have to include Ravel's String Quartet in F Major. It's a masterclass in how you can find a way to adapt your compositional style to strings, because the work is so very Ravel.

  4845. musictheory 2019-09-13 18:03:33 Xenoceratops
    Sorry, this is going to sound a little polemical. I'd like to use this comment as a springboard for discussion. >You don't. You're going about it backwards. >Instead, you find realizations and learn from them. For once, this is misleading. Musicians realizing figured bass back in the day would have studied a shit ton of theory and followed literal *rule books* (The horror!) to produce original realizations. Nowadays, it's pretty common in early music ensembles to refer to the same treatises, but of course they lack the cultural immersion and must supplement with scholarship. (And we don't have many examples of realized figured basses from that time anyway; they might appear as pedagogical content in treatises, if at all.) Joel Lester describes the nature and proliferation of figured bass literature in [Compositional Theory in the Eighteenth Century](https://www.amazon.com/Compositional-Theory-Eighteenth-Century-Lester/dp/0674155238): >>The existence of compositions for which a performer had to furnish harmonies and voice leadings above a bass necessitated a new species of text-the thoroughbass manual. Scores of such publications and reprints appeared in a remarkable variety of formats and approaches from the earliest years of the seventeenth century into the early nineteenth century, complemented by an even greater number of manuscript methods. They range in length from a single broadsheet (Bianciardi 1607) to 960 pages (Heinichen 1728); they appeared in collections of published music (Viadana 1602, Albert 1643, Telemann 1730), as part of composition treatises (Ebner 1653, Penna 1684), as the second part of keyboard treatises (St. Lambert 1707, Bach 1762, Tiirk 1791), and as independent publications. They were written by major composers like François Couperin (1668-1733), Georg Philipp Telemann (1681-1767), and C. P. E. Bach (1714-1788), as well as by authors whose names survive only through their treatises (St. Lambert). (50) (That last sentence is applicable to [a recent discussion we had](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/cwnrih/which_great_composers_wrote_books/eyd8cbm/) too.) So if you look at modern published scores of 18th century pieces, like Telemann's [Violin Sonata TWV 41:A4](https://imslp.org/wiki/Violin_Sonata%2C_TWV_41:A4_(Telemann%2C_Georg_Philipp\)) for instance, you might see [a realized figured bass](https://i.imgur.com/efbajNM.png). That's a Bärenreiter Urtext edition. The right hand of the continuo part is engraved with reduced-sized notes to indicate that an editor did the realization, holding the hand of the performer who hasn't gone and done their homework. [The manuscript only has a bassline and figures, naturally.](https://i.imgur.com/h9GqXPo.png) You could go your whole life learning these continuo realizations and really not understand when and why you add or drop voices or how to use diminutions and ornaments because the theory is not there. The performance would be a static, ossified thing. This was the case back in the 18th century too. Niedt spends a lot of time admonishing adherents to 'Tabulatur' who refuse to learn thoroughbass in his *Musicalische Handleitung*. (Nothing ever changes, eh?) Here are just a couple out of many such remarks: >>When the beer was passed around it excited all manner of discussion among the Herren Musicians on their art, quite like gatherings of sailors on the winds, of peasants on their cattle, of hunters on their hounds, and everyone who likes to discourse on that in which he possesses skill and understanding. But just as the person who has learned the least and has the smallest brain in his head wants, over a draught [of beer], to be the cleverest Master, thus it happened here, too. Mopsus, whose playing had just offended our ears the most, now imagined that he should be considered the best organist and composer, in a word, the most proficient musician. He boasted mightily that he had been apprenticed to a world­-famous Master and, with great and untiring diligence, had finally reached the stage where he himself could not only set everything in the Tabulatur of German letters but also play it after a brief scan. Meanwhile, he criticized others who claimed that music was an easy matter and said boldly that a person could sooner become a Master, or even a Doctor in all three faculties, than a skilled musician. Mopsus' neighbour, Fidelio by name, an organist in the little town of Lauterbach, wanted to contradict Mopsus and said he had heard that a Master existed who did not value the stiff German Tabulatur and could teach music based on the Fundament to a reasonable person in a short time, so that he need not feel ashamed of his playing in front of anyone. (11) 'Fundament' being figured bass theory. And here he is even more explicit in his opinion that simply learning to play tunes does not result in the magical acquisition of thoroughbass improvisation abilities: >>a person who knows a little bit about notes and is then led immediately to the thorough­bass will not only grasp it as soon and probably sooner than those who have played for years according to the German Tabulatur, but also such a person, after he has practised and varied it some, will be able to play by himself, out of his own head so to speak, a Toccata, Fugues, and the like. By contrast, the person who has learned to play three books' worth of Chaconnes and similar things written in Tabulatur will not be able to play even half a line of thorough­bass. (14) More than that, he is adamant in his belief that the way to learn thoroughbass is to study the theory, and that should happen as soon as the student learns the notes. An equivalent analogy in jazz (this forum's favorite fetish) would be to learn all of Charlie Parker's solos note-for-note. If you do that without any theory, is that going to make you capable of improvising like Charlie Parker? Probably not. You won't understand why and when Bird did what he did. You need the crucial elements of grammar and syntax. Bird's solos will only become more and more valuable studies once you have the theory, as I'm sure Johann Philipp Hinnenthal's realization of the figured bass in TWV 41:A4 will only become more valuable studies once you have some figured bass theory under your belt, but the point here is that it's the theory that takes you the distance. The theory is more than an abstraction — it is a *process*, the living soul of the music, the power that makes its vital organs work. The notion of scores as static objects to be studied comes to us in an era of commodification. In improvised music, there needs to be dynamism from the ground up. You state the importance of the reiterative process of learning the theory and practice here... >You will, at best, sound inaunthentic without that kind of deeper understanding that comes from "living it". >It isn't a bunch of rules. It's a very complex set of actions based not just on the figures, but what the other instruments are doing, where things are coming from and going to, and so on. ...so I don't want to accuse you of suggesting that we can learn all we need to know about writing or improvising fugues from analyzing or playing Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier. You'd probably be the first person on this board to point out that fugues (or figured bass or string quartets or symphonies) are something people did in Bach/Mozart/Beethoven's time and may not hold the significance now that they once did, and that this may complicate our modern reading. My aim here is to put spotlight on some of those cultural-temporal differences and deconstruct our tacit notions of music and musicianship along the way.

  4846. musictheory 2019-09-13 18:25:36 Xenoceratops
    [Learn shell voicings.](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/d25yvz/how_to_start_incoporating_chord_extensions_into/ezu3u6r/) Root, 3rd, 7th, and one extension. --- 7th chords with E string root: A∆: 5–x–6–6–x–x A7: 5–x–5–6–x–x Am7: 5–x–5–5–x–x (Gotta include the fifth for these because it identifies the chord:) Aø7: 5–x–5–5–4–x A°7: 5–x–4–5–4–x --- 7th chords with A string root: D∆: x–5–4–6–x–x D7: x–5–4–5–x–x Dm7: x–5–3–5–x–x Dø7: x–5–6–5–6–x D°7: x–5–6–4–6–x --- 9th chords: A∆9: 5–x–6–6–x–7 A9: 5–x–5–6–x–7 A7(♭9): 5–x–5–6–x–6 A7(#9): 5–4–5–5–x–x Am9: 5–x–5–5–x–7 D∆9: x–5–4–6–5–x D9: x–5–4–5–5–x D7(♭9): x–5–4–5–4–x D7(#9): x–5–4–5–6–x Dm9: x–5–3–5–5–x --- 13th chords: A∆13: 5–x–6–6–7–x A13: 5–x–5–6–7–x A7(♭13): 5–x–5–6–6–x (Same as A+7) Am13: 5–x–5–5–7–x D∆13: x–5–4–6–x–7 D13: x–5–4–5–x–7 D7(♭13): x–5–4–5–x–6 Dm13: x–5–3–5–x–7 --- Those aren't all necessarily voicings I would use, I'm just trying to illustrate the concept without making it too complicated. I left out 11ths for the same reason: but also because they're burdensome to play and you don't encounter them as much as 9ths and 13ths.

  4847. musictheory 2019-09-14 00:04:23 ijrt58
    Gotcha - since your primary instrument is monophonic it definitely makes sense to learn theory on a polyphonic instrument. For jazz, that's either the piano or guitar, preferably both eventually but starting with whichever you know better sounds like a good idea to me. I've debated people on this sub-Reddit before who insist that piano is the superior instrument to learn theory on. That is a closed-minded opinion in my opinion, but be warned you may encounter it. In reality they offer different perspectives and having different perspectives is always good thing. One thing knowing guitar really helps with is understanding intervals by the shape that they make on the fretboard (on the lowest 4 strings to avoid the B string which is not tuned to 4ths like the rest of them are). A perfect 5th for example has the higher note up one string and up two frets from the first note. Once you know the note names of the fretboard that makes identifying intervals much easier. To clarify my point about theory being non-specific, I guess what you mention about learning chord and scale shapes isn't really what I had in mind to call "theory." Learning chord and scale shapes is more just learning the instrument, so if that is what you interested in learning maybe expand your search of resources to include books that don't have theory in the name at all. Once you know the chord shapes, for example, a theory book would help you understand some common jazz progressions such as the ii-V-I in more detail than it takes just to play it. Theory explains the how the various notes in that progression create the resolution that you hear when it leads to the I. Picturing the progression on guitar or piano certainly helps a lot in understanding that explanation, but the explanation itself, the theory, is not instrument-specific.

  4848. musictheory 2019-09-14 00:44:32 alexjw116
    I have, the majority of the ones I’ve listened to have had either a string quartet or vocalists accompanied by a singular piano. My only issue is with adding another piano

  4849. musictheory 2019-09-14 01:39:54 65TwinReverbRI
    That's a great question and not one there's a solid answer for! And unfortunately, it can also lead to the whole "major centric" approach. So, if you wrote a piece or encountered a piece in A Dorian, it's very likely going to have a Key Signature (or let's call it "Mode Signature") of 1 sharp. Now, truly, this should cause any issue because everyone *should* already know that any "Key" Signature can represent ONE OF TWO possible Keys (and there again is something a lot of people aren't taught or aren't taught to consider every time). So when you start talking about modes, the "accidentals signature" could represent any 1 of 7 possible modes! What makes it any particular mode - or key - is the music itself and what Center - or Tonic - it points to. Again, we already do this all the time with Major and Minor so it's no different. So Music Engravers, in an attempt to keep things simple and familiar, will often just use the "key" Signature of what the accidentals are because it's way easier to do - and I suppose on some level there's a hope that their audience understands modality, or, at last, those who would play from paper don't really need to understand it just to play the notes! However, some people will in fact use the signature that puts it in the "tonic" (or Center) - so a piece in A Dorian will have an A Minor (as its the closest) "key signature" and the F note will simply be altered throughout. This is more common when there's more mode switching going on, just like moving from key to key or even Major to parallel minor in a traditional piece. I would personally write a piece in C Phrygian with a "Mode Signature" of 4 flats, hoping the people who would play that type of piece would understand that it's not Ab Major but "in C" and thus C Phrygian. That is, if the piece were primarily or exclusively in C Phrygian. Debussy's String Quartet "in G Minor" begins as G Phrygian and by contrast, begins with the Ab written in rather than in the signature - the Key Sig for the piece is Gm - 2 flats. One can safely assume though that modality was a much newer thing then, and players would be more used to a piece "in G" as having a "G-based" key sign (either Gm or G major) and given the piece has plenty of chromatic notes already (as many more complex music does) putting the Ab in the key sig doesn't really save the engraver any time and the publisher any money, or the player any grief, so using the Gm key sig is fine. One of the best ways to do this is to say in the piece's title: There are pieces actually stating the mode they're in somewhere in the title (in classical music, would be rare in pop).

  4850. musictheory 2019-09-14 03:23:35 Jongtr
    Speaking as a guitarist myself, piano is better for learning theory and harmony, for two reasons: (1) it requires no technique whatsoever to play chords; (2) a mich bigger range of voicings is available - wherever your ten fingers can reach. Guitar is superior in one way only: the fretboard displays scale structure - up one string. (Chord shapes across strings are meaningless.) The fact you can actually see the semitones, and relate the intervals to string division, is great for understanding why scales are the way they are.

  4851. musictheory 2019-09-14 04:09:22 numbersusername
    Forgive me if I wrong but I’m imagining an Am off the 6th string, bottom portion of a G would be pinky on the 7th fret, 6th string, which is a B, so that would be an a minor 9?

  4852. musictheory 2019-09-14 04:29:20 Eats_Ass
    Hmm, I honestly haven't sussed it out. The A minor I was thinking is the open shape and then hitting the G on the 6th string. No idea what the proper name would be. I'd think an inverted minor 7? But that same Am with an added G, F or E on the high E also sounds nice (and easy easier to hit!). I'll edit this in a min to include a couple pics out what I mean.

  4853. musictheory 2019-09-14 06:58:46 numbersusername
    The open am with the pinky on 3rd fret on the 1st string is a minor 7 chord. With the G on the 6th string that would be an inverted minor 7. One example I can think of with this chord being used is Tom Petty’s Last Dance with Mary Jane. Looking at my previous comment, I dunno what I was thinking. I was picturing an Am bar chord, pinky on the 7th fret 1st string, which I think is a minor 9 Goes without saying, I’m not the greatest guitarist by any stretch😂

  4854. musictheory 2019-09-14 09:08:12 victotronics
    >an octave of a note is literally a subset of the original note Only for objects that can be described with a second order Laplace operator. That's a string and an air column, but not a plate or a bell or really any other shape.

  4855. musictheory 2019-09-14 10:55:01 crabapplesteam
    The one Carter is known for is his first string quartet. That might be a good start. Carter's music isn't for everyone, but he does some really cool things now and again.

  4856. musictheory 2019-09-14 12:22:42 ijrt58
    I mean, it isn't that hard to prove. Just take a mandolin or any other double-string instrument and tune one of the doubled string slightly off from the other enough to introduce inharminic frequencies. Then play a melody and play the same melody again an octave higher. Of course it will still sound like an octave.

  4857. musictheory 2019-09-14 17:52:36 AnonymousBoiFromTN
    Everything in music theory is a pattern. Everything. You start with scales. Major Minor Blues and modes. Then you memorize the circle of fifths. Every scale is the same on a string instrument just on different "frets". On piano every scale is the same in amount of black and/or white keys between notes. One key is a half step two keys is a wholestep. Major scale formula is W W H W W W H. Minor is W H W W H W W. Blues is W+H W H H W+H W. Modes can be though of in many ways. Id sugguest a video or book talking about it in a borad sense because i cant type it all out though id love to if you want more info. The circle of fifths is a pattern. Its basically the order of sharps FCGDAEB (and more on top of that, that isnt the whole circle of fifths. Find a pic on google and youll see what i mean) and the circle of fourths (the circle of fifths counter clockwise) is the order of flats BEADGCF. And then you go into chord building. I made a great cheat sheet for doing basic chords from Major to augmented to full diminished and everything in between if youd like a copy. Basically if you feel like anything that has been said previously doesnt jive with the book id be seriously considering swapping to a different book because everything i mentioned is taught in basic college theory courses for freshmen. Let me know if you like more info or it i screwed the response

  4858. musictheory 2019-09-14 21:20:12 victotronics
    The overtone series is the set of eigenvalues of a second order Laplace operator. Which is how an air column or a string behaves (ignoring end effects), but preciously little else.

  4859. musictheory 2019-09-15 02:35:00 xiipaoc
    > In Equal Temperament that's true, but there's no good reason to decide Equal Temperament is the standard and everything else is abnormal. The fact is that, without some sort of context, Ab and G# are not meaningfully distinguished. Here's a question: which is higher? What is the specific frequency of the Ab, and what is the specific frequency of the G#? What is the size of the interval between them? None of these questions make any sense *in Common Practice music*. You might treat G# and Ab differently because they imply different things depending on context, but, to be honest, you're unlikely to come across both notes next to each other anyway, so the situation in which you'd actually have to answer these questions is a contrivance at best. If we're tuning notes up or down to fit the goals of the music, then the same note might be tuned up or down depending on its function even within the same key; I gave the example that, in the key of A, a melodic G# might be tuned up while a harmonic one might be tuned down. Now, if we were to pick a *definition* that we can use for G# and Ab, we could answer these questions. In music that assumes 12-TET or some sort of well-temperament, even if it gets fiddled with a bit on the fly, G# and Ab are *the same note*, but how they're spelled will help you figure out their harmonic context so that you can tune them up or down. If you assume some other regular temperament, like 19-TET or 31-TET, G# and Ab are very clearly different notes, with G# below Ab. If you assume a non-meantone regular temperament like 17-TET or 22-TET, though, Ab will be below G#. If you're using just intonation, all bets go out the window because either note could be really anything. G#, for example, could be either (5/4)^(2) (the very low one) or (81/64)·(5/4) (the middle one) or (81/64)^(2) (the very high one). And that's if you're just in 5-limit. The assumed definition when dealing with the repertoire of string players is 12 notes per octave unless noted otherwise. In the Common Practice context, G# and Ab are not differentiated by pitch but rather by function, and it's function that determines pitch if applicable. G# and Ab are different concepts represented by the same pitch (in Common Practice and other non-microtonal music), and that pitch might be tuned up or down depending on context, but without such context, they're the same actual frequency. In particular, the key of G#m and the key of Abm would sound *exactly* the same.

  4860. musictheory 2019-09-15 03:33:52 Kai_Daigoji
    > without some sort of context, Ab and G# are not meaningfully distinguished Only if you define 'without context' as meaning equal temperament. In the work of Baroque, Classical, and even most Romantic composers they would absolutely have been different pitches. > which is higher Until the mid 19th century at least, violin fingering charts showed Ab as higher than GB, and many music traditions make clear that a diatonic half step is greater than a chromatic half step. You say the assumed definition with strong players is 12 notes per octave, but even into the 20th century many string players were being taught that leading tones should lead, and making micro adjustments away from perfect 12 ET. The fact is, you're coming at this from the perspective that 12 ET is correct, and these notes just **are** enharmonic, rather than that they are different, but are treated the same in 12 ET.

  4861. musictheory 2019-09-15 04:43:55 xiipaoc
    > In the work of Baroque, Classical, and even most Romantic composers they would absolutely have been different pitches. Those musicians didn't even have a standard pitch to tune against. Their keyboards had 12 notes per octave; their fretted instruments had 12 notes per octave; their keyed/holed instruments had 12 notes per octave. They may have chosen a G# or an Ab for a particular temperament (usually G#, if I recall correctly), but there was no meaningful way to say that a particular pitch was a G# or an Ab. If someone asked you to take out your violin and play a G#, you'd play the same note that you'd play if they'd asked you to play an Ab instead. And, again, meantone tuning would have had G# below Ab, while Pythagorean tuning would have had Ab below G#. They may not have been using 12-tone *equal* temperament, but they were certainly using temperaments with 12 tones. That said, there *were* some more avant-garde composers in the late Renaissance/early Baroque (Vincentino, Gesualdo, etc.) who did have *some* music in which G# and Ab would have been a priori different pitches. > Until the mid 19th century at least, violin fingering charts showed Ab as higher than G# That's an oversimplification, because G# is higher if you're playing it as a leading tone and lower if you're playing it as the major third of a chord. When Beethoven changed the spelling of his chord in the development of the first movement of his 5th symphony, he did not expect string players to change fingerings to match the spelling. In fact, Beethoven frequently used enharmonic equivalents in his music, and he was in the early 19th century. Maybe child violin players might have learned those fingering charts, but no practical musician would put any stock in it. > many string players were being taught that leading tones should lead Yes, leading tones should indeed lead. If you're in G# minor or Ab minor, G# and Ab are not leading tones. And, when leading tones lead, they get tuned *away* from what you said about Ab as higher than G#. My point is that the tuning adjustments are *because* leading tones should lead, not because one note is written as G# and another as Ab. It's not that G# and Ab are different notes; it's that they would imply different functions and get tuned differently based on *that*. If an entire piece of music gets enharmonically respelled, as Romantic composers were wont to do from time to time, there'd be no audible difference between the music before the respelling and the music after, since every note would keep its same function. > you're coming at this from the perspective that 12 ET is correct For Western music, 12-tone temperaments (not necessarily equal ones) are indeed correct; any variation from that is performance practice, not a fundamental change.

  4862. musictheory 2019-09-15 15:17:03 mladjiraf
    Polyphonic music is harder to write and depending on what you define as consonance it can be also harder to listen to. If you want to insert choir parts (or pseudo choir style string/electronic pads/keyboards parts), it's way more useful to employ contrapuntal writing than block chords.

  4863. musictheory 2019-09-16 06:25:41 FwLineberry
    I'd suggest Nashville* strung acoustic guitars provide the twinkle and steel guitars provide the twang. \*Nashville stringing/tuning is stringing a 6-string up with the skinny strings from a 12-string set.

  4864. musictheory 2019-09-16 11:53:29 whitebean
    Yep, sometimes also called "high strung" and accompanying a regular strung guitar, to sound kind of like a more full 12 string guitar. Another twinkly sound might be the pedal steel and lap steel guitars.

  4865. musictheory 2019-09-16 12:25:32 Pineapple6907
    Ok, thanks a lot, i'm a begginer and i saw this thing once about descending a half step on a certain string with each chord, and i kinda just picked it up without thinking further of it. I'll try and get some more information before i try to do stuff like this. Thanks tho!!!

  4866. musictheory 2019-09-16 14:18:50 Cello789
    I oversimplified - I play the B sharper when it is functioning as a leading tone in a scale or in a dominant chord that will resolve to the C. I play the B sharp against D (and maybe F? I’ll have to pay attention when I practice tomorrow), but not against E in a minor iii chord outline or such. Are you rather saying that if I tune my cello to perfect 5ths, the B that’s an overtone of the A string is the note that should fit in a C major scale (C defined as 3 fifths below A)? I wonder if that’s close to 12 cents flatter than equal temperament...

  4867. musictheory 2019-09-16 18:42:05 mladjiraf
    Hm, because you are in basically Pythagorean tuning (becase of the way strings are tuned), you are already too sharp compared to just (or 12 equal) tuning. If I understood your case correctly the A is 1/1, B is 9/8, C is 32/27 (Pythagorean minor third which is a 21 cents flatter than just minor third). C to B will be equal to 243/128 = 1109.775 cents Pythagorean major seventh and you want to play it even sharper, which should sound wrong (in theory). Btw, there is another factor that we miss- string instruments have inherent inharmonicity (and maybe some kind of additional inharmonic resonance, idk), so I have heard that they sound better tuned sharper unlike something like organ or flute, which is closer to a pure sine wave. Maybe because of this inharmonicity it can be even better to tune your strings few cents sharper than pure, if you are more cutting tone. Pure fifth is 3/2 - around 702 cents, experiment with 2-3 cents sharper tuning of the strings. Because of individual instrument family peculiarities like these, it's hard to have great ensemble tuning (and some instrument (mainly brass, I think) can sound of tune, depending on the weather conditions )

  4868. musictheory 2019-09-16 19:21:45 powersurgeee
    If you're going into composition, yes you need to learn it. And no, it's not irrelevant - it will help you even when writing contemporary music (in any style). The problem is most people don't study it seriously and long enough to reap the benefits... "dabbling" in counterpoint won't do you any good. It takes time and most aren't willing to put the time in. Know that Ravel did counterpoint exercises every day well after writing his famous string quartet. It works (if don consistently and right), and has worked for ages, that's why we still do it.

  4869. musictheory 2019-09-16 23:08:00 TC944
    &#x200B; From Wiki: **Alternate picking** is a guitar playing technique that employs alternating downward and upward strokes in a continuous fashion. If the technique is performed at high speed on a single string voicing the same note, it may be referred to as "**tremolo picking**" or "**double picking**". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate\_picking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_picking)

  4870. musictheory 2019-09-16 23:34:47 Cello789
    I "squeeze" the fifths, tuning by harmonics. So the first overtone of the A string (octave A) is equal to the 2nd harmonic of the D string (D-d-a, the 5th above the octave) but I tune it so the D string is *just* sharp, to make sure that it's never flat, because I don't want it to be the lower string. My octaves get messed up if the D is the lower of the two. I'm not sure what the math is for comparing ordered harmonics of one string to another. My primary cello teacher taught me this a very long time ago, and I trusted there must be some math that agrees, otherwise I wouldn't like the sound. Maybe I was wrong about the 3rd - maybe I raise the major third, and that's why I raise the B in a G7 chord in C major? I'm not sure anymore! All I know is that 4ths are dissonant, and harmonic order is fascinating. My son is learning trumpet and it's like the entire instrument is built off overtone series, so there are sometimes multiple ways to play the "same note" but they don't always come out exactly equal!

  4871. musictheory 2019-09-17 00:39:35 Cello789
    When you say “slightly sharper fifths” do you mean slightly augmented or slightly diminished? I call them sharp, but I go down a 5th, not up (tuning from the A string down to the D, I make the D a bit sharp).

  4872. musictheory 2019-09-17 05:46:32 mikeyj198
    You need to learn the chromatic scale. use that to build the notes across the fretboard. Do this yourself with pencil and paper. Do you know how to build an octave? Two strings up and two frets higher? If so learn the low E and A string and you’ll be way ahead of where you are now. From there I would go to the CAGED theory... basically any shape can be moved up the fretboard and the chord progresses up the chromatic scale, one semitone for each fret you move. Intentionally going to be a bit vague, you have enough here to get started, do a little research and be on your way! Good luck.

  4873. musictheory 2019-09-17 06:33:27 AnonymousBoiFromTN
    1.Tune a 3/4 size double bass to Tenor bass tuning 2.Pluck bass with fingers in a 1-5 bassline 3. String guitar with thinner strings and play with a glass slide 4. Tune a second accoustic guitar to Baritone tuning 5. Rely on the Tritone in ending all melodies 6. Play in major blues, preferably E 7. Profit

  4874. musictheory 2019-09-17 17:08:30 Jongtr
    The chromatic scale is the basic formula you need to know. | | | | | | | | | | | | | . A# . B# C# . D# . E# F# . G# . A . B C . D . E F . G . A . Bb Cb . Db . Eb Fb . Gb . Ab . So you have seven natural notes, each one of which can have a flat or sharp version. So as well as the note between A and B having two names (A#, Bb), the natural notes B, C, E and F can also have alternative names sometimes (not very often!). When you spell a scale, you need one of each letter, and only one. This means you can build one 7-note scale from the natural notes (usually known as the C major scale); one scale from all the sharp notes (C# major); one scale from all the flat notes (Cb major). And the other scales (12 of them) come from mixtures either of natural and sharp notes, or natural and flat notes. If all this makes your head hurt, just memorise the natural note formula: half-steps between B-C and E-F, whole steps elsewhere. This lets you work out any note on any fret on any string. To begin with, the frets between the natural notes can named as either the flat or sharp name. Which is correct depends on the context, but remember either could be correct.

  4875. musictheory 2019-09-17 20:21:53 Jongtr
    To use keyboard for theory, you need no technique whatsoever. You only need to know which note is which. Forming any chord you like is then easy - you just put your fingers down on the required notes. Any theory text can then be used, and most will use piano notation to illustrate chords and harmonies. That means you need to learn *notation,* which is fundamental to learning theory anyway. IOW, theory books (and websites) usually begin by teaching you notation (treble and bass clef), and then use piano double stave to demonstrate stuff. [This one](https://www.musictheory.net/lessons) being a perfect example. (If you already read guitar notation, you may need to know that guitar is transposed by an octave. Middle C is on the B string fret 1, shown as 3rd space up. On piano notation, it's the ledger line below treble clef and above bass clef.) If you actually want to *play piano* \- that's more difficult! Then you definitely need technique; correct fingering and so on. But if it's just about learning theory, then no.

  4876. musictheory 2019-09-18 01:05:10 tjmarko
    [https://archive.org/details/OrchestralBowings1991](https://archive.org/details/OrchestralBowings1991) A well done video regarding bowing. [http://soundtrack.academy/string-instruments/](http://soundtrack.academy/string-instruments/) Another thorough treatise on strings. The best thing you can do to learn, is talk to actual players. Study a score and talk to them regarding bowing, techniques, etc. 20 minutes talking is worth hours of study and reading. As a non string player, I struggle with correct markings for strings all the time. By the way, anything you mark will be changed by the players, lol! (Just the way it is!)

  4877. musictheory 2019-09-18 03:27:08 TheTalenAndersen
    Thank you very much! We did have some string players come in and talk to us but we were limited by time. And I totally agree that he conversation aspect is huge

  4878. musictheory 2019-09-18 05:18:16 BoneVoyager
    I like the third mode of double harmonic minor, ultraphrygian. On guitar I love to mess around with the low open E droning and playing around an octave up on the A string. Ultraphrygian = ultra fun

  4879. musictheory 2019-09-18 09:36:20 skarama
    Chord 1: you have C7 on its first inversion Chord 2: because of the open string E, I'd see this as Em7, first inversion Chord 3: Em9 seems right Chord 4: that's a tricky one that would benefit from context for true analysis..could be A9th, although you're missing a third to make it a major or minor Chord, which would feel very unstable harmonically, especially given it resides on the fifth..so actually, probably an Em4?

  4880. musictheory 2019-09-18 23:03:20 KingAdamXVII
    As I understand it, the major scale is constructed by making major chords on the three strongest intervals (I, IV, and V) The third and fifth (e.g. in the key of C, the notes E and G) are strong overtones. That is, when you multiply the frequency of any C by 3, you get a G. Multiply by 5 to get an E. So let’s construct major chords on C and G. That gives us C, D, E, G, and B, which is a pretty nice pentatonic scale. We’re still lacking a couple notes though, so let’s go *down* a fifth from C instead of up a fifth, and construct a major key on that root. That gives us F and A (and C, which we of course already have). Keep in mind we didn’t have to name those the letters of the alphabet, and we certainly shouldn’t picture any black keys or think about accidentals. We got the pitches not by choosing the right notes on an already invented instrument, but by shortening a single string by a factor of 3 to get the fifth and a factor of 5 to get the third (well isn’t that confusing) So now we can just play a D-F-A chord and wonder why it’s not a major chord (the answer is because of math), or a B-D-F and wonder what the fuck is going on with this nasty sound (again, math). There’s no other option available to us because D# and F# haven’t been invented yet. These triads are just the result of constructing the notes the way we did. To get the accidentals, just do the same construction starting on the different notes that we’ve already invented. Do it once with B and that’s all we need. It definitely gets more interesting if you want to take a deep dive into the world of just intonation vs equal temperament, but I think this is a decent balance of simplicity and accuracy.

  4881. musictheory 2019-09-19 02:25:05 skarama
    I may be biased by classical analysis training, but afaik, the low open string acts as the "bass" regardless of whether a real bass plays - the fact that that there are two Es in that second chord, I really am not sure why it would be a G anything. Tbh, I don't really understand the concept of a 6th chord, since, by definition, the 6th should act as the root of a first inversion chord, at least when it comes to classical analysis. I understand that in jazz, the chord symbol acts as more than pure analysis, and serves to indicate to a player where he should take the lead/improv, or the bass line even, in which case, it's really up to the composer of the tune whether he wants this chord to "feel" like a G with added 6th, or an Em with a 7th. I may be wrong however, and am curious to understand what would make it a G over a 1st inversion Em?

  4882. musictheory 2019-09-19 03:32:33 KingAdamXVII
    > the fact that that there are two Es in that second chord, I really am not sure why it would be a G anything. Well first of all there’s only one E in the second chord. It’s sitting right on top. Not only that, it’s suspended from the previous chord. It very much sounds like a G chord with an E pedal tone to me. I agree with you that 6 chords are often just inverted 7 chords, but not when the chord is so obviously a simple triad with just a bit of spice added in. The arrangement can make a big difference with this distinction. > afaik, the low open string acts as the "bass" regardless of whether a real bass plays In my experience with guitars, the lower strings tend to be quieter than the high strings and the low notes are clumped relatively close together. Whereas a bass and cello commonly double each other on the low end, the low strings of a guitar usually play third or fifths. This means that inversions are much less meaningful when it’s just a guitar playing, and if there’s any lower instrument playing then the guitar shouldn’t bother playing inversions. For example, there’s little difference to my ears between an open A chord with the low E muted vs an open A chord with the low E ringing. It might make it sound a bit more muffled or full, but it doesn’t change the harmony. If you add a bass playing an E vs. an A, well now we have two very distinct chords.

  4883. musictheory 2019-09-20 07:55:18 Jongtr
    Yes, it's called "playing the guitar". :-D Sorry, I mean the only unusual thing he's doing is at the beginning (from 1:16), which is *fret muting.* I.e., he's muting the strings with his fret hand so that strumming them just produces percussive thumps. That's just 4 beats (the first couple of seconds after 1:16), then he's playing chords normally. The chord (shapes) are Em, A, C and G, and on the G at 1:24 he plays an added 9th (fret 2, 3rd string). He's tuned down a whole step, btw. So his Em shape produces an Fm chord sound. If you want to play along, put a capo on 1 and play the same shapes.

  4884. musictheory 2019-09-20 14:54:38 LordIrianeth
    As /u/visntnglxy said, counterpoint is a *pedagogical*, something designed for students to start from, and which could then be tinkered with in some ways when mastered. Mozart had been a compositional genius for twenty years when he wrote his Rondo alla Turca, and you can rest assured that he started by learning strict counterpoint. In fact, we know he taught using Fux's *Gradus ad Parnassum*, which was strict even by the standards of his time. Anyway, if your aim is to write dissonant counterpoint, you should be looking at Bartók's fourth string quartet, not Mozart.

  4885. musictheory 2019-09-21 01:23:09 arsenalca
    > Notice that on the lower three chords, we can't put the 3rd above the lower root (between root and 5th), because it would be on the same string. So it has to go higher. Guitar is therefore a lot more limited than piano in terms of how chords can be played Yes the guitar has limitations, but it annoys me when it is presented like this. Any triad can be played in root position close voicing on a guitar. Some of them can't be played in the low octave (like E), and of course big note clusters are often impossible, but the guitar is not nearly as limited as I keep hearing people say.

  4886. musictheory 2019-09-21 14:45:32 Lokitu
    Also how can I know names of the chord? &#x200B; For example I saw this question on Quora [https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-guitar-chord-022102-called](https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-guitar-chord-022102-called) I tried to play this chord on the guitar and I figured out the notes as B E F# G#. Then I figured it's a B chord with the 3rd raised by a half step, but I was unsure if this was a correct way to notate it. &#x200B; Then I read the first question and realized when I played the chord again - it was just the E chord with an extra note, the 2nd fret of the high E-string. So this confuses me a lot - my problem is that I go in the order of strings and assume the chords' name from there. But how can I know which chord is what since there's so many different ways of notating them and which one do I know how to use? Also, what's a passing tone?

  4887. musictheory 2019-09-22 01:24:49 FwLineberry
    Guitar is a transposing instrument. That means music that is written specifically for the guitar is written an octave higher than it sounds when you play it. For Guitar music middle C is at the 3rd fret of the 5th string and 8th fret of the 6th string. For music written at concert pitch, middle C is at the 1st fret of the 2nd string, the 5th fret of the 3rd string, the 10th fret of the 4th string, the 13th fret of the 5th string and the 20th fret of the 6th string. How you arrange music on the fingerboard around these reference points is a matter of personal preference.

  4888. musictheory 2019-09-22 01:32:27 Conrad59
    Guitar notes are written on the treble staff an octave higher than they actually sound. Because of this, your C (3rd fret, 5th string) is written on the 1st ledger line *below* the staff.

  4889. musictheory 2019-09-22 02:27:40 Jongtr
    >For Guitar music middle C is at the 3rd fret of the 5th string and 8th fret of the 6th string. Whoah! Middle C is a specific pitch: the C nearest the centre of piano, 261 Hz. On guitar, that note is written in the 3rd space up. It's also in the middle approximately of the guitar range and notation. The C below the treble clef on guitar notation would *look* like middle C to a concert instrument, but is not "middle C" in any meaningful sense. I know you know your stuff, but I think this is an important distinction. "Middle C" is not a fixed place on the stave, it's a sound - which might be written in different places for different instruments. (Would you call the C below treble clef on sax notation "middle C"?)

  4890. musictheory 2019-09-22 02:42:31 Jongtr
    3rd fret 5th string is the C below the stave on guitar music. Guitar is a mid-range instrument, so the treble clef stave - normally a high register stave when in concert - is lowered in order to cover the middle register of the instument. (Stricly speaking, this is now "tenor" register, not treble.) Compared with piano double stave, the guitar stave straddles middle C, which appears on 3rd space up (B string 1st fret). Bottom E on guitar is then under the 3rd ledger line down, and E on fret 12 1st string is the 3rd ledger line above. Of course there is the other issue in your title. "Middle C" (i.e., the sound that pianists know as middle C, written in the 3rd space up), can be played on 2nd string 1st fret, 3rd string 5th fret, 4th string 10th fret, etc. Which one you choose depends on (a) which is easiest in context, and (b) which one you like the sound of.

  4891. musictheory 2019-09-22 03:14:51 PeanutButterSmears
    I’m a beginner guitarist trying to learn music theory so forgive the incredibly stupid question, since I’ve only read tab and am just learning to read actual musical notation. What happens in a song where the guitar is playing that C (3rd fret 5th string) jumps an octave to 15th fret, or even a second octave 20th fret, 4th string (I’m on mobile so forgive me if my math is wrong)? How is that noted?

  4892. musictheory 2019-09-22 03:55:02 Conrad59
    > 15th fret, or even a second octave 20th fret, 4th string 5th string 15th fret = C = 3rd space (counting from bottom) in the staff (in guitar notation). 4th string 20th fret = A# = 1st ledger line *above* the staff (in guitar notation) (or Bb, in the space above that).

  4893. musictheory 2019-09-22 06:30:21 OriginalIron4
    It's more chamber orchestra...but I've never learned more about string writing, and wind writing, from any other piece, than Stravinsky Dumbarton Oaks Concerto (string section, plus flute, clarinet, horns, and bassoons).

  4894. musictheory 2019-09-22 08:00:19 00dakka
    Absolutely try and get George crumbs makrokosmos score if they have it, kind of drawdropping. Lachenmann scores are great and I always enjoyed reading the scores of Scelsi string quartets too.

  4895. musictheory 2019-09-22 10:51:11 hey_its_tom
    The C with a single ledger line through it is played on the 5th (A) string, and the C on the third line (without the ledger line) is played on the 2nd (B) string. Sometimes they may be played on other strings (notated with a circled number) but you shouldn’t need to worry about those much. Also, I would highly recommend learning from a book. I’d definitely recommend [Jason Waldren’s Progressive Classical Guitar Method](https://www.ebay.com.au/p/1244685177?iid=182417704775&chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=705-139619-5960-0&mkcid=2&itemid=182417704775&targetid=468509238949&device=m&mktype=pla&googleloc=9071765&poi=&campaignid=6472421015&mkgroupid=77077696785&rlsatarget=pla-468509238949&abcId=1141706&merchantid=7631902&gclid=Cj0KCQjwlJfsBRDUARIsAIDHsWp_3I2dnQnK51Chd-YQA3i877tp58a3YUz4EC0W-NpHRMqRyGlArHwaAoUyEALw_wcB). Even if you aren’t learning classical, it’s a great way to learn to sight-read and by the end you should have no problem reading sheet music anymore. Also, to add on to my answer, every note up to G on the first (E) string can be played in the first position. Good luck!

  4896. musictheory 2019-09-23 20:02:16 scottious
    I'm just guessing but that quote might be specifically referring to the common voicings of the diatonic chords in those keys on guitar. For example, an open E major chord on guitar sounds very full because it utilizes the low E string, so maybe he equates that with "confidence". Who knows... Most people wouldn't even be able to tell that you changed the key of a song that was in C major into E major if you kept the voicings the same, and I'm not really convinced that changing keys like this would have an overall impact on the tone and feeling of a song. One time I did a Katy Perry medley on piano and I transposed every song in the medley into the key of E. Of the people I asked, nobody even noticed. Certainly the songs didn't go from sounding strong and/or regretful to sounding confident by changing keys like that.

  4897. musictheory 2019-09-24 09:04:53 ok_reset
    Q1: Which interval ranking? It appears you are using ratios from just intonation -- not really applicable to 12TET, where all the ratios are irrational. Q2: A minor 9th is perceived by most people as much more dissonant than a minor 7th, so G - G# is more dissonant than G - F. Q3: If the notes aren't directly adjacent and aren't in the outer voices, they won't be as prominent in the overall harmony. Q4: IMHO, the perceived dissonance of a chord rests on a handful of factors - the interval between the outer voices, the intervals between adjacent inner notes, the presence of symmetry, the voice-leading to and from the chord, whether the chord is a subset of a diatonic collection, the relation of the chord to the key of the surrounding music, the timbre of the instrument, and the cultural conditioning of the listener. That is, you could make a C major chord sound extremely dissonant if you played it in the lowest octave of a carillon, at the conclusion of a string quartet in Db major.

  4898. musictheory 2019-09-25 00:37:05 Jongtr
    > What is the purpose of relative keys? "Relative" just means that the two keys (major and minor) share the same scale, at at least the same key signature. So a blank key signature stands for the keys of C major and A minor. The difference is which note is the "tonic", the aural tonal centre - almost always the final note and chord of the piece (not necessarily the starting chord). > For example, a song is in the key of A minor. How can a relative key help me in learning songs by ear? It doesn't really (IMO). In learning a song by ear, you'd listen for the keynote (which you should be able to identify as A in this case - go for the last chord root if in doubt), and then the quality of the chord which has A as root - whether it's major or minor. Any other scale notes you can pick up will help of course. > if a bass guitar is down tuned by a half-step, that would make what was an open E in normal tuning, be an E flat in the Eb tuning? Yes. So you'd need to make adjustments when learning by ear. But it all depends on what you want to call your downtuned strings. Do you still want to think of them as EADG? Or are you OK with thinking of them as Eb Ab Db Gb? The latter is important if you're working with other musicians - unless they are guitarists who are also tuned down a half-step. In that case they will almost certainly be calling their strings EADGBE. At least, when they play a chord shape 0-2-2-1-0-0 they'll probably call it "E" and not "E flat". But if you work with a pianist - or if you learning from notation or internet chord sites which don't cater for downtuning - then you need to know the "concert" names for your strings (Eb Ab Db Gb). If you were learning a song by ear, and you found its keynote was your open 3rd string, that would mean the song was in "Ab concert". But if the original song was played on downtuned guitars, they would probably have called it "A", and any internet chord site (at least one dedicated to guitar) will proably call the key "A". Again, none of this is to do with "relative keys". ;-)

  4899. musictheory 2019-09-25 01:16:23 Eonios
    First of all, thank you for the thorough explanation, it absolutely helps. But I lost you here: > If you were learning a song by ear, and you found its keynote was your open 3rd string, that would mean the song was in "Ab concert". But if the original song was played on downtuned guitars, they would probably have called it "A", and any internet chord site (at least one dedicated to guitar) will proably call the key "A". I'm pretty sure that those sites (most of them) are clear about the tuning of a song. For instance, it will say this particular song is in 'that' tuning... Also, I see a lot of talk about chords which are not that frequent in bass lines, or at least I think they're not. Don't know much about them, just that they're notes played at the same time... One more question: Each instrument in a song has it's own key? Like there is the key of the whole song and then there are keys for the each instrument?

  4900. musictheory 2019-09-25 02:18:34 Beastintheomlet
    > What if the song is tuned down and you need to find the key (or relative key) on your instrument (which is supposed to be tuned down I guess)? >For instance, if a bass guitar is down tuned by a half-step, that would make what was an open E in normal tuning, be an E flat in the Eb tuning? Think of downtuning a bass like adding an note below the nut. So in standard tuning your open E string is, but if you tune down a halfstep that same note is just slid over to the first fret.

  4901. musictheory 2019-09-25 09:43:09 AffectionateSecret1
    The real answer to your question has to do with the overtone series. Basically, every vibrating string, air column, or membrane produce a series of pitches above the fundamental pitch. The fundamental pitch is what we call the sound by (C, for example), but that sound source also produces a vibration at the pitch exactly one octave above that fundamental. The next pitch produced in the overtone series would be G. The overtones become increasingly close together and become more distant (dissonant) from the fundamental. Thus, besides the octave, G is the tone that is most closely related to C and thus is capable of the most obvious "resolution."

  4902. musictheory 2019-09-25 12:09:18 me-real-me
    I would suggest starting with learning the differences between acoustic and electric. Theory wise though I just watched a bunch of YouTube videos that analyze songs or talk about music theory in general. Channels like Samurai guitarist, Rick Beato, 12tone and Adam Neely are very interesting. Also, some good things to know on electric (in case you don’t already know how to do them) learning the notes along the fretboard, for this I’d say follow the circle of fifths and play each note of it on the E string, then the A string and so on. Also muting other strings while not playing them makes everything sound cleaner.

  4903. musictheory 2019-09-25 15:17:09 jbbbr
    Very frequently, these exotic types of scales are played over drones, so I would suggest using something very static, like a two chord vamp or a droning open string chord repeated ad infinitum. The fact of the matter is that things often sound 'exotic' to our ears because they might come from musical traditions that do not conceive of harmony the way western tradition does. It's a good opportunity to experiment more with dynamics, textural changes, etc.

  4904. musictheory 2019-09-26 01:54:07 sevensixtwolove
    Yeah, that would honestly be a bit more clear. I the whole thing from a "the notes on a bass string" perspective and placing a scale pattern on top of the string/fretboard, (started playing bass in January, no previous music experience), so I think that's why I ended up with the long strips meant to be joined at the octave tbh. Great idea though!

  4905. musictheory 2019-09-26 05:34:33 ChuckDimeCliff
    You’re absolutely correct as long as you tune each string to a note from 12-tone equal temperament. You can write, for example, 24-tone equal temperament pieces for guitar by tuning some (but not all) strings to quarter tones.

  4906. musictheory 2019-09-26 15:36:30 sevensixtwolove
    Excellent distinction and you're absolutely right! My vague idea was taping together two strips/octaves to simulate 24 frets (or actually three octaves just so that I could slide them more easily/have some spare notes in each end) and also align them above each other each offset by 5 halfsteps/a Perfect 4th just like the fretboard and from there experiment with finding scale locations, do one, two and three string scale shapes and chord shapes (especially the "odd" ones/not pure triads). It also allowed me to visualize tunings by just moving left/right with my "fretboard boundary" so to speak, or just sliding one of the strips/strings for drop tuning. I had a look at the Chromawheel and beyond looking beautiful I can really see the use for it (which in itself is a victory because three months ago I believe I would not have understood its purpose). Once I get more into working with chord degrees(?) this circular approach will probably be a better fit because I will be thinking in the context of progressions and resolution relationships, whereas now I'm more thinking physical location [on the bass neck!] and placement relationships, if that makes sense. :D Great work with the Chromawheel, really liked the browser version/beta! (And again, beautiful design of the wooden wheel!)

  4907. musictheory 2019-09-26 21:42:13 Jongtr
    > How do I know if a song is in my range? Listen to it and try to sing along, or look at sheet music. If it goes out of your range, it can always be transposed to a key where it will be in your range (assuming the other musicians are all OK with that...). > How do I play songs around my range? See above. You may need to change the key of some songs, which means you might then need to consider which keys are comfortable on your instrument as well. > What does it all mean? tell meeee What does what mean? :-) > I play the guitar Ah-ha! So you'll want to choose keys that are easy on guitar as well as suitable for your range. Your range is pretty average for an untrained adult male, btw. (But hold on, do you really mean A5? A5 is the A on 17th fret of your top E string. I guess you mean A4, which is 5th fret.) It would be worth getting a few singing lessons to help expand your *comfortable* range, which (A2-C4, guitar 5th string to B string fret 1) is only a little over an octave. Not many songs have a range bigger than that, but of course you'll probably need to transpose most songs to get their ranges within yours - you don't have a lot of wiggle room in there. With some high register songs (female vocals, or male tenor vocals) you may be able to keep the same key and just sing the octave down. Most male rock singers are tenors, or use that high register, and the average guy often has trouble with anything by the likes of Robert Plant, Axl Rose, Stevie Wonder, Neil Young and so on. (I was once in a band with a female singer where she had to *lower* the keys of Stevie Wonder songs....) Personally I'm OK with Neil Young songs if I sing them in the same key an octave down. My range is similar to yours, although I can get just a little lower and higher without too much trouble. There is one common confusion: the difference between "key" and "range". You have a comfortable range - and you know it, which is good. That doesn't mean you have comfortable *keys.* The keynote of a song may be anywhere within its range - not necessarily the lowest note. Commonly the keynote will be *near* the bottom of the melodic range, but it can often be a 4th above - i.e., it's quite common for the lowest note of a melody to be the 5th of the scale. (Examples: Happy Birthday, Amazing Grace, Auld Lang Syne.) But then you will have comfortable keys on *guitar* \- the ones with the easiest chord shapes. But this is where the capo comes to your rescue! The capo is the device which lets you play in any key - whatever is best for your voice for a specific song - while still using easy chord shapes (i.e., including open strings).

  4908. musictheory 2019-09-28 01:33:18 lechatsportif
    From seventh string? This looks so useful!

  4909. musictheory 2019-09-28 21:02:58 Mehammerfell
    What I did to get myself outta the tab rut was to find online a scale written in tab form, and start playing it. Once you have it under your fingers you can start saying to yourself the note your playing, so you start associating the frets less with numbers but with notes. So if you were to play a major scale, you would play the 3 and 5th frets on the A string, the 2, the 3, and 5th frets on the D string, then the 2, the 4, and 5th frets on the G string. Then you can take that pattern and start listing the note names off "CDEFGABC"

  4910. musictheory 2019-09-29 08:36:00 DRL47
    It should sound like a continuous string of sixteenth notes, all being held down until the next set. Many people perform it using the damper pedal (which was invented after Bach's time) on each measure. Some try to play exactly as written: holding the left hand and not the right.

  4911. musictheory 2019-09-30 01:28:55 65TwinReverbRI
    Hi Skylar (your name was on the score). I'm not trying to insult you, demean your work, or otherwise "poo poo" what you've done. But what if you grabbed some scraps of wood, nailed them together, and called it a bird house (but had neither an entrance or perch, or it leaked, etc.) and took that to an Architect and said, "I have no construction experience, don't know how to saw and don't have one, haven't studied any kind of architectural design, drawing, or engineering, and I've only looked at a couple of birdhouses in a store once, what do you think of my Birdhouse?". You're proud of your accomplishment, and that's great. And I think you know you haven't designed and built a skyscraper, only a birdhouse. And it's your first attempt. So for a first attempt, this is not bad. But you know, one of the hard things about teaching people things - and this is why many of the greatest composers had a hard time teaching, or weren't effective teachers - is that when you're at the very very beginning there are so many things you need to work on that it's really impossible to list them all out - without demoralizing the person - and most people don't want to do that - I'd rather encourage you to learn more, but there's a catch to that. I'm not saying this is you - because maybe you play Sax, and maybe you have played a bit of sax music and even sax ensemble stuff - you didn't really give us your musical background. But - again this may not be you, but as a general rule, here's what happens: "I want to compose music, what theory do I need to study?" Well, you need to study composing instead. Theory is PART of that, but it's just one tool for building your birdhouse. Theory might be akin to the tensile strength of the string you're going to use to hang your birdhouse. It may be part of the angles you cut at. But it has nothing to do with the design, purpose, effectiveness, etc. nor is it a saw, the skills to saw well, the nails, the hammer (when maybe you should have used stainless screws so they don't rust) etc. It has nothing to do with the aesthetics of making it look good and do on. I'm not saying don't learn theory - you should. But you should be learning it in one of two or both ways: In your Saxophone lessons (or whatever instrument you play) and/or in your Composition lessons. I think what lot of people don't get - and again I'm not saying this is necessarily you, but you know, if the shoe fits... - is that "composing music" is a WHOLE lot more than just throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks - which is what entering notes into software is essentially doing (and how many who do that work). It's "doodling". It's nailing scraps together and seeing if it looks like something and then calling it that. But "real" (for lack of a better term) music composition is way more complex than that. And theory is just a small part of that. It's why we very often see people who "want to be an architect" only able to build a box or lean to. So many would-be composers get 8 or 16 bars and then come on to a forum like this and go "I'm stuck" or "this is as far as I could get, how do I add more". Well the problem is is because they're not looking at the big picture. So here are some "big picture" things that happen very commonly - they may or may not all apply to you, but these are sort of the "biggest mistakes" or "biggest misconceptions" about composing people make or have. I'll do them as "mistakes": [note, there are certainly exceptions, but we'd be here forever if we went into all of those] 1. Not playing an instrument. Ideally, well. You need to take lessons on an instrument from a professional musician. All composers did, and do, and you should too. You should also be exposed to and study theory while doing so. 2. Not taking composition lessons. All composers did, and do and you should too. Also you should get relevant theory there as well. 3. Most composers traditionally went through an apprenticeship with a master composer, or more recently and typically go through formal academic training beyond their instrument/composition lessons. These include participating in Middle and High School band, and potentially even working with people at that age to start composing, arranging, and so on. Absent that or in addition to it, they're going to get a Music Degree at a university at the very least, but many go on to Masters or PhDs in Music Composition (or other related field). You should too. 4. Not living and breathing the music. In addition to playing music, composers immerse themselves in music in a much deeper way than all those people who say "I'm passionate about music". There's a difference between passively listening to music (which is what most people do, if that, and even those who say they're "passionate" about music only do) and **actively** listening to music. This would include not only listening to it, but paying attention to what's going on , what sounds are being made, what instruments are in use, its form, its direction, and so on. It also includes STUDYING the music and ANALYZING the music (this is where Theory can be helpful because studying theory gives you the tools and skills necessary to analyze music and use correct terminology and understand concepts - though it can be done without formal theory). This means tearing it apart and seeing how it "works" as well as trying to take the elements and put them back together and see if it works. 5. Not using a model to try to compose. I'm not sure from your short example if you've ever seen a Skyscraper or Birdhouse before :-). You have a piece here for Sax Trio. They're not unheard of, but Sax Quartet is much more common. But did you find some trio - any trio - to use as a model for this? Artists use sketches and models, chefs work from recipes, builders work from blueprints, writers make outlines and rough drafts, and so on . And composers take existing music and use that as a model to build their own pieces. So familiarity with music is really necessary - just like you can't really build a bird house if you've never seen a bird house, and you can't build a skyscraper without all the necessary tools and skills, you can't really write music if all you've ever done is "heard some music". Like in that case, just seeing some skyscapers of different types in a bunch of movies doesn't prepare you to build them - you will know what they are, and may aspire to build those spires, but you won't have the tools necessary to do it - physical tools, and experience tools. So you know, this is great for a first attempt. You should be proud of what you've done. But in the grand scheme of things, it's not really enough for anyone to give you any really helpful information to build on. IOW, we don't know if you're capable of doing something longer. We don't know what style you're trying to model this on. You said it was "for fun". Great. It can be very fun and rewarding. Do you want to just do Bob Ross kind of painting, do some paint by numbers stuff, do commercial sign painting, or work in the art world as a painter? Without knowing what you're trying to accomplish, it's hard to give advice. For example, you don't NEED any of the stuff I've said above. You've done this with what tools you have. You could simply continue doing this over and over again as long as its fun, maybe improving a bit with each one. Great. Many people do. And that's cool. That may be all some people want to do. But it takes a long time to get better (either that, or people are unaware of what better is and don't know that their pieces are still "Birdhouses" - maybe not leaky ones anymore, but they're not even Sheds, let alone Houses, or Skyscrapers). If you want to get better, what you need is guidance - tutalage - help from someone who knows what they're doing so they can teach you. Now you could potentially get that here, but realistically, to advance at a steady rate, you need continuous lessons (which you might already be doing and if so, great) and you may need to express to the teacher what your goals are so they can help you achieve those goals, or link you up with someone who can. You also need a - let's call it a "dose of reality" if you don't already have it - that music composition is a huge set of skills you develop over a long time, hopefully with the help of teachers. Many people just aimlessly write music thinking it's good but have no clue how far off from the reality of it they are. Ignorance is bliss. Again not saying that that's you, but just in case these aren't things you've been thinking about, it's a good idea to start thinking about them. _____

  4912. musictheory 2019-10-01 04:56:49 ijrt58
    Honestly this seems like a sensationalist headline designed to catch people's attention, and the whole point of the video seems to be to debunk an idea that isn't even what people mean when they say to start by learning the modes. When guitar players give this advice usually (virtually alw what they usually really mean is just to learn where the notes are up and down the neck. Usually you start by learning the G major scale from the 3rd fret on the low E string to the 3rd fret on the high E string, but if that's all you know you are completely lost playing anywhere else on the neck. So, you learn the same scale going from the A on the low E string to the A on the high E string, then from B to B, C to C, etc all way up to where the pattern repeats at the 15th fret. Is this actually playing modes? Not at all! But it's helpful to have names for things, so often times the names of the modes are borrowed / mis-used to represent names for these scale patterns. I don't think anyone really thinks that playing a ii-V-I in G major you need to go from A Dorian to D Mixolydian back down to G Ionian. You just play in G major and target the chord tones, as the video suggests. So suggesting that "learning the modes is horrible advice" is debunking a misunderstanding that isn't at all common in the first place, and honestly is just going to make anyone trying to learn this for the first time even more confused. Why confuse them even farther by teaching them something new just to tell them it's wrong, especially when you're just going to confuse them into thinking they shouldn't learn all of the scale positions up and down the neck which obviously *is* the first step.

  4913. musictheory 2019-10-01 05:16:37 ijrt58
    > They’re treated as some mythical thing that once you learn them you “unlock the fretboard”. If you are a beginner who only knows one way to play the major scale, you definitely unlock the fretboard by learning all the other ways to play the major scale starting and ending on all of the notes of the scale and not just the tonic. That's how you learn to play in key regardless of where you are on the neck. That's exactly how I learned it (from what I remember - it a long time ago). I learned the neck by looking at the patterns needed to connect G to G, A to A, B to B etc from the low E string to the D string, and from the G string up to the high E string, then put them all together. Recognizing similarities in these patterns, like how C to C only differs from G to G in that that 4th note is raised by a half step, or how D to D is the same as G to G except the 7th is lowered a half step, was incredibly helpful to help understand the patterns without brute-force memorization. It *absolutely did* "unlock the fretboard" for me. And of course, if you read up on parallel modes you'll learn all of those same similarities: Lydian takes Ionian and raises the 4th. Mixolydian lowers the 7th. Dorian takes Aeolian and raises the 6th, etc. To be clear I am well aware that that is *not* the same as using modes, but using the names of the modes to study the patterns is *incredibly* useful. So why not teach it this way? All it takes is a simple caveat that you are only borrowing these mode names to learn something instrument-specific, and you should be careful not to confuse the "Dorian" fretboard pattern with a piece of music that is truly in Dorian mode. edit: flipped "raised" and "lowered" as the response below pointed out I got confused on

  4914. musictheory 2019-10-01 11:44:26 ijrt58
    Oh yeah, it's something that a *lot* of people get wrong - when you're actually *in* a given mode that is. But what bothered me about the video is that what he describes isn't even the most common misunderstand. The common misunderstanding is just to equate modes to scale positions, as in A-C-E as 5th fret of the low E string, 3rd fret of the A sting, 2nd fret of the D string is major but if you play the same notes on the 5th and 8th fret of the E string then the 7th of the A sting it's Dorian. Obviously that's not how it works, but it's how I mis-understood it at one point long ago as well. Nonetheless, I don't think avoiding that confusion is worth avoiding the exercise, because the exercise is *such* an important one in understanding how to play in a diatonic key on the guitar, and with clear direction from the start the confusion is avoidable. I think it's an important exercise because it helps you digest the pattern that defines a diatonic scale all up and down the fret-board of a guitar, from the open low E string all the way up to the 12th fret of the high E sting, covering 4 octaves of individual notes most of which have more than one way to play for a total of 48 different fret/string combinations. It's a daunting and intimidating pattern until you break it down into discrete parts and realize how similar they are. First learn major (G to G) then the relative minor (E to E) and then note that the rest are just variations of those two patterns (A to A is minor with a #6, etc). When you start to see that, it all comes together... For keys, winds, and brass this just isn't a problem that they need to overcome early in the learning of the instrument the way it is for guitar players. I honestly don't know how violin and other string players approach it, if there is an analogous route to using the scales from different modes to learn the patterns or not, or if they just tend to learn piano first and translate what they know from that to the other instrument. Tuning to 5ths instead of 4ths like the guitar does mean there are less positions to an octaves, so less patterns to learn. I don't really know how they approach it though. Regardless, the physical nature of the instrument just presents guitar players with a reason to understand parallel modes at a much earlier stage of their learning than those who choose a keyboard instrument as their first polyphonic instrument to learn, so inevitably these beginner to intermediate musicians tend to share what they've learned in ways that don't translate to other instruments or to pure tonality where the physicality of the instrument is not considered, in which case as I think you imply - modes mean nothing without considering the tonal center. So basically, the only minor detail that I may disagree with you on is this: > One thing you said that I think is part of the my problem with it, is that “it’s a learning exercise with no tonal center”. The whole world of modes is about the tonal center! In my opinion, that’s the most important thing to understand about modes And it really just comes down to a silly semantic disconnect that often gets blown out of proportion in these sorts of forums - for composition and analysis, yeah, modes mean *nothing* without a tonal center. But there is also this other application that they have, in learning the physicality of a guitar's fret-board, which takes learning scales out of context and just studying patterns.

  4915. musictheory 2019-10-01 18:07:04 Xenoceratops
    Nice job for under an hour! I'm glad you chose a solo instrument, especially one with some particular limitations. You should consider transposing this into G minor so you can get the an octave tonic at the end and open up the possibilities for double stops. Right now, you have a lot of fourths, which are kind of lousy for this style. Plus, I don't know how they are on violin, but on mandolin double-stopped fourths are ever so slightly a pain in the ass (and that's with the help of frets; perfect intervals are not very forgiving to intonation errors on violin). For the sake of harmony, try to limit your double stops to octaves, fifths, sixths, thirds and tritones. The real issue here though is that you're in the basement as far as the violin's range goes. You really only get on the E string a couple times, and not very far up it. Most of the action is on the G and D strings, with a tiny bit of A. In other words, you're hanging out on the lower strings and pushing your useful double-stops out of bounds, so you have to use fourths instead of richer intervals. And, once again, I think all of these issues can be resolved by writing this in G minor instead. Other things: * I get that you're doing a variation on the repeat, but consider formatting your sarabande with the two repeats signs. This probably sounds pedantic, but I think it helps to consider historical notation practices when studying and composing historical styles. * This is in D minor but there are no C#'s? I think you pull it off, but it might be nice to have that harmonic minor flavor in there, at least when you come back to the home key at the end. * The rhythm is very literal and repetitive at the beginning. This is probably a function of composing quickly, but this is a good lesson to learn nonetheless. If a rhythm gets too repetitive, try to "zoom out" the scale of the repetition. Instead of 1-measure cycles (aaaa), change the rhythm for every other bar so you have a 2-measure cycle (abab). Then, you can make it a 4-measure cycle if you change bar 4 (abac). This is a useful way of problem-solving your way out of monotony in composition. * Overall though, don't be afraid to figure your line. Have a look at [the Sarabande in Bach's D minor violin partita](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpe7thXd69E&t=5m11s) 16th and 32nd notes everywhere. You have a 16th note passage toward the end (contained in the ornamented repeat of the B section), but I think those faster rhythms can permeate the entire composition in various ways. Make the rhythm available sooner so it doesn't sound out of place, and so we have a little excitement to keep our attention in the beginning.

  4916. musictheory 2019-10-02 02:36:34 llamabag
    After teaching guitar for almost two decades... all the sounds around the guitar that are not part of the music. Picks, nails, sympathetic string vibrations above the neck or below the bridge. Bad electronics. Hum of circuts and transformers... And if the tune isn't actually fun for me, all this shit jumps out at me. *grinding of teeth intensifies*

  4917. musictheory 2019-10-02 20:43:07 mrclay
    If the goal is writing in D minor, what I’d do to prepare is play a Dm chord for a few seconds until it’s starting to feel like this is where home is; you’re not going to stray too far, you’re always going to return to Dm. Your brain is centered on that chord and the D note. With that you can find other chords that sound good and string them together as long as feel like you could return home any moment. Those chords will tend to use notes from the D minor scale (and B and C#) but you can literally play any note using techniques you’ll learn over time. Eg this progression, something you might hear in classical, uses them all: Dm E7 A7 Dm D7/F# Gm Eb A7.

  4918. musictheory 2019-10-03 00:18:34 Jongtr
    This is normal practice in classical guitar, and in certain styles of folk or acoustic steel-string guitar. The prototype example of the latter is [this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tQ5Yw_rH_c) That combination of melody and counterpoint bass was taken up and developed by his follower Bert Jansch, in tunes like [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJoOotgHZIA) (based on a Jimmy Giuffre jazz tune). or [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJWh-8c-fho). A famous example of a more classically-influenced process is [this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Man4Xw8Xypo) All these pieces outline chords in various ways, with both melody and bass deriving from chord tones, although the implied chords may change on every beat. The combination of melody and bass goes way back to blues, as in [this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K6XEtSA6xI) To begin with, the bass just keeps time, but then plays its own melody beneath a higher part.

  4919. musictheory 2019-10-03 01:26:20 ahkolumi
    I think a great study song, both for your goal here and in geenral learning some interesting musical phrasings, is SRV's "[Lenny](https://youtu.be/HEuKbE4MXPE?t=56)". Most the song involves playing a bass note and then a lick over it. It's a nice starting place because it is only using open string bass notes. Are you interested in learning classical guitar, or are you trying to stay within the world of flatpicking and/or electric guitar? I think a nice in-between space, btw, is something like Joe Pass's solo album : [https://youtu.be/3ByxUuBm-Z8](https://youtu.be/3ByxUuBm-Z8) Do you want to be doing more voices yourself or to be using a different kind of writing within a band?

  4920. musictheory 2019-10-03 15:58:25 tdammers
    Classical music theory is the music theory that attempts to describe the European Classical idiom(s). There are more idioms out there, and each of them deserves its own theory. Some things are universal, some things are common between many idioms, other things, not so much. There are music idioms that don't have tonal centers. There are idioms that aren't based on diatonic scales. There are idioms that don't have much of a notion of harmony at all. Just a few examples that come to mind: - Indian Classical. While each raga provides a tonal framework, and the "king" and "queen" notes (generally the root and the fifth) happen to show some similarities to the Western tonic and dominant, the music most definitely doesn't work that way - the raga provides not only a set of notes to play, but it also gives meaning to each (and that meaning changes with each raga, even if the tonal material is the same), it provides rules to guide melodic improvisation, and even tells you how to connect tonality with rhythms. - Gregorian chant. There is no explicit harmony here, and while the melodies will often provide cycles of tension and relief, similar to classical cadences, the way it is done is very unlike classic harmony, there are more tonal modes than the relatively limited classical major/minor framework provides, and the role and function of each degree in the mode follow different rules than classic harmony. - Folk traditions in the British Isles, particularly Scotland and Ireland. We do see major and minor scales here, with chords built on scale degrees and a tonal center, much like in European classic, but we also see modes other than classic major and minor, and the harmony doesn't necessarily follow a dominant-tonic pattern. We might, for example, see a harmonic progression like Am - C - G - Am, and while we can retrofit functional analysis on this, the truth is that it's just four chords from the same scale (A aeolian or dorian), the first one establishes a tonal center by merit of being the first (and last) one, and then we get a pattern that creates a cadence-like tension-relief cycle that is really just "home; not-home; also-not-home; home". Any two scale chords would work in the middle: "Am - D - Em - Am"; "Am - G - D - Am"; etc. So, long story short: classical theory *is* a thing, it is the (or *a*) theoretical framework designed to explain the classical music idiom. It happens to have a lot of overlap with other related idioms, including modern pop music, but it is most definitely not identical with *all* music theory, and denying the fact that different theories are needed to explain different musical idioms is a bit harmful IMO. For a very practical anecdotal example, I'll look back at a groove band I played in decades ago. We had a brand new 4-part horn section (2 trumpets, sax, trombone), and we were struggling to figure out voicings that sounded good. We had great horn lines, but we couldn't figure out how to arrange them. Why? Because we were too indoctrinated with classical and jazz theory. We tried to make complete chords with proper voice leading, and that just didn't work, because we weren't playing jazz. We needed fat, funky horn riffs with a punch. We should have done: 2nd trumpet plays melody, 1st trumpet doubles an octave above, tenor sax doubles octave below, trombone plays a parallel harmony voice (third above or below melody); and then make full chords in a few strategic spots, but more as an effect than anything. You wouldn't write like that for a smooth swing tune; you wouldn't write like that for a string quartet; but for this kind of music, this is how it's done. Different idiom, different ideals, different techniques, different theoretical framework (even though there's a lot of overlap: we were still playing in some relatively traditional key, we were using diatonic intervals, we had triad-based harmony, etc.).

  4921. musictheory 2019-10-04 00:09:04 salamitsunami669
    The leading tone is dissonant because of the relationship to the tonic. The tonic is ever present in our subconscious without necessarily sounding in the piece since a tonal framework has been integrated into us culturally. This is dissonant in an intervallic manner, not on its own. A single note on it’s own will never sound dissonant unless the context makes it so (turns in into a leading tone for example). In other words, the presence of an interval is required to create a dissonance. This interval can be melodic (one note at a time) or harmonic (I’m sure you understand). Furthermore, timbre is a result of the relative frequencies of the overtones produced by an instrument. You are right, a horn will produce a very strident sound at a good register and high dynamic. This is because metallic instruments create a lot of overtones compares to wood or even metal strings. Since the overtones are louder, we hear more of the higher partials (basically a chromatic scale from partials 9-16 and microtonal 17+) which are closer in register than the lower partials (octave, P5, M3, m7 from partials 1-8) that are more present in string instruments or woodwinds. The sound is more piercing or in your terms “dissonant” because we are hearing more dissonant intervals more clearly than in an equally loud instrument that does not create such loud overtones. Despite this, our auditory system only resolves it as a single pitch in most cases, so labelling it a dissonance is not accurate. Once again I appreciate your input but I am afraid that you are the one potentially creating a false understanding. Dissonance is ONLY a result of intervals, melodic or harmonic. Suggesting anything else would be incorrect and would increase confusion. Tension and relaxation can easily exist within a single pitch so if that is what you are referring to then you are absolutely correct. :)

  4922. musictheory 2019-10-04 01:36:59 south87
    Just to clarify, this is not a "process of composing". Species counterpoint is a method that is designed to teach you voice leading. The excercises present you with intervallic problems you need to resolve via voice leading. The method has lots of "tiers" its up to you how deep you want to get. The end result is a wide criteria for handling any amount of voices within a confined range and techniques to keep them as independent as possible. Counterpoint is something you incorporate into your compositional technique. Its something that becomes part of you. When you decide to write a String Quartet, you will thank the hours you spent solving intervallic problems.

  4923. musictheory 2019-10-04 09:14:16 HelpfulClassroom
    My question is why you are interested in trying to achieve equal temperament in a string quartet! But I agree, the temperament shouldn't change with the inversion. They should be tuned as if there were an A below them.

  4924. musictheory 2019-10-04 11:33:56 angelenoatheart
    "Mystical" is misleading. But it's certainly true that if there are open strings, they will resonate more with some keys than others. I recently wrote a string quartet where some material appears first in D-flat, then returns in C. The difference was obvious, and I don't have perfect pitch. The players found it easier to play in tune, but also the sound was fuller.

  4925. musictheory 2019-10-04 20:18:15 tdammers
    Re title: The ultimate answer to this is "yes, of course, if you can make it sound good, then it is fair game". Use whatever you want; the theory is there to give you some suggestions as to what might sound good, and some recipes that allow you to quickly and (relatively) easily replicate a particular sound or idiom. E.g., if you want to make your sax section sound like Ellington's stuff, then there's a set of rules you can use to make it happen. If you want a string quartet to sound like Haydn (or at least by approximation), there's another set of rules to use. If you want Bach-like canon, yet another set of rules. But those rules aren't universal, each set just describes a particular idiom, and typically that idiom is or has been popular at some point, but it's not a universal truth. You can pick any idiom, mix and match, or make up your own entirely; you just have to make it sound good. > It would just be like using for example D major chord and then a chord that's based off of fourths, like the Em11 I made a post about. Right?? I don't think calling that "quartal harmony" does it justice. Em11 is still derived from a stacks-of-thirds-based harmonic framework (which is why we call it "11", not "4"), it is functionally equivalent to Em7, and I would be reluctant to give it a label of its own. I would be hard pressed to imagine music that is actually "quartal"; it would have to derive harmony from a system of fourths rather than thirds, but that would also mean that the fifth, probably the most fundamental of intervals after the unison and the octave, wouldn't fit into it all that well - you can reach a fifth by stacking two thirds (typically one major and one minor, producing a perfect fifth), but in order to reach a fifth via fourths, you have to take a full tour of the circle of fifths. It just doesn't work. So what you get in practice is generally music that is still deeply married to the fifths-and-thirds-based chord concept, but gives it a different flavors by voicing chords such that fourths can be heard prominently, e.g. between the 7th and the 3rd. With full jazz chords, you can find plenty of fourths in a typical chord, and emphasizing those gives a "fourthy" sound, which sounds more "modern" than the more traditional "close" voicings built up out of thirds and seconds (e.g. what you'd hear a lot in arrangements from, say, Count Basie). > Are there more types of harmony one can use in music? Depends what you consider "harmony", and what you consider a "different type". But the short answer is yes, there are many ways of arranging notes in such a fashion that they sound good together, classic Western functional harmony is just one of many approaches that produces interesting results. > Also, how does quartal harmony sound different from tertiary? I'm listening to So What by Miles Davis. My limited understanding of jazz is probably also one of the reasons I feel this way - but quartal harmony feels like it's unsure and doesn't really resolve easily. What makes "So What" different from more traditional jazz tunes (particularly from the Bebop, Hardbop, and Neobop eras) is not the "quartal" stuff, which is actually a rather common way of voicing jazz chords. What sets "So What" (and the whole Kind Of Blue album) apart is that it departs from functional harmony (where every chord has a function within a key, relates to a tonic, and participates in a tension-release cycle that largely arises from relationships between chords and the tonic), and establishes what is generally known as "modal jazz". This was a counter-movement to the bebop and hardbop movements, where musicians would keep pushing the boundaries of functional tonality with all sorts of substitutions, extensions, and other harmonic tricks, leading to extremely busy, complex harmonic progressions that left little room for improvisers; modal jazz departed from that idea, so instead of having 16 chord changes in 4 bars, they would compose tunes where you had just one chord for, say, 8 full bars, but that chord was understood to not just be played literally, but rather to define tonal material for the section. E.g., in So What, the first section is 8 bars of "Dm (dorian)". This doesn't mean you have to literally play a Dm triad throughout the 8 bars - that would be extremely boring. No, it means that the mode for that section is D dorian, which is a minor-sounding mode (identical to natural minor, except that it has a major 6th), that you can play *any* chord that belongs to that mode, and that Dm is the "home" chord, the tonal center, for that section, so you can expect the bass player to get back to a D regularly, especially around the section boundaries. If you listen closely, you will hear that during the solos, the band actually plays all sorts of chords, often varying triads superimposed over a D pedal, and those chords form little cadence-like things as they happen. So the difference is not so much the chords they use, but *how* they use them. > Also, are arpeggios and scales also a part of harmony? No, yes, it depends. Fundamentally, they are melodic phenomena, but they relate to harmony - an arpeggio is essentially a chord where you play the notes one by one; a scale is (if you squint a little at least) a chord that you have ordered by pitch. Take, for example, D dorian: D, E, F, G, A, B, C, D. If you rearrange that scale into thirds, you get D, F, A, C, E, G - that's Dm11. The squinting part is that I left out the B, which would be a 13 in that chord, and we don't usually play that note, because it would clash with the minor 7th in a chord (though in So What, you'll often hear a G triad, with the B prominently in the lead voice, in D dorian mode - that's fine, because we're not playing a literal Dm7 chord here, we're playing one of the possible chords in D dorian). I think the best way to think about it is that harmony suggests scales and arpeggios, and scales and arpeggions suggest harmony. > Sorry - another question: So I'm studying types of minor scales. I got that A minor is the relative minor of C major. So the normal A Aeolian scale is A B C D E F G A, its relative major is C Ionian C D E F G A B C. So - A melodic minor is A B C D E F# G# A. Does that mean its relative major is D major? No. From a functional harmony point of view, at least in the classical interpretation, all minor scales are functionally equivalent as far as chords and keys go - the relative minor to C is A minor, any flavor of A minor. In fact, in classical literature, the three classic flavors of minor (natural, harmonic, melodic) are routinely mixed within the same piece, as the situation demands. In most modern jazz styles, things are a bit different, because here, the melodic minor scale sometimes leads its own life; unlike classical music, where the melodic minor scale is different on the way up than down, jazz musicians will sometimes consider "melodic minor ascending" a second "parallel" universe of keys and scales in its own right. Just like you can form a scale by playing the major scale from each of its degrees, giving rise to the major modes (ionian, dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aeolian, locrian), you can start the melodic-minor-ascending scale from either degree. Of these, the most commonly played modes are probably the "altered scale" (7th mode), "lydian augmented" (3rd mode), "mixolydian #11" (4th mode, a.k.a. "lydian dominant"), and of course the ascending melodic minor scale itself (1st mode). And you can derive harmonic reasoning from this, too, however the majority of jazz out there is probably better explained sticking with the more traditional functional major/minor model, and considering melodic minor modes a melodic phenomenon. That is, D7(b9,#11,b13) is usually best explained as the dominant (V7) in G minor (no matter which type of minor), and the options are just that, options that provide color and solidify the "leading" towards a minor tonic. (But resolving that same chord to Gmaj will also sound great). So, to answer your question: "relative keys" are just that, keys; the term has limited use when talking about scales and such. But we are really mixing three things here: traditional classic harmony (which explains things in terms of dominants, tonics, and harmonic functions relating to them), modal harmony (which explains things in terms of "modes" (tonal centers with associated tonal material)), and the jazz theory observation that chords and scales are manifestations of the same thing, only arranged in different order. You can relate C major to A minor via functional harmony: they are relative keys to one another. You can also relate them via modal harmony: A natural minor is the 6th mode, aeolian, of C major. (And, if you want, C lydian augmented is the 3rd mode of A melodic minor ascending). You can also relate them via the jazz chord/scale equivalency: the C major scale matches the Cmaj chord, but it also matches the Am7 chord, so the two chords are related, and the same scale provides improvisation material for both.

  4926. musictheory 2019-10-05 00:23:31 MaggaraMarine
    It depends on the instruments and the piece in question. Sometimes transposing a fourth or a fifth higher/lower is what you need to do to make it work (simply because that fits the range of the instruments much better). Now, if the original is in A or E major and you want to arrange it for brass instruments, then a half step up or down is going to be a much better key if it's otherwise in a good range. Then again, if you do a guitar arrangement or a string quartet arrangement, keys like A major and E major work really well, whereas Ab and Eb major are keys that you probably don't want to use.

  4927. musictheory 2019-10-05 01:37:39 TorterraKart
    Shostakovich string quartet 8 mov 2 or string quartet 7 mov 3 for example, imho

  4928. musictheory 2019-10-05 09:57:06 lemonsneeker
    To go a little more in detail on big chorus, you want wider intonation, scale/mode is very important to the emotion(though not ridgid) but alot of the 'gravity' or chorus comes from distant intonation in the sounds When a string instrument is plucked picked slapped or keyed, one clear note is registered, however it is made up or several singular tones, this is known as intonation, and also how chords are built. The kind of chorus you get from a chord or an arrangement can be easily malleable depending on what your making your music with If your composing intonating notes across multiple octaves you will get a very 'godly' sound, especially if it's full of sparse notes you can't hit all of on a piano This means it's hard to do on instruments and means your gonna need to learn alot about your instruments If your on a computer it's pretty easy and why great musicians tend to get enraged by people making music on computers Build a basic melody in say fruity loops, like a bar or two of ode to joy, and listen to it Then copy it into the octave above and below and hear it gain a nice full tone, go another octave up and down, and you get a godly chorus spanning each octave This kind of thing on piano would require 3 hands for the basic version and four for the real godly effect, instead in an arrangement this can be done by multiple instruments, in rock and roll an easy way is 1 bass playing low notes (bass clef) one rhythm guitarist playing mid notes, and one lead guitarist playing high notes, giving a great chorus to a rock song, although that's a very simple version of rock and roll and that genre was shaped by alot of ingenuity. TL;dr: Big ass chords

  4929. musictheory 2019-10-06 10:13:38 Burnt_Ernie
    "embarrassing and cheap" because -- in my case, at least -- the tunes in my dreams always seem to be recycled TV jingles from my late-60s youth and/or really dumb top-40 pop tunes slightly recast... Seems I will never equal a Bartok string-quartet in my sleep... 😂😂😖

  4930. musictheory 2019-10-06 19:10:50 Jongtr
    Slow tempo, string arrangement, major key. Personally I think his voice sounds strangulated and desperate, so I don't find his delivery "reassuring", and definitely not "calm" or "gentle" (unlike the backing), although its passionate intensity is definitely "romantic".

  4931. musictheory 2019-10-07 00:05:26 65TwinReverbRI
    Whoa, this is Jazz. It doesn't follow CPP rules. We're not supposed to help on specific homework assignments (see Rule #2) but without more information about what you're supposed to be learning and what you're doing in class it's going to be difficult to help you learn what you're supposed to be learning (that why Rule #2, because then you don't learn anything if someone just gives you the answer). The way 7th chords work in **Common Practice Period Harmony** (which is NOT Jazz) is that the 7th of any chord must resolve down. Typically, 7th chords are complete or incomplete when in root position. When incomplete, the 5th is omitted and the root is doubled. When the chords are inverted, they are typically complete. However, you're ultimately dealing with a Woodwind **Quintet**. It's not clear if you're supposed to be writing 4 part harmony and then adding an extra part for the Quintet. D - C# B - G G - A E - A Here is an Em7 to A7 resolution with both chords in root position. Notice how the 2nd one is incomplete. Now, "what would be" the leading tone COULD go DOWN as long as it's not in the soprano (the G in this case). However, when you have a string of 7th chords in a Cycle of 4ths progression, the problem becomes that since the 7th must resolve down, and if you take the leading tone down to get complete chords, you end up with all of the upper voices constantly descending and eventually cross below the bass. So the typical solution is to move INVERTED 7th chords complete to complete, like so: B - A G - G E - E D - C# This would be an Em7/D to A7/C# - notice how two notes stay and two notes go down by step. This pattern can just continue - the next chord would be C#-D-F#-A (do you see why? or do you see the pattern?) Generally speaking, 1st inversion will alternate with 3rd inversion, while Root position will alternate with 2nd inversion: D - C# B - A G - G E - E Em7 - A7/E This makes it "gradually" descend. You can still use a root position to root position here and there, and you could make one of the incomplete or not, as long as you end up where you want to be when the cycle stops (at the cadence point typically). It would be odd to have a Half Cadence or a Final Cadence with an inverted chord, so typically your A7 at the Half or Dmaj7 at the Final would be in root position. So you can kind of "work backwards" from those and see where the voice-leading ends up. But you know, as soon as you see all these 7th chords - especially at the cadences - it's Jazz and Jazz doesn't follow these same rules all the time. So you really need to clarify what it is you're supposed to be learning so you're doing the right thing for class, not applying CPP rules where they're not supposed to be applied (or learning Jazz when you should be learning CPP harmony, which is a different can of worms...)

  4932. musictheory 2019-10-07 21:50:22 DRL47
    > Timbre matters if you are playing a wind instrument or programming a synthesizer. Or playing a string instrument, an organ, or voice.

  4933. musictheory 2019-10-08 02:05:57 Zarlinosuke
    I would say it depends on what you're writing it for, as well as what comes afterwards. If it's a single player at a keyboard instrument, I'd say that either one of these is fine because they keep the triads intact. I'd advocate for using C-flat if you're going straight back to C minor, or B if you're staying in sharp regions afterwards. On the other hand, if you're writing for a string or vocal ensemble or something, where everyone's producing a different chord member and reading off a part, it would probably be best to misspell the B chord, i.e. let the person making an E-flat stay on the E-flat even while the others go down to B and F-sharp.

  4934. musictheory 2019-10-08 19:54:41 tdammers
    Keys matter, but the way in which they do depends on instrumentation, genre, period, and tuning. In an equal tempered tuning system (which is what you usually use today), all 12 tones are tuned to equal distances on a logarithmic scale, that is, the octave is divided into 12 equal portions. This means that when you transpose a piece, the relative intervals don't change - a minor third is always a frequency ration of 2^(3/12), no matter whether it's C to Eb or F# to A. However. Some instruments / ensembles do not use the equal tempered tuning. The most common example in modern use would be church organs; these instruments rely on certain intervals being pure (particularly fifths, and to a lesser degree major thirds), so that the register mixing works out (organists will routinely mix overtones into the sound by adding transposed notes, often a number of octaves plus a third or fifth above). This means that an equal-tempered tuning won't work, because it doesn't have pure fifths. Several organ tuning systems exist, but in general, the closer you stay to C major, the fewer problems you will have, and F# major tends to sound horrible. So that's one thing. Another thing to consider are the technical peculiarities of the instruments involved. A few examples: - For a 4-string bass guitar, the lowest note is E, so whether you play a tune in E major or Eb major makes a big difference to the bass player - in Eb major, they won't be able to play those deep bass notes on the tonic, and that will change the character of the piece. Similar effects happen on most instruments - small transpositions might exceed the instrument's range and force the player to make an octave jump into a different register. Or take guitars - the guitarist will use different voicings for the same chord progression depending on the key. In F, they will use lots of barré fingerings and frequently play all 6 strings, while the same tune played in D will involve only the top 4 strings for some chords. A G major chord will have the third in a low register (on the A string), while a F# major chord will have only the root and the fifth on the low strings. - Stringed instruments, especially the violin family, rely on resonances from open strings for their sound (even across players in an orchestra: a note played by the violin section will resonate in the celli, for example). Thus, a string orchestra playing in G major (which contains many overtones from the open strings, such as G, D, A, E, F#, B) will produce a richer, more brilliant sound than Ab major. So sharps do actually sound sharper on the violin. - Most instruments have keys that are easier than others, and not all figures are equally convenient in all keys. Professional players will generally be quite good at making inconvenient things sound effortless, but it still pays off to write things that are easy to play yet musically rewarding. Write a chromatic run from low F up to low Bb for trombone, and it'll sound OK; write the same run from low F# to B, and the trombonist will have to jump from first position to 7th - a pro will make it work, but it will never be as smooth. Most instruments also have keys that are easier to play in tune than others; for example, trumpet players will have a much easier time playing F major than G major. - Keys that aren't used frequently will throw the players out of their routine, and this can make the music sound fresh, but it can also make for audible difficulty. Especially with music that involves improvisation, an unusual key can cause improvisers to play different melodies. - What is an "easy" key differs between instruments. G major, D major and A major are easy for strings; Bb major, Eb major, Ab major are easy for brass; C major is easy for keyboard instruments. Hence, in a mixed ensemble, any key might benefit some instruments and disadvantage others, and this influences the sound and the mood. Back in the classic era, keys were a much bigger deal, and there were fairly established associations to each key; this worked, mainly due to how most music would involve violins, pianos, or both, and listeners would actually be able to tell the difference. It is no coincidence that Mozart's famous symphonies 39 through 41 follow the key progression Eb major - G minor - C major. It is certainly no coincidence that Beethoven would choose C minor for all his "grave / important" works, including the 5th symphony, and that his exuberant 9th symphony moves from D minor to D major. Through the baroque and early classic periods, symbolism that went beyond the audible music was also somewhat common. Bach, for example, famously used the note sequence "Bb - A - C - B" (named "B - A - C - H" according to German conventions) in strategic spots, and there's this spot where he writes a series of 4 notes that are non-obvious in the current key, form a cross shape when connected, and have sharps on them ("sharp" is "Kreuz" in German, which also means "cross"), and all that happens where the lyrics are about Jesus nailed to the cross. The key absolutely matters here, not so much for its sound, but for the notational symbolism to work out. For some further reading on the emotions commonly associated with keys through the classic and romantic periods, check out [this](http://biteyourownelbow.com/keychar.htm). There are inconsistencies and differences between them, but they also agree on many things. D major is commonly associated with heroic triumph, for example. But that's specific to the classic period, and doesn't really affect modern genres.

  4935. musictheory 2019-10-09 04:50:55 Zarlinosuke
    While I wouldn't say your teacher's wrong, I think the root of what he's talking about has less to do with enharmonic spelling than with a note's function in whatever chord or key is going on. So if you're in the key of A major, C-sharp will be the stable third of the I chord. On the other hand, if you're in G minor, C-sharp will be the extremely unstable sharp fourth degree, used as part of a V/V or augmented sixth. String players will often play these unstable notes "exaggeratedly," i.e. more inclined towards whatever they want to resolve to, and so a C-sharp in G minor will probably be ever so slightly higher than a C-sharp in A major. Where this ties in with enharmonics is that C-sharp will *often* be a rising-oriented note and D-flat will *often* be a falling-oriented note. But as the respective tonics of, say, the keys of C-sharp major and D-flat major, I doubt they'd actually be played differently, at least intentionally.

  4936. musictheory 2019-10-09 05:14:19 65TwinReverbRI
    1. Forget Enharmonics for Theory Class - until you actually discuss Enharmonic Modulations. Because otherwise they'll screw you up! Seriously, you can forget you ever heard the word Enharmonic and be in much better shape. Eb is Eb, and D# is D#. The key of F# has an E# in it. Don't call that an "F"!!!! 2. What they're talking about here is "tuning" or "temperament". The Piano is tuned to 12 tone equal temperament and the octave id thus divided into 12 equal semitones. However, this means that various pairs of intervals are at odds with what would naturally occur in whole number mathematical ratios, which also appear in a theoretically perfect Harmonic Series. The notes C to G for example should be a ratio of 3:2 (or a Perfect 5th is that ratio). But, because we use 12TET, those notes aren't quite exactly that ratio. When those notes are not that ratio, they produce difference frequencies that cause "beating" which we can say is "out of tune" with the ratios. So players will tune (or "temper") intervals to make them "more in tune" or "more pure ratios" or "beatless". 3. Furthemore, they will tune/temper a note based on its context as well - whether it's ascending or descending, or in relation to the root of the chord (or the bass note). So for example, D#, when ascending, might be played a tad high compared to Eb when it's descending. 4. But here's something that usually gets skipped over in this conversation: not only will an Eb be tuned differently from a D# in the above situation, but an Eb will be tuned different from an **Eb** depending on if that note is the Root, 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc. of the chord - so the person playing Eb on a Cm chord is going to play it differently than when it's the 5th of an Ab chord, or the 7th of an F7 chord! 5. In fact, the enharmonic thing is NOT always true even in tempered tuning - an Eb in a Cb chord should be exactly in tune with a D# in a B Major chord - assuming you're tuned to that pitch as a starting point. I agree. Don't worry about it. Save yourself! This is what players who have the ability to vary temperament do - Vocal groups, String Quartets - they will adjust intervals to make chords "more in tune". However, there are groups who do it even more so - Barbershop Quartets actually "ring" their chords, and that's essentially what they're doing - fine-tuning all the ratios to be a close to whole number integers as they can get. Here's an example of a vocal group who actually does it as well, but they stay within a system - it will likely sound funny to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vM3p4rtdbs So this is the "correct" old way to do it but really modern groups kind of do a "hybrid" thing where they will tune intervals on the fly to be more "in tune" but rely on the bass part to stay in the same system - the Vicentino example I just posted - he has pieces that end on the same notes they began on, but are different resulting pitches because with all the tuning changes it actually shifts the overall pitch level (and scholars now believe this was intentional). A modern choir though will try to hold their pitch so if they begin on C, it will end on the same C and not drift sharp or flat. Usually the Bass is responsible for holding it down, and the other intervals are adjusted above it as necessary. But I'm sure you don't hear String Quartets as "out of tune" sounding as the Vicentino example (though really, that's "more in tune"!!!). The thing is, the human ear/brain can tolerate a range around a pitch so the 12tet we use today doesn't sound "out of tune" at all to us. Furthermore, we're so used to it and conditioned to it that things like the Vicentino seem much more "out of tune" (or just like it's being re-tuned on the fly) to us. So I think your prof is cautioning you not to become a "temperaments chaser" as I like to call them - except in performance situations where "fine tuning" ANY notes (not just enharmonics) is an important part of performance practice. HTH

  4937. musictheory 2019-10-09 06:40:22 tugs_cub
    I mean there are probably a lot of people who you could ask to play an A chord on the guitar and they'd be like "okay, second fret, three fingers" but if you asked them to build it from 1-3-5 starting on the sixth string they wouldn't know what to do. I don't think you're doing anything *wrong*, it's just a matter of learning to cross the bridge between the different ways you have of looking at things. I think I know how you feel about keyboard a bit, because I mostly do electronic stuff (I mean I was a lazy/lousy woodwind player first and now I'm also a shitty guitarist!) and I figured out very early that one can use MIDI-transpose to overcome the limitations of an abbreviated keyboard. So now I can get around within that idiosyncratic setup pretty well, but if you sat me down at a piano and asked me to play in F#... But ultimately the piano has fingering patterns for chords and scales, just like anything else, and they are arguably simpler that on a guitar, so maybe start by learning a few songs in different keys?

  4938. musictheory 2019-10-09 06:54:28 TheSkippingKing
    If the weird tones don’t throw you off, this is a fine way to learn. You could consider upping your game by moving on to 4 part harmony like Barbershop or string quartets.

  4939. musictheory 2019-10-09 07:00:09 vornska
    That's true, but it's really more a fact about strings than about sharps & flats. It has two main causes: (1) string players have default associations about which string a given line or space lies on. For instance, a cellist sees the top line of the bass clef & associates it with an open A string. An A# is still on that string (you just put a finger down), but an Ab needs to go on the next string down. So raising vs. lowering notes is asymmetrical for string players. (2) The open strings of an instrument resonate even when not being bowed, so keys sound especially resonant when the tonic matches an open string. The open strings in standard tuning are C-G-D-A-E, all of which are keys with sharps in the key signature. Any flat (major) key signature is guaranteed not to have a tonic that resonates with open strings. But that's not specifically about sharps or flats... B major is just as bad, by this metric, as D-flat major. None of this really has any effect on whether sharps vs. flats *sound different as pitches*. It's a much more subtle effect having to do with the timbre of the sound.

  4940. musictheory 2019-10-09 07:14:35 StickyCarpet
    Thanks, very informative. Flats could flip to another string, but sharps never will!

  4941. musictheory 2019-10-09 09:26:13 orein123
    To expand on what vornska explained, wind instruments work on almost the exact opposite idea, brass especially. Wind instruments work by taking a fundamental pitch and lowering it a certain amount. Woodwinds deal with it in a more simple manner. They take two or three pitches, usually differentiated by an octave or register key (or overblowing in the case of flutes), and then lower that pitch by a certain number of steps based off of what keys are pressed and what holes are closed. Brass instruments use that same idea, but rather than having two or three fundamental pitches, they use the entire harmonic series. The open notes (often called partials by us brass players) follow the same interval pattern of the harmonic series, and the valves lower that pitch anywhere from a half step to three whole steps. Starting on the lowest open note, you have a P8 to the next lowest note (typically transposed so that it starts on C), then a P5, a P4, M3, m3, m3, M2... so on so forth. Most brass don't go much higher than that on the series, with the exception of french horns, which start their standard range at the P4 between the lowest and second lowest notes (they can go down the P5, but for the love of god, don't make them play that low). Whenever you see a brass instrument tuned to a certain key, such as a Bb trumpet, a C tuba, or an F Horn (yes, that is why it is called the \*\*\*F\*\*\*rench horn; it's actually a German instrument), their open partials will play 1-1-5-1-3-5-b7-1, so on so forth, in that key. My point in all of this (to rein in my tangent) is that where strings like to see sharps, winds prefer flats, hands down. We don't have issues like having to drop to a lower string to play an Ab, but it often helps us to use the higher pitch as the reference note, especially in the case of brass. For this reason, you'll often see band arrangements of common orchestral pieces lowered a step or two to bring it to a flat key rather than a sharp one.

  4942. musictheory 2019-10-09 13:06:34 Zarlinosuke
    Do you play guitar, or violin, or some other string instrument? D major, as well as the other keys you mentioned (A major and B minor) are very comfortable keys on them, and it could be that the feeling of comfort of playing on your instrument in those keys translated into a feeling of comfort upon hearing them. If that's not why, it's more of a surprise to me, but still totally something that can happen if you're specific-pitch-sensitive and just got used to that part of the chromatic gamut (i.e. the two-and-three-sharp region)! To your other question, it's certainly not weird if you either (1) have some amount of absolute pitch or (2) enjoy a little bit of key mythology (I'm part of the second camp but not the first). But why do you say "favourite **major** keys" specifically in your question? Favourite keys of all modes are very possible!

  4943. musictheory 2019-10-09 13:10:02 vornska
    > contata You mean "cantata." You're confusing a genre with a form. In classical music, *genres* specify where the music is played and what sort of ensemble plays it. Genres include things like symphony, string quartet, sonata, mass, and so on. It's true that, **as genres**, sonata and cantata are literally defined by whether they're sung or played. This definition is most relevant to music from the early baroque period. As a **form**, however, "sonata form" has to do with stuff like "What's the pattern of thematic repetition?" and "At what points should I expect to hear specific modulations or cadences?" It doesn't depend on the ensemble playing the music. (In fact, we find many examples of sonata **form** written for string quartet, symphony, and, as I said, operatic voice.) This definition is most relevant to music from the mid-to-late 1700s. (The "late baroque" and "classical" periods.) This is actually very much my area of expertise in music theory. If you'd like to consult peer-reviewed research on the topic, I recommend starting with Nathan John Martin's essay "Mozart's Sonata-Form Arias" in the book *Formal Functions in Perspective*, published by University of Rochester Press in 2015.

  4944. musictheory 2019-10-09 13:21:30 Zarlinosuke
    How interesting that this would be the case for you without playing any instruments beyond primary-school recorder! And I see, that makes sense--yes, the difference between major and minor is clear enough, but the question of whether different major keys are different, *or* whether different minor keys are different, is much more complicated. In some sense, the answer is that no, they work identically and are just transpositions to different pitch levels. On the other hand, different instrumental proclivities cause differences in use--for example, the cello's lowest string is a C, which will make cello music in C quite unlike cello music in any other key--and furthermore, centuries of habits formed around particular keys affect how the musicians who play that music think of those keys, and thus also how composers are going to use them in the present and future. Still though, everything can be taken too far, and it gets a little hard to defend on rational grounds when one baldly states that "E major is the key of heavenly bliss" or "C minor is the key of fate" (not real quotes, but close to things you'll hear sometimes). So one must be careful how far to go with key associations. Then again, as long as we recognise the limitations of that kind of talk, why not indulge in it anyway sometimes simply because it's fun? That's what I meant by enjoying key mythology!

  4945. musictheory 2019-10-09 16:27:08 sinisacvetko
    Its not really complicated. It generally in a major or natural Minor with the V7 chord borrowed from the harmonic minor. Its not in The harmonic Minor Because The chord are formed on the natural Minor scale, just the Fifth degree is borrowed from The harmonic minor. There are, what we call, The first, second, and The third voice. First voice is The melody, second is harmonizing The melody closely in a third below, third above, or a third above played an octave lower (The sixth). The third voice plays a simple line to make The sound fuller. Example, if The 1.voice starts on E, The second on G, The 3. will Play on The C to make The sound of The Full chord. Ormentation is heavy and virtouosic but its not complicated, its just Neighbour and chromatic tones played in fast sequences, or arpeggios of dominant sevenths or sixth chords across two octaves. Mostly used tonalities are A, D, E, G, Em, Dm. Thats Because they work The best on The traditional instruments which have 4 string tuned high to low A E B F# and E B F# C#. The odd meters Are 5/8, 7/8, 9/8. Generally 5/8 is counted 3+2, 7/8 Like 2+2+3 and 9/8 Like 2+2+2+3.

  4946. musictheory 2019-10-09 21:38:55 concreteyeti
    I am the same way and I've always wondered why. I can't tell you the key/pitch of a song, but I can tell you a myriad of other songs that are the same. I've been playing music since I was 11 years old, but I did not have string theory and pitch training as a kid.

  4947. musictheory 2019-10-09 22:53:51 jcgam
    > string theory Most kids don't get string theory either. I don't even understand it myself.

  4948. musictheory 2019-10-09 23:06:58 AlrightReadIt
    The vibrating string of different lengths. Listening to good music, singing. r/musictheory

  4949. musictheory 2019-10-09 23:13:29 autopilot7
    Can’t wait to see the next big guitar YouTube star talk about string theory and “how you can use it to memorize the fretboard!”

  4950. musictheory 2019-10-10 03:58:37 65TwinReverbRI
    Evolution. Tradition. >I know that it's rare to actually notate chords and such for guitar which is also strange. No, you don't know. It's super common. Guitar began as Lute and Viheula and morphed into Guitar. Those instruments had smaller ranges and fit neatly on a single staff. Notation wasn't really standardized for Guitar until the 1800s - players before then actually still read tablature - it was people like Carcassi who decided guitarists needed to learn to read and write standard notation so they could take advantage of the then exploding Sheet Music market and make some money. But the notation for Guitar evolved from Lute and Viheula Tablature as well as that for other common string instruments like Vios, Theorbo, Violin, and Mandolin. What did come later was more frets and more strings - that's why the guitar's range is now bigger than what used to more easily fit on a single staff. but the tradition has remained because there has been no real need to change it. It might be more important for an 8 string guitar, or 6 string bass to use both clefs though. But for standard 6 string guitar music - no, it'll all go on the staff with some octave symbols.

  4951. musictheory 2019-10-10 03:58:55 MyDadsUsername
    Use your thumb to pluck the B (2nd fret on A string) and your pinky to pluck the E (open e string). If you use a pick, this is sometimes called "hybrid picking". If you're fingerstyle like the guy in the video, it's a really common motion you'll see a lot (thumb picking the bass note, fingers picking the melody). You'll have better luck with these questions over on /r/Guitar. Very helpful community.

  4952. musictheory 2019-10-10 06:46:00 65TwinReverbRI
    Yes - usually you use beating to tune two flutes that are trying to both tune to Bb, but yes, to tune an interval like Bb to D, you can use the difference tone there as well. However, you have to be kind of careful about this if you're playing against a 12tet instrument like piano - it can't change :-) Vocal groups and String quartets as well as Brass players all do this as well. So they not only tune intervals but chords. It's actually really important to understand like if you want to do Flute Choir or Woodwind Quintet kind of work.

  4953. musictheory 2019-10-10 14:01:08 flug32
    Well, it all depends on the execution. If I took my copy of audacity and took a nice recording of C-262 (or C-523, or any other C--it doesn't really matter) and carefully cut it up into 440 pieces every second, and then carefully glued them back together in a completely seamless way then there would literally be no difference between the recording I started and ended with. It would sound like C and the 440 'cuts & glues' per second would be completely inaudible. On the other hand, if you took a real instrument, say a piano or a violin, and simply tried to play the same note C at the rate of 440 times per second, what you would find out is that you just can't do it. Maximum achievable repetition rate on piano is m-a-y-b-e 20 per second ([discussion here](http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/1383201/Repetition%20rate%20of%20a%20grand%20pia.html), [example here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k), [another example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcsRl_LIJHA)). Violin tremolo is in the same ballpark. These fastest possible drum roll just breaks 20 strokes/seconds ([world-record video here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9FrW-Wr-ds)). So, just not possible using those means. However it is interesting that the fastest tremolos/rolls/repeated notes etc are just around the 20hz level, which is normally considered, roughly, the lower end of human pitch perception. And if you listen to those, you can maybe, just, sort-of, with only a little imagination involved, perhaps hear a kind of low hum emanating. from them. This might be somewhat imaginary, because if you experiment with different waveforms around 20hz, you find that a nice smooth sine-wave-like waveform at 20 hz is pretty easily heard as a tone, but a 20 distinct 'attacks' per second (looks like 20 waveform spikes per second, not really smooth at all) is not really perceived as a very low-pitched tone. You hear it as more fast but distinct sounds, like a drum roll. Taking this to the extreme, if you say used some mechanical method to articulate a piano string, violin string, or similar at 440 repetitions per second, the articulations would some so rapidly that the natural resonance of the string would basically have no chance at all to settle in. So you would likely perceive the 440 articulations per second creating a pitch at that frequency, and not so much at all the natural resonance of the underlying string. When a string is struck (as in, by a piano hammer or similar) or articulated (by a violin bow) the first milliseconds of the sound is dominated by the non-harmonic noise of the articulation itself. Only after a fair little while passes by does the filtering effect of the tuned string and instrument filter out a bunch of the 'noise' so that only the fundamental note and its overtones remains. So if you are doing this at the rate of 440 times per second--or event 220, 110, or 55--or maybe even 20--there just isn't time for the string to develop its fundamental resonance before the next articulation/attack occurs. However, much would depend on the particularities of the setup you used to achieve the result. There might be ways to do it that would reduce the strength of the attack at note onset enough to still allow the underlying resonance to continue.

  4954. musictheory 2019-10-10 15:02:41 tdammers
    Once the beat kicks in, the strings switch from triplets (or 3/4, depending how you notate it) to a syncopated 2/2 rhythm, so 6/8 would be completely wrong. To make it completely clear: the intro, written in 3/4, would be: | ♩ ♩. ♪ | ♩ etc., whereas the same string melody with the beat, in 2/2, would be: | ♪♩ ♪ ♩ etc. The difference is miniscule, and further diminished by the laid-back feel - in fact, the string melody might actually be the exact same rhythm, technically, but the way it fits into the music, it makes more sense to write it like this, because the trained ear doesn't hear it as a polymetric rhythm, but as laid-back interpretation of straight-up monometric polyrhythm. In short; conducting this in only one time signature would be wrong. If you have to conduct at all, do the intro in 3/4, and then switch to 2/2 (or even conduct it in double-time 4/4).

  4955. musictheory 2019-10-10 15:59:30 HashPram
    Revenge of the Giant Hogweed! One of my favourite early Genesis songs! Structurally it's a verse/chorus song that's had an episode tagged onto the verse/chorus structure. The individual bits aren't really related to one another that much though except that they occur in the same piece of music. That's often the case with verse/chorus songs - they're usually a juxtaposition of two completely unrelated ideas. The classical elements (in Genesis' music) aren't anything to do with the form of the piece, they're either the general idea that you could write longer pieces of music than the three minute pop song, or they're surface gestures - arpeggiated figures (e.g. the intro), use of orchestral-style playing with the Mellotron string patch (e.g. 5'36"), sort-of classical orchestral figures (keyboards 6'32"f), the odd reference to classical rhythms or chord changes (e.g. the opening of Watcher of the Skies) - that kind of thing. It's all impressionistic though, not usually a rigorous set of quotations. There's relatively little thematic development within pieces, almost none across an album's worth of tracks, and even in things like The Lamb the internal references are limited to the odd reprise. Structurally it's more like musical theatre and less like opera.

  4956. musictheory 2019-10-11 00:38:09 ChuckDimeCliff
    A palm mute is done with the picking hand by resting the palm across the string(a). The actual pitch should still be discernible, just a bit muffled. A dead note is done with the fretting hand by muting the strings with the fingers. It creates more of a percussive sound and the actual pitch isn’t as important.

  4957. musictheory 2019-10-11 01:49:10 Jongtr
    The way to avoid accidental harmonics when fret muting is to use more fingers (on the muting hand), and maybe spread them a little. Harmonics are produced when you touch a string at a single point which is a simple fraction of string length. So either you need to know where those points are and avoid them, or - simpler - touch at more than one point.

  4958. musictheory 2019-10-11 02:10:09 Jongtr
    Could this be an issue with bass notation? Double bass and bass guitar are notated an octave higher than they sound - or sound an octave lower than written. Bottom E on a double bass or 4-string bass guitar is E1. C1 is below that, so only normally abailable on a 5- or 6-string bass guitar. C0 is not even available on a full-size grand piano (the lowest note is A0), let alone on bass. It's a sub-bass frequency of 16.35 Hz, barely audible as a pitch at all. Of course, I'm guessing [ok\_reset](https://www.reddit.com/user/ok_reset/) is right about the MIDI issue - just clarifying standard octave designations!

  4959. musictheory 2019-10-11 03:35:22 _wormburner
    Also you have to consider that pitch isn't necessarily what gives something the feeling of stability or not in a vacuum. You have to consider pulse, accent, rhythm, motivic things, etc. You can make it sound like it focuses on a pitch or you could not using that same string of notes you listed

  4960. musictheory 2019-10-11 04:27:54 flug32
    Building on what others have said, there are (at least) four ways to conceptualize dissonance in a melody: * **Dissonance of the melody relative to whatever the current harmony is.** If your current underlying harmony is a is C minor chord then B, D, F, A are relatively dissonant melodically and some other tones perhaps even more dissonant (D#, F#, G#, etc). * Are you really \*hearing and feeling\* difference between harmonic & dissonant melody notes as you are writing or playing them? If not, that's probably what you need to be paying more attention to. * **Using more distant/non-tonal chords as part of the harmonic progression for the phrase.** For example if you're writing in c minor and you somehow work a E major or Db major chord into your chord progression that starts and ends nicely in c minor, then those are pretty distant/dissonant places to be going. * **Using more dissonant harmony as part of your chord progression.** So instead of G major as your V chord you go for G7 or G9 or G13 or a suspended chord etc. The various major/minor/7th/9th/11th etc chords put a very large range of gradation of dissonance at your fingertips. * Keep in mind that even of you're playing a really funky, dissonant chord your melody still has consonant/dissonant interplay *relative to that harmony*. So if you're being aware of and perhaps playing up that additional melodic dissonance *on top of* the already built-in harmonic dissonance. * **Modulating to more distant/unrelated keys and then back--or somewhere else.** It's one thing if you briefly visit a distantly related chord in the course of a chord progression but it's a whole different level if you start actually modulating (perhaps even just briefly) from your base key to more distantly related keys--or perhaps a string of more distantly related keys before returning to your home base (or, perhaps, not returning?). I mentioned in another comment today the idea that a particular musical style is determined in large part by *what it considers dissonance and how it treats dissonance.* Specifically in terms of melody, you can think about: * **How dissonance is prepared:** * Approach by step tends to smooth over/minimize the dissonant character * Approach by leap accentuates the dissonant character--even more so the wider the leap or more unusual the interval * Approach from a chord tone (or otherwise non-dissonant tone) can help tie the dissonance into the key or chord scheme--and interestingly this can have the effect of actually *highlighting* the dissonance and bringing more attention to it. * Several dissonant or non-harmonic notes in a row can either have an extremely dissonant effect or they can just unmoor the melodic line from the underlying harmony or tonality, which can actually make them perceptually less dissonant. * **How dissonance is resolved:** * The traditional/common-practice-era approach is to always resolve dissonant notes by step, and stronger dissonances generally downward by step. Also be aware of sensitive tones within the tonality--for example, scale degree 7 tends to resolve upwards to 1 and degree 4 downwards to 3 (this is not always true, but pretty much always is when they are placed within context of the V-I type progression). Tritones strongly want to resolve inwards to a 3rd or outwards to a 6th. * Of course you don't have to follow the conventions of common-practice era music always or ever. But the point is, that practice has an extremely well-developed and deep concept of dissonance and resolution precisely because they treat certain scale degrees, harmonic intervals, etc as sensitive, special, and privileged. When you do that, it then creates the opportunity to create expectations in the listener and then either fulfill them or break them. That is exactly what the concept of *dissonance* is about. * You don't have to follow exactly or even roughly the practices of the common practice era but you should have your own system for thinking of consonance and dissonance, sensitive tones, tendency tones, preparation and resolution, etc. * If, instead, you simply treat all notes, intervals, harmonies equally then it is actually impossible have a sense of consonance and dissonance. * **How dissonant vs consonant melodic tones are placed rhythmically:** * Just for example, placing a dissonant note on strong beat or prominent rhythmic location (on a strong syncopation, for example) accentuates the dissonance. Placing it on a weak beat or rhythmically unimportant place minimizes it. * Holding the dissonance longer accentuates it whereas getting off it quickly minimizes it. Just for example, if you hit your dissonant note on beat 1, hold it, and resolve it on beat 4, that is accentuating it. Holding it over 2 measures & then resolving on beat 4 of measure 2--even more so. Jumping from a consonant note on beat 1 up a wide interval to a dissonant note on the &, holding it to resolve by step on beat 4 combines a bunch of techniques outlined above to highlight the dissonance. Whereas sandwiching it on the "and" between a consonant note on beat 1 and another consonance note on beat 2, all approached and left by step, is hiding it, . * Holding a consonant note from the previous harmony over a harmony change, where it becomes dissonant, then resolving it in the new harmony (or . . . perhaps holding it through a few harmony changes, then resolving it) is one of the strongest forms of dissonance ([suspension-resolution](https://www.britannica.com/art/suspension-music)). * This opposite of this is pretty cool, too, and often overlooked--[anticipation](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_Music_and_Musicians/Anticipation). * Chaining a bunch of suspensions and/or anticipations and resolutions together can be an amazing effect. All those are generalities and don't necessarily apply verbatim in every musical style. But even if the verbatim recipe doesn't apply directly, the underlying concept is often well worth thinking about. "You can create dissonance by staying on a chord tone after the underlying harmony changes, or by getting to the new harmony a little early." Those are the underlying, very simple ideas behind suspensions and anticipations. Altogether if you're thinking about writing dissonance in melodies it's worth carefully studying (or re-studying) the [traditional breakdown](http://elliotthauser.com/openmusictheory/embellishingTones.html) [of](https://www.musictheory.net/lessons/53) [nonharmonic tones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonchord_tone). It's not a matter of just memorizing the name & formula of each one for a test (approached by skip, resolved by step, blah-blah-blah) but actually understanding why these particular formulations are so common, why they are given special names and special attention, and how one particular type differs from the others in concept, in effect, in strength of dissonance projected, in communication of musical feeling, and so on. *Why* is approach by step or placement on a strong or weak beat important? Why is one type of dissonance more pungent than the other? That is the type of thinking that can transfer to many different musical styles.

  4961. musictheory 2019-10-11 05:27:51 BRNZ42
    Yo: professional bassist here. Palm Muting creates a tone that has a lot of thump, a very bassy attack, and decays rapidly, but naturally. You don't necessarily stop the note from ringing, the palm on the bridge just means it won't ring out like a normally articulated note. *Stacatto*, on the other hand, is played with a normal attack, but the note is intentionally stopped short, so it doesn't ring. This is accomplished by lifting the fretting finger and muting the string almost immediately after playing. You get the full sound of the string vibrating, including the bright attack, that sound just stops suddenly. Basically, the note is normal, just short. *Stacattisimo* is just that but even more so. If I had to create an onomatopoeia for the two sounds, I'd say P.M. is "thmmm" and stacatto is "Daht."

  4962. musictheory 2019-10-11 13:30:48 yakmoo
    I also like the Lydian Chromatic approach to this question. Don’t know how well the whole theory is embraced in modern practice, but it has some elegance. A string of 6 perfect fifths would yield a major chord with a #11: C-G-D-A-E-B-F#. This is more consonant than a string of 5 perfect fifths with a diminished fifth on top ( C-G-D-A-E-B-F).

  4963. musictheory 2019-10-12 08:37:43 Richard_Berg
    Depends on the instrument. Wind players have alternate fingerings for many (but not all!) notes that could be used. String players could switch strings while drawing the same bow. But I don't think it makes sense on something like piano or marimba. In practice most people would use a different kind of articulation marker, perhaps a tenuto or a dotted-line slur. If you have a particular instrument technique in mind, nothing wrong with saying so in a footnote.

  4964. musictheory 2019-10-13 17:27:11 Jongtr
    Well, commitment could be the issue. But - as a hobbyist - you don't need the commitment of someone like Joni Mitchell, you only need to take some tips about making playing easier. You may still not be able to solve your current problem. E.g. if you want to play Luckiest Man, and you can't negotiate the original barre chords quickly enough, you need to find alternative shapes (even in standard tuning there is more than one way to play any chord you choose). The song will therefore sound different. That obviously also applies to alternative tunings. So that's the issue: how much do you care about being able to play specific songs using the original chord shapes? Could you accept being able to play them using alternative shapes for the same chords, or changing the key or the tuning in some way to make the chords easier? Would it bother you that the guitar would then sound different? The point here is that your (minor) disability is - out of necessity - going to lead you in other directions, whether or not you stick with EADGBE. You need to be prepared for your favourite songs to sound different when you do them your way, or to seek out other songs which lend themselves more naturally to whatever system you decide to follow. You may need to broaden your tastes - accept that the songs you currently really like (and wish you could play) are out of your reach. There's a whole lot of other great music out there! And loads of ways of retuning the guitar to open up other sounds. [DADGAD](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnYRQzEP7ok) is an alternative tuning worth trying, because a lot of chords are playable with just one or two fingers, it suits major or minor keys, and of course a capo opens up other keys. Some guitarists play in nothing but. And open D is only one half-step on one string away, if you want that. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYABfZ7HMhM) is the guy that invented it, with its first outing in public.

  4965. musictheory 2019-10-13 22:40:29 goodgamin
    Hey this looks like a really exciting project, and you have a great combination of instruments to work with! You got the three critical structural parts of the arrangement done: the rhythm, the bass, and the melody. Now you need to decide the harmonies, before you write the rest of the arrangement. Do you play guitar or keyboard at all? You need to lay out some chords to fill out the bass line and melody. Once you've got that written, you're ready to start arranging. Get someone to work with you on this part if you need to. There's a lot to think about. These are the steps I would take, if I were in your place: 1. Think of your orchestra as groups of instruments. All the players in each group would play together. This is the easiest approach for a beginning arranger. You have strings, woodwinds (oboes, flutes, saxes and clarinets), brass (french horn, trumpets), piano, percussion and bass. Listen in your head to how a string section sounds when it's playing by itself. Same for woodwinds and brass. Think about your composition, and ask yourself, where those three kinds of timbres would fit into your music. 2. Critical: at all times, your music should have a solid bass note, for support. Even if there's a section where the two flutes are playing alone, still one of them is the "bass note." I can't over-emphasize this. 3. In general when you have a lot of instruments playing at once, you can think of it as three main layers: instrument(s) that are handling the bass, instrument(s) that are playing the melody, and the instrument(s) that are playing the harmony in between. 4. Which instruments can play a solid bass? The piano and upright/electric bass, also cello and tenor sax could do it. It depends on what other instruments are also playing. For instance if the trumpets and french horn are playing alone, then the french horn would be the bass support. 5. Look up the comfortable ranges for all the instruments and stay within them. It'll be one less thing to think about with the players. 6. Be aware of the political stuff, and the ability of your players. If someone really wants a solo, give them one. If one player is a beginning player and struggling, give them an easy part. Both players will love you for it. Here are some videos I recommend you listen to, just to get ideas: Symphonic rock - Iron Maiden [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS6a0NWI0do](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS6a0NWI0do) &#x200B; Symphonic rock - Deep Purple [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPwVeFIDOEI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPwVeFIDOEI) &#x200B; Symphonic rock - Toto [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oQjShwH9TA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oQjShwH9TA) &#x200B; Two violins and a cello - Mozart [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqWaW0-5wYA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqWaW0-5wYA) &#x200B; Brass quintet - Mozart [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6LO79jd6Ac](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6LO79jd6Ac) &#x200B; Woodwinds with French horn - Mozart [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCgNCF5IUXk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCgNCF5IUXk)

  4966. musictheory 2019-10-13 23:20:10 brain_damaged666
    you could just play smaller chord voicings. spread triads are great for this, and you only fret 3 strings. You can also easily add a 7th maybe it wont have that giant full sound, but this frees you up to move around the fretboard, especially if you use clever inversions. I think this can let you be a little more expressive, if less loud. And if youre a hobbyist, i dont think you have to worry about projecting to a big crowd. You can also consider open string voicings combined with these spread triads, or alternate tunings in order to play certain chords or change key or something. Certain chords on guitar are only possible with open strings combined with fretwork anyway I have carpal tunnel to watch out for, so avoiding hefty barre chords helps keep my wrists from getting inflamed i try to focus more on the mental aspect of playing, and less on the athletic. I dont play for hours. But I try to study the fretboard a lot. So when I do go to play, I already know what I need to do, and can efficiently practice for how long my hands can stand playing really i focus more on playing lines, just because one finger at a time is the easiest on my hands. But idk of thats your style also, you can always look into finding an easier instrument to play. thin necks with low action, thin strings, shorter scale for less stretching. all factors that could possibly help. Also, try to play in the "classical" position. guitar between your legs, neck up high so your wrist straightens out. I play electric, so i wear a strap. I keel it nerdily high up. But its just easier on my hands that way. Plus i can lean back in my chair, and the guitar leans with me thanks to the strap. Also, just playing higher up on the neck will decrease fret gaps, aka less stretching. you could use a capo if you rely on open string chords a lot. But i personally just use voicings I can move around without open strings. All depends on your style

  4967. musictheory 2019-10-14 00:14:49 tdammers
    So you basically have a full orchestra there, which is great, however, the sheer amount of possibilities means it takes a lot of experience to get this right. Some starting points: 1. Research what each of these instruments can do: what is its range, what are its registers, how do they sound, and what notation conventions do you use (clef, transposition). Try to find audio examples of different registers and playing techniques for each instrument. 2. Think of the orchestra in terms of sections. You have a string section (violins and cello), a woodwinds section (oboes, flutes, saxes, clarinets), a brass section (trumpets & horn), and a rhythm section (piano, bass, percussion/drums). The woodwinds could further be divided into a sax section, and the rest. Don't worry too much about relationships between instruments across those sections, just make sure each section is internally consistent. 3. The archetypical roles of those orchestral sections are: strings = basis, woodwinds = color, brass = power. Which means you use the strings ubiquitously, the woodwinds to create different timbres, and the brass sparingly, for maximum loudness. Those are rules of thumb, experienced arrangers routinely deviate from this (e.g., Dvorak's 9th symfony has some beautiful quiet brass work at the beginning and end of the 2nd movement), but stick with them for an easy start. 4. Don't be afraid to double things. You don't have to have full harmony on everything; often, a unison or parallel octaves work great, if not better. The rhythm section already provides all the harmonic context you need. 5. Don't be afraid to score long rests. Orchestra players are used to counting dozens of bars of rest, this is normal and comes with the job. 6. Start with just a sketch, a quasi-piano part, that has all the notes you want, but doesn't yet say which instruments should play them. *Then* start thinking about dynamics, timbres and colors, and assign instruments accordingly. 7. Stay in touch with the players, and try out ideas as often as you get a chance. You're inexperienced, so most likely you will not get the sound you want on your first attempt. Someone who actually plays the instrument will be able to give you invaluable hints. 8. Keep it simple.

  4968. musictheory 2019-10-14 02:32:03 togam
    I can quite accurately tune a guitar in D-standard, D#-standard and E-standard from the A-string because I've done it so many times that I know what the A-string is supposed to sound like at A, G# and G and it's quite common amongst guitarists. It's also easy to hear which string a note is played and where on the neck and I can also hear if a guitar is tuned in E or D or C because of how the guitar sounds down-tuned (depends on string gauge of course). I just have basic "good musical ear" when it comes to other instruments.

  4969. musictheory 2019-10-14 03:12:33 whatajacks
    Special Affari - The Internet has some really cool chords, and I'm confused about the sort of dominant substitution in it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNJkas\_LiCM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNJkas_LiCM) &#x200B; I'm hearing Am9, C∆(with a G on the top high string), over and over, and then a turnaround that's iim7 iiim7 IV∆ bVIm7#5?? That's the chord in question. It's a Abm7#5. I don't know how to think of this. Part of me thinks maybe it's some sort of locrian thing, like it's acting like a VIIm7b5 to the first chord (Am7) which is sort of a V7 sub, so like a dominant into the first chord. But then part of me thinks it's some sort of mods on the normal V7 into G. Like altered to have a b9 in the bass, then a #13 (aka maj 7). What do you guys hear/think about this??

  4970. musictheory 2019-10-14 04:37:15 FixGMaul
    Don't open strings inherently have a different timbre since the vibrating part of the string is between the nut and the bridge instead of being between the skin on your finger pressing it against the neck and the bridge? I as a guitarist can even hear the difference in timbre from frets compared to the nut on open strings.

  4971. musictheory 2019-10-14 06:04:34 tommaniacal
    Yes they do, when playing you generally want to avoid playing open strings because they sound brighter and louder than if played on a different string. But I meant that I can tell when those pitches are played even when they're played on a different string. I'm guessing it's just pitch memory, since I hear those specific ones often

  4972. musictheory 2019-10-14 06:49:08 FwLineberry
    u/Bobicit Wanted to add.... If you've already written a string of notes and want to divide it into bars, you first have to figure out the pulse an then decide which note value best represents the pulse. That gives you your time signature. Then you have to assign note values to your line to know where the bars are. Each measure has to be full of notes or rests as dictated by the time signature.

  4973. musictheory 2019-10-14 12:00:55 LightyFarron
    Half step down progression,low octave,diminished or augmented or minmaj or alt dissonance chord something like that,i usually experiment with these on my keyboard with string voice

  4974. musictheory 2019-10-14 12:33:13 tommaniacal
    More "contemporary" styles tend to sound creepy. [Set Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory_(music)) organizes pitches into sets of 3 or 4, instead of organizing them into chords. These can be expressed horizontally (one voice playing a set) or vertically (multiple voices playing at the same time to form a set). Anton Webern is a good example of a composer utilizing set theory, I personally like his string quartet pieces: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELAKF8ZxDmg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELAKF8ZxDmg) Another tool you can use are [Tone Rows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_row). They are essentially a "list" of the 12 pitches. They can be messed with in a lot of different ways. You can flip the tone row upside down (Inversion), or play it backwards (Retrograde). You can also use these techniques within the tone row itself. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQmXU-XMCIs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQmXU-XMCIs) Another Webern piece, uses Tone Rows. Also worth noting that Tone Rows aren't exactly contemporary, as Bach used a tone row in his Prelude in A minor from WTC II. Mozart also used Tone Rows. Both of these are organized in a way that they sound tonal however, so they don't sound creepy.

  4975. musictheory 2019-10-14 13:33:59 soulsync69
    Just string non-diatonic minor chords together and play in their respective scales. Quickly wrote this as an example: [https://clyp.it/f30bvxdz](https://clyp.it/f30bvxdz)

  4976. musictheory 2019-10-14 18:00:56 turnipsiass
    That's right, in some music you want the sound more compressed and tight and in some styles you want the lush open string sound. In ukulele there's a style called Campanella (bell-like) where you use the re-entrant tuning in a way that maximizes the use of open strings. Its haunting and beautiful.

  4977. musictheory 2019-10-15 05:12:43 goodgamin
    I had the same issue too. What worked for me was singing the notes (as much as possible). It's like when you learn a foreign language. You'll make faster progress if you both listen to the language, and also practice reading and speaking the language. Music is a language. So, after you listen to a string of notes and you know you're repeating them correctly, write them down. Put them away for a while. A few minutes or a few hours. Then read the notes on the page and sing them (da-da-da or la-la-la). Check for accuracy. Hope it helps.

  4978. musictheory 2019-10-15 06:34:59 65TwinReverbRI
    It's best to understand modes from the note they begin on, rather than the "shape" you play to get them. The really unfortunate thing for we guitarists is one "shape" that is for Phrygian is also the same shape for one of the other modes starting on some other note - which is why guitarists are so confused about this - because they refuse to learn to read notes and music and want to play based on "pattern". The best way to understand modes is by relating them to Major and Minor scales. For example, Phrygian is simply a Minor scale with it's 2nd scale degree lowered one half step (thus one fret). To play A Phrygian you'd take your form for A Minor, and just lower any B (which is the 2nd note of the scale) to Bb. Starting on the 6th string at the 5th fret it would go: 5-6-8 instead of 5-7-8 like the A minor scale begins. A Phrygian should NOT sound good over A Major. However, A Phrygian is basically F major, which is essentially D Minor, and you're basically playing the V chord in Dm with a Dm scale over the top. This is why it "works" and sounds OK for the most part. But that's not really how you should use it. Instead, you backing track should be in A Phrygian. Better yet, use A Dorian - learn Santana's "Oye Como Va" - it's in A Dorian - it has two chords, Am7 and D9 (or Am and D to simplify). All the chords come from A Dorian and all the guitar melody notes come from A Dorian. This is how you do it.

  4979. musictheory 2019-10-15 07:55:09 Cyberhwk
    Lots of reasons. First, for most of musical history, violas were more of an accompanying instrument. There are more violin or cello concertos than viola concertos by FAR. So "elite" players tended to gravitate towards the more flashy Violin and cello than the viola. As such "musicianship" was historically often lacking. Violists were relegated to being the "chuck" to everyone else's "boom." Filling out the 3rds of chords. Just whatever mundane grunt work needed to be done. This often reinforced to this day where music teachers will often try to funnel under preforming students into the Viola section where the parts are easier and they're traditionally lacking bodies. The viola is also a poorly designed instrument. A 16.5-17" Viola is considered large, where as a viola would have to be upwards of 20" to actually fit the same physical ratios that the other string instruments have. However that size instrument would be effectively impossible for most players to play underneath the chin. So violists are stuck fighting physics. (Then someone had the brilliant idea to compound the problem by putting them 45* to the conductor's right, so their soundboard is facing the back of the stage and not the audience). A LOT of great composers played viola. Though it wasn't until the 20th Century where a lot of people started writing music for it as a virtuosic instrument. Composers like Walton, Hindemith, or Bartok. So violas again lose out when trying to get laymen interested when [their top pieces sound like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta9drEtWy80). Hey, at least [violas have the Rebecca Clarke Sonata](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrC-ti_O8aI). :)

  4980. musictheory 2019-10-15 09:57:49 bigCinoce
    Its definitely bottom up, but I have the same issue with guitar string numbering for tabs. I always see the top string as the G, but most people refer to the low E as the "top" because that's where it is when you play. Confusing haha

  4981. musictheory 2019-10-15 10:20:39 ijrt58
    Since you're still working on learning the fretboard using the names of the modes to help memorize [these scale patterns] (https://www.jazzguitar.com/lessons/Understanding-Modes-on-Guitar.html) is a good idea. What you are doing here is learning the fretboard by playing mode *scales.* > However, I saw a post on this sub yesterday when I did a search for Guitar Modes, and someone was saying that this method (at least, I think they mean this method) was a horrible way to do it and that it leaves a lot of room for error. Now I'm doubting myself. People online tend to be pedantic assholes and one way this presents itself in talking about modes comes about from the fact that there is a difference between what I describe above, using the mode *scales* as a tool to learn the fretboard, and playing a piece of music that is *in a mode.* In true internet fashion, people tend to talk past each other about it and the guys with more theory knowledge who understand what it means for a piece of music to be *in a mode* tend to overlook the value of this more basic (and instrument-specific) exercise which has incredible value in learning the fretboard. To understand what it means to play *in a mode* you need to understand the concept of a "tonal center" which has to do with the note and chord that the melody and harmony both resolve to. This isn't something that generally changes with every chord. Often times the entire song will be in one mode. And it has nothing to do with where on the neck you are playing the melody. If the song is in A Aeolian for example that's no sharps or flats with A as the tonal center. Doesn't matter if you play that A as the 5th fret of the low E string or the open A sting or the 7th fret of the D string or the 2nd fret of the G string or whatever. If that doesn't make sense to you, don't worry about it. If your goal is to learn the fretboard, you don't need to understand that. It's a concept for harmonic analysis, not for learning the guitar. For learning the fretboard, you should focus on mode *scales* which is an accurate way to describe the patterns that combine to form the full diatonic scale broken down into pieces that start and end on the different notes of that diatonic scale... if there is no harmony or melody and therefore the tonal center is just defined as the note that you start and end on.

  4982. musictheory 2019-10-15 16:29:39 smaxwell87
    The top string is the high E.

  4983. musictheory 2019-10-15 17:21:29 rreighe2
    that's really sad because the viola is my favorite string instrument of the bowed string category. I love its sound and I almost never write as high as a violin goes, but my of the string stuff I write is very viola heavy.

  4984. musictheory 2019-10-15 17:25:51 tdammers
    Nobody really hates them; the jokes just play a cliché that dates back to the 1700s. In the classic string ensemble, there's glory to be had on the first violin, the cello, and some on the second violin, but the viola generally got "filler" parts - it rarely leads anything, it rarely stands out, it's just there to complete the 4-part harmony. And as a result, directors would often assign the viola parts to the least skilled violinists in the ensemble. Which led to the cliché of viola players being incompetent, amusical, clumsy, and clueless. Then again, there's clichés about practically every other instrument out there. Flautists are narcissists, trombonists are loud alcoholics, trumpeters are loud alcoholics with huge egos, percussionists can't follow the conductor's tempo, cellists are fragile introverts, violinists suck up to the conductor, bass players are pitch-deaf, oboes are always out of tune, clarinet sounds are indistinguishable from white noise, horn players have difficulty hitting notes, bassoon players are poor because it takes a lifetime of musician's income to pay for the instrument (or, if you're less mature, bassoons sound like farting), tuba players can only play the root, and the fifth. Also, string players are too serious, brass players aren't serious enough, woodwind players are weird. They're clichés. They make for good laughs. Nobody really hates anyone here.

  4985. musictheory 2019-10-15 18:58:20 chucho89
    They don't know how to use violas, if properly use you can double violas with a whole lot of instruments of the orchestra, almost all woodwinds except piccolo in the upper range, it blends beautifully with horns, it provides amazing inner voices in the string section, it makes a melody heavier in octaves with violins. It sounds rich and warm as solo. It provides harmonic support on the cellos and basses. The things you can do with the violas are infinite.

  4986. musictheory 2019-10-15 23:07:36 Leiawen
    > if properly use you can double violas with a whole lot of instruments of the orchestra, almost all woodwinds except piccolo in the upper range, it blends beautifully with horns, it provides amazing inner voices in the string section, it makes a melody heavier in octaves with violins Yes, yes, yes to all of this. I've only been composing for a couple of years and I've learned to love the viola for all of these reasons you posted. No, it doesn't lead, but it supports so many other instruments beautifully.

  4987. musictheory 2019-10-16 01:06:46 Sirius_Cyborg
    Okay, it’s because certain string pitches resonate better at different lengths, and the ideal length for that strings pitch makes the viola about 22”.

  4988. musictheory 2019-10-16 01:56:11 GeorgeLowell
    There is no one ideal resonance for a given note or open string, let alone the rest of the range of an instrument. It’s subjective. Some 5 string basses have longer scale lengths than others. It’s just a matter of what sound and feel you’re going for.

  4989. musictheory 2019-10-16 03:34:23 Viola_Buddy
    In barbershop quartets, it's the baritone, and that part gets its fair share of jokes, too. If we compare a string quartet to a barbershop quartet, the viola and the baritone are both the third-highest voice, so it makes sense that they have similar roles when forming chords in four-part harmony.

  4990. musictheory 2019-10-16 23:54:54 ok_reset
    Best I can find is this: [Perpetuum Mobile (Penguin Cafe Orchestra)](https://youtu.be/sz-WK3q3mc0?t=31). It's tricky because this kind of contemporary, folk-inflected, instrumental music is pretty exclusively string-based. However, if you want to dig back into the distant past, Domenico Scarlatti wrote a billion keyboard "sonatas" heavily influenced by Iberian folk music, particularly fiddle and guitar. They can have the same bouncy and playful character as the piece you linked. [K 14, G major](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTh112f0ZX4) [K 118, D major](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M85zVbAPoZ8)

  4991. musictheory 2019-10-17 07:58:36 HoneyWizard
    If you're on guitar, give modes a shot if you haven't yet. Start on a C major scale: C D E F G A B Play it all the way through starting on C and ending on the next C. That's Ionian, aka the major scale. Now play it all the way through starting from D and going to the next D. Sound different? That's the Dorian mode. Now start on E and play to E. That's Phrygian, which has a really cool sound to me. F to F = Lydian G to G = Mixolydian A to A = Aeolian (aka the natural minor scale) B to B = Locrian. This one's hard to pull off because there's a lot of tension pulling to C and no resolution. [Here's a video](https://youtu.be/JKbPIGnqt80) that helped me understand it. [This one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwaeBUYcO5o&t=367s) is also good. Another thing you could do is take your A minor pentatonic or what-have-you and use its relative major. Since the C major scale has all the same notes as the A minor scale, there's an implied relationship. C major pentatonic scale (the first, second, third, fifth, and sixth notes picked from the major scale): C D E G A A minor pentatonic scale: A C D E G Because of the different starting points for C major pentatonic and A minor pentatonic, you might want to use different scale positions for each and weave between them. So long as you resolve to either C or A, it'll sound alright. So as an exercise, try switching from an A minor pentatonic into a C major pentatonic, then transition from that to the C major scale by adding the notes F and B, then start at different parts of that major scale to get modes. Sorry in advance if you know all this. It just helped my own playing a lot. That and realizing that to get an A note from my open E string, I move 5 frets up. Which implies that if I'm on my open A string and hold down a note on the third fret, I'll have to go 8 frets total from my open E string to reach the same note (5 to get to the A note, then 3 up from that point). It made me contextualize the relationship of strings to each other, and helped me find octaves quickly and map out my fretboard.

  4992. musictheory 2019-10-17 18:41:56 Jongtr
    If you're asking about range (bass, baritone, tenor, etc), that's determined by the lowest and highest notes you can comfortably reach. [This chart](https://www.becomesingers.com/vocal-range/vocal-range-chart) should help, if you can compare your voice with a piano. If you're a guitarist, the notation is different. The bottom note of bass is the open 6th string. The highest note of tenor is the G on fret 3 of 1st string. Obviously these are classical conventions and individual singers can often get lower or higher, or overlap different ranges. Male range beyond that is heading into counter-tenor, or falsetto range. But there are also different [vocal registers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_register), where the voice has a different quality depending on how low or high you're singing. As the link suggests, that's a much more compilcated thing that just your range.

  4993. musictheory 2019-10-17 18:44:35 serkkuy
    >How are you memorising them? Usually three notes per string going from low E to high e and vice versa. Also every string individually across the fretboard all the way to 12th fret octave >Scales are just the same shaping starting on a different root. Yes! I know, I've just decided all other natural Major and minor scales will be my next step to learn! + chords behind them. C major scale really helps memorizing all the natural notes across the fretboard! thx!

  4994. musictheory 2019-10-17 20:47:49 jesuslop
    Dunno about the original deleted message but to be contrarian if you have learnt the C major scale the way ninja masters use the term 'learn' he has learnt the intervallic wwhwwwh relation so in a piano can spell all mayor scales in any root. He learnt to cyclic permute the scale emphasizing any root so he masters modes, so picking the one starting in A (eolian), he has in the same blow entered the minor and major tonal worlds. Ninjas imply with the phrase that they know to play the scale in a proper guitar of theirs, so mastering a system such as Caged, 3-string, etc. With this, learning trasposition to any other root apart from C is childs play. Mastering the C major scale, and transposition, implementing tertial harmony is as easy as hopping right skipping single white piano keys (and transposing!). So what is next? Harmony!

  4995. musictheory 2019-10-18 00:32:58 cuck_clown
    I barely remember I believe in 2016, I read a pdf which explained the basic major and minor triad chords. When I started listening to green day, I learnt the notes on the guitar, like, the thicc string is an E, and then with every fret, it increases, so, E F F# G G# A and then the next string starts at A and goes up A A# B C C# D D# E and these notes also exist on the piano and I learnt to play fifth chords on the guitar, green day songs. and I've watched a lot of 8-bit music theory, and it has helped tremendously

  4996. musictheory 2019-10-18 04:17:14 Zarlinosuke
    Everything the other commenters said is good and right. I'll also add that in non-equal temperaments, major seconds and diminished thirds won't actually be the same size! For instance, string players and singers will probably more often make their diminished thirds a little smaller than their major seconds, to really enhance the sense of those two notes closing in on the one in between them (F-sharp and A-flat both straining towards G, for instance) rather than simply coexisting next to each other like cordial neighbours who aren't friends but are also not in a huge rush to move.

  4997. musictheory 2019-10-18 05:24:59 ijrt58
    LOL actually bass is a better visualization since it doesn't have that pesky B string.

  4998. musictheory 2019-10-18 06:35:47 Possumdd
    Depends on how many strings you got \~ 5 string gang

  4999. musictheory 2019-10-18 07:00:58 ijrt58
    Doesn't a 5-string bass have a low B string so it's all still tuned to 4ths?

  5000. musictheory 2019-10-18 07:03:43 ijrt58
    [turns out even 6-string basses are tuned entirely to 4ths to avoid the odd-ball major third between the G and the B strings on the guitar] (http://www.studybass.com/gear/bass-tuning/bass-guitar-tunings/)

  5001. musictheory 2019-10-18 07:27:42 Larson_McMurphy
    Yeah. I think this is a valid way to do it. At the end of the day you just need to know how many semitones are between the two notes of an interval. Count keys on the piano, or count frets (keeping in mind the next string is 5 semitones higher of course). Its all the same.

  5002. musictheory 2019-10-18 10:59:54 FletchForPresident
    >Suggest that learning guitar will provide a perspective on music theory that piano doesn't Don't mind them; they have string-bending envy.

  5003. musictheory 2019-10-18 21:50:12 Starrk71
    Could always tune it up to a C and the high E string up to F

  5004. musictheory 2019-10-18 23:52:39 kkjonnykk
    I play a 6 string, but yeah a bassist will typically never play a chord with more than 3 or 4 notes in it, often including a low root note and then the rest more than an octave higher so the tuning not accomodating more isn't much of an issue

  5005. musictheory 2019-10-19 00:00:58 sevensixtwolove
    Interesting idea! I can imagine that you can strike some chords with the high registers you get from a 6 string. (Plus the benefit of directly translating your shapes from guitar.) I have a 5-string since two weeks back, but I've not really incorporated the low B in anything other than scale runs (but it makes for a great anchor when plucking the E! ;D).

  5006. musictheory 2019-10-19 01:14:09 Possumdd
    With the 5 string tuned to low b it's mostly a thumb stop unless I want to play a lower D. I mostly get use of my lower strings when I drop a half step or a whole step. Kinda naturally gives a different approach when playing lower on the fretboard.

  5007. musictheory 2019-10-19 02:27:14 intr11gued
    Know what you like about different improvisation styles and learn how to string them together in ways that sound/feel good to you. Everyone has a different style of playing, and the aspect of improvisation is about taking the styles you like and making them your own. Good luck! (ps if you haven't already, start learning as many chords and scales as you can. It will make improvisation much easier and much more interesting.)

  5008. musictheory 2019-10-19 06:50:59 Jongtr
    I think that might be the case for instruments which you need to tune as you play, such as unfretted string instruments, or trombone. Otherwise, I don't think it would help that much. (And even tuning an instrument is more about relative than perfect pitch.) In any case, in terms of bringing up a child in a way that would help them develop perfect pitch, they will acquire much more useful skills along the way. It's going to be those skills that help them learn an instrument, more than perfect pitch would.

  5009. musictheory 2019-10-19 10:53:59 17bmw
    Okay soooo, this is such a wacky and wonderful question, thanks for sharing it! I suspect a diatonic set theorist might have *a lot* more to say about this than lil' ole me, but this got me thinking. Some further observations: I suspected that at least one of the notes involved in this would be an [imperfection](https://ianring.com/musictheory/scales/1717), a note in the scale without a corresponding note within the same collection a perfect fifth above it. And I was right! #EurekaMomentOMG! The leading tone (in this case E) is the imperfection of the scale, and along with the submediant, our "problem" pitches here. But this doesn't hold true when we do the same scalar run starting a fourth above the tonic and not below it. Instead, we run into the second/seventh problem with the notes G and A, our supertonic and mediant respectively. That said, when arranged scalarly, our collection has two aberrant moves in an otherwise sea of whole-steps: the half steps between A and Bb and between E and F. So no matter if we start out scale run a fourth above or below, we know for certain that one of the four pitches involved in a half-step will ruin our string of consonances. Perhaps that has something to do with where we encounter the problem *and* why we can only get so many consonances in this manner? Now this is me doing a lot of tinfoil hat theory so bear with me but I also noticed other stuff that may or may not be relevant here. First, if we start and end a descending F *minor* scale on C and juxtapose it with an ascending F *major* scale (starting and ending on F), we only get **one** dissonance between A and Ab. Also, in either of the major scale only versions of our experiment, all of our problem pitches form a cycle of fourths/fifths (G, D, A, E). Interesting because this makes these problem notes structurally similar to the parent scale which is itself a cycle of fourths/fifths. Not sure if that means anything for this particular conundrum, though. Beyond this though, I wonder what happens we we vary the shape of the line but not its direction. That is, what if we started and ended an descending F major scale on C but it moved by thirda instead of seconds and paired this with our original F major scale ascent by steps? What would happen if we used fourths against seconds? Thirds againsr fourth? How would that change our problem pitches orthe amount of consonances we can achieve in a row? This is such a neat thing to think about and I imagine a few ways it could be musically relevant. Scalar runs, for starters, because who doesn't love a good run? Or we might find two collections of the same size that produce intervals we like when situated like this. We could then use that as contrapuntal scaffolding and elaborate on it to structure a piece. Also great for structuralizing polytonalities. The possibilities feel endless. Which is my way of saying thank you again for sharing this with us; it's such a fun brain teaser. I hope this rambling was at least interesting to sit through. Have fun theoretically noodling and take care!

  5010. musictheory 2019-10-19 20:19:29 KingAdamXVII
    In the harmonic minor scale, the augmented second between the sixth and seventh might be considered consonant. If so, then you can get a string of entirely consonant intervals: A B C D E F G# A E D C B A G# F E With the melodic minor I can’t get any better than a string of five.

  5011. musictheory 2019-10-20 00:40:02 badrinarayanr
    Hi, just stumbled upon this thread - could you point me in the direction of any resources to learn how to write for a string quartet?

  5012. musictheory 2019-10-20 06:17:26 ahkolumi
    DUnno if it's my favorite, but "campanella" - "like a bell". It's used in classical guitar music when you have a repeated note that's usually on an open string, especially in a section with, eg, an open E string as a pedal in arpeggios that are ascending or descending on the neck. Barrios op 8 no 4 has a section it.

  5013. musictheory 2019-10-20 09:13:06 Conrad59
    > They work because of different fractions of the string resonate with it, That's all. You *do* know that the harmonic series is a fundamental characteristic of most musical sounds, that have nothing to do with strings resonating, right?

  5014. musictheory 2019-10-20 13:15:22 Zarlinosuke
    Some instruments have specific timbres in a few keys. For instance, the guitar sounds special in E minor because its lowest string is an E and the E minor chord uses a lot of open strings. Same deal with the violin and G (major or minor). You can train yourself to hear these kinds of things, but unfortunately they're not all that widely applicable.

  5015. musictheory 2019-10-20 21:53:47 Jongtr
    Strings don't "represent" it, they "contain" it. I.e. the harmonic series is a property of vibrating strings, as well as columns of air in wind instruments, and vibrating objects such as metal or wooden bars in zylophones and so on. They all contain their own harmonic series. (So does your voice, btw. ;-)) Some vibrating objects produce "partial" vibrations beyond what the harmonic series contains, such as church bells. It's partly why bells "clang" as they do, not always with a clear pitch. Tubular bells are different, because they are designed - as tubes! - to only produce just one tuned pitch with its own harmonic series, like a single string. "Resonance" is a different thing, btw. It literally means "re-sounding", referring to the way one sound can excite another, or be amplified in some way - such as the way an acoustic guitar top resonates from the vibrating string, and the hollow body amplifies it. Rooms or other enclosed spaces can also have certain resonant qualitiies, amplifying some sounds or pitches more than others. Your mouth is a resonant chamber for your voice - as is your whole body to some degree.

  5016. musictheory 2019-10-20 22:51:37 Jongtr
    OK, I'm going to re-spell all that with flat enharmonics, because the key of Db major (5 flats) is easier to get my head around than the key of C# (7 sharps). The sequence is then as follows, melody above chords: F Db C Bb Ebm Gb/Db Ab7/C - Db C Bb Db Db Bbm Gb Ebm7 C Ab G F Bbm Bbm/Ab Bbm/G - F F F F Gb - Db - Slashes indicate bass notes, and you can see that most of the time the bass is doubling the melody. Dashes indicate repeated chords. In functional terms, those chords are: * Bar 1: ii - IV - V7 - V9 * Bar 2: I - vi - IV - ii7 * Bar 3: vi - vi7 - vi6 - vi6 * Bar 4: IV - IV - I - I So it begins with a standard ii-V in Db major. The Gb chord could be seen as Ebm7/Db, there's no significant difference. (ii and IV have the same pre-dominant function.) That resolves as expected to Db, and bar 2 then goes through a familiar I-vi-IV-ii sequence. Bar 3 is where it gets interesting. It's a "line cliche" on the vi chord, ending with a chromatic 6th in the bass (G natural). The line cliche goes on down to Gb (Gbmaj7 is only Bbm with Gb bass), to resolve to Db in a plagal cadence (IV-I). The melody holds on the 3rd of Db, and the lack of *melodic* resolution (as opposed to harmonic resolutiuon) enables the sequence to loop back and repeat, with the F note continuing as 9th of Ebm. The melody mostly follows chord tones. but there are a couple or more expressive notes - in particular the 9ths on the first Ebm, and on the Bbm in bars 2 and 3. There's also a 9th on the Ab7. The maj7 on the last Gb (held over from the 5th of Bbm) is also evocative. In fact the F on the Bbm/G makes it more like a Gm7b5, the F as 7th. IMO, little of this really explains the mood evoked - aside from those 9ths maybe. The chord progression is certainly *comforting* in its familiarity - we're being led down a well-known, well-worn path, with just the tiniest element of tension in the chromatic G bass on the Bbm, held for two whole beats, holding off the resolution to the diatonic Gb. The 9ths on the minor chords evoke "poignancy" or "yearning", while the maj7 on the Gb could be said to be "nostalgic". But those things are not overdone; and the way the bass echoes the melody seems unnecessarily clunky IMO - there could have been a much more interesting counterpoint between those lines. In terms of the bass, btw, there's a nice parallel between the Eb-Db-C-C in bar 1 and the Bb-Ab-G-G in bar 3. They are harmonised differently because the harmony is staying within the key. You could say an Eb9 chord is being implied by the Bbm/G, and it wouldn't be out of place, but I don't hear an Eb in the chord. The melody of those bars follows a similarly repeated shape, or would if the last note was an octave lower second time (or octave higher first time). The most emotionally expressive element seems to me to be the slide guitar: its sweet tone, the high pitches, and the way it swoops up or down. It's very much emulating a human voice, even more than melodies normally do. The string orchestration plays its part too - shameless cliché! :-) - as does the reverb.

  5017. musictheory 2019-10-21 02:30:03 gopher9
    1. Every periodic function can be written as a sum of harmonics (math! See Fourier series) 2. Vibration of a linear string are traveling waves reflecting from boundaries (d'Alembert's solution). So vibration of a string is a periodic function of time 3. ?????? 4. PROFIT Real life is, of course, more complicated... But basically that's it. UPDATE: there's a good video on Fourier series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6sGWTCMz2k

  5018. musictheory 2019-10-21 20:41:29 Jenkes_of_Wolverton
    Not sure how you were fingering that, but I'd recommend using a partial barre at the fifth fret with your first finger across the top four strings. If you then play a regular A chord: x-x-7-6-5-5 you'll be able to finger it 3211 and have your pinky available to add in that 8th fret on the second string, which is the flat 7th; or add in the 7th fret, which is the 6th (note of the scale). If your hammer on/pull off technique is up to the task you could then alternate between A-A6-A-A7 etc, then shift everything down two frets to get G-G6-G-G7 etc, and finish off with a big fat juicy D chord for instant Blues.

  5019. musictheory 2019-10-22 10:21:23 65TwinReverbRI
    In that case, the B would usually be considered a "Passing Tone". It's a "non-chord tone" - not part of the chord. That's not an "arpeggio" in that case. The B would have to sound for some length, or in some way to make it sound intentionally like a chord tone for it to be Am(add9) or A(add9) Since the lowest note is C, it would be Am/C for your basic chord you're playing, even with the higher C and B notes. IOW, the IMPLICATION is that it's still an Am harmony, especially since you came from an Am fro the previous beat. IOW, we call the chord what it would be without any non-chord tones when non-chord tones are present, and in a context like this where it's a "variation" of an Am chord, it's more definitely Am. If the B were long, and C were the lower note, and the implication is it's all still part of an Am harmony, then it would be Am(add9)/C If you change the lowest note to C#, that makes it an A MAJOR chord. An A minor with a C# in the bass would have to have both a C# AND a C natural in the chord. So it would be somewhat odd to play C-B-A on the high E, with E on the B string, and C# on the G string. We'd probably see it as an A/C# chord, with the C on top being a Blue Note (it's going to sound pretty bluesy in that context, because in any other context it would just be wrong - outside of 20th century art music). So we'd consider both the C natural and B to be non-chord tones, or at least the B is, and the C is kind of behaving like one. Actually, this is a very good question!

  5020. musictheory 2019-10-22 10:58:48 65TwinReverbRI
    Yes the B does not effectively change the chord. If you have the notes like this: E C A E A and you put your pinky down on the 3rd fret of the 2nd string to make a D, it doesn't necessarily change the Am chord that's there - especially if you just go right back to the C and don't dwell on the D - it's just a Neighbor Tone then - again, a non-chord tone. It's just an "embellishment" of one of the notes already in the Am chord. Same would be true if you went C-B-A from 2nd to 3rd string, or C-D-E or E-D-C from 2nd to 1st/1st to 2nd - it's just a Passing Tone - a note that's not part of the chord. It's only when those notes last like a whole measure or something, or are otherwise significant. Sometimes, people may used chord names to show a move like that but that's not really what the chord is. Other times some times a note that moves CAN in fact make a different chord and we do call it that - for example if you take the Am shape above and play the 3rd string open, that adds a G so it becomes Am7. Usually we would use a chord name for that one because it's pretty common - unless you just did a quick pull off and hammer on or something or it was part of a riff - and that's the crux of this - when the note motion is part of a MELODIC idea, we generally don't consider it to affect the harmony - at least in most cases (i.e. there can always be exceptions). Only when it seems to be chordal or harmonic in nature do we worry about the chord name.

  5021. musictheory 2019-10-23 02:54:59 TheBigUmberto_
    When? I would argue that a student should integrate note memorization into their practice routine as early as possible and dedicate at least some amount of time to it every time they pick up the guitar. And I'm not talking note memorization via patterns, or octaves, or reference points. I'm talking you pick up a guitar, pick any fret on any string and know what the note is. This practice should be regardless and is completely irellevant to CAGED or any other system for that matter. Do we really disagree on when a student should learn where the notes are? I don't really know where that came from.

  5022. musictheory 2019-10-23 07:03:22 apricity9
    Looks interesting but I'm a little confused. Does the first column in each diagram represent the open string? If so, it looks to me like the reference chords for E A and D are wrong and should be moved one column to the left (apologies if I've misunderstood).

  5023. musictheory 2019-10-23 08:08:36 TheBigUmberto_
    Excellent question and great observation. The first column in each diagram actually does not represent an open string. There are intentionally no fret numbers on these diagrams. Every single shape/pattern/diagram you see is 100% moveable to anywhere on the fretboard. One of the trickier first steps you have to take in understanding how CAGED works is to understand that the strings that you let ring open without fretting when you play a chord in open position represent notes of the chord as well. It is very intentional that you are not fretting those strings. You can simply move all those open chords up and down the neck but you have to be sure that you bring those unfretted notes from the open positions with you. If you YouTube CAGED guitar videos, you'll find a million different examples of this. I'm a big fan of Paul David's YouTube channel. He used to be a guitar teacher before becoming a full-time YouTuber and he has a good introduction to CAGED that you can find here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-0c5QTQ8Q0&t=317s Once you understand the concept of being able to move these chord shapes up and down the neck, your next thought will probably be that the chord fingerings are pretty stretchy and uncomfortable. At this point, I would suggest looking up triads to learn how you can play small manageable shapes all over the neck. If you have any more questions, let me know. I'd love to help.

  5024. musictheory 2019-10-23 09:14:58 TheBigUmberto_
    The reference point will be the roots or the red circles with the 1's on them on the A string for shapes C and A, the low E string for shapes G and E and the D string for shape D. A fret number would be arbitrary without a key. Pick a key. Find that note on the low E string, pick the low root note from either the G or E shape, they both share the same low root note and go from there. If you look at the columns in the diagram, specifically the second one with the shaded triads, you'll notice all of these shapes connect. It's not about what fret your at. Its about what key your in.

  5025. musictheory 2019-10-24 02:04:40 Kemaneo
    >The whole brighter/darker thing is just BS. People will flame me for that, or argue, but it's just yet another "misinformed" kind of thing not borne out in actual musical practice. Absolutely not BS. Obviously it does not matter when you only use virtual instruments but in orchestral music, where those terms come from, darker keys (more #/b) have less sympathetic resonance. The string section's open strings (C-G-D-A-E) start resonating and make a very significant and hearable difference. This does not only concern the root note, but also harmonic partials, e.g. when the brass plays an E, the violin's E string starts vibrating, but also, all the A and C strings. Furthermore, open strings, when actually played, have a very distinct sound and keep vibrating even when the bow leaves. There are a few more reasons (intonation, playability etc).

  5026. musictheory 2019-10-24 04:51:28 seveneightnineandten
    There are a few things going on that might be dissonant to people. 1. There is a constant slide up and down lightly brushing the strings. This drops in atonal notes into the background. 2. The rhythm guitar part is constantly bending each note out of tune in a wobbly vibrato. Lots of notes going out of tune in each direction can feel strange or wrong. 3. The lead guitar is played jagged and staccato against a smooth wobbly background. 4. The main melody is the 5th, the tritone, and the sixth. (B, A#, C#) The rhythm part is just the 1st and the 5th. (E and B). The tritone is a traditionally dissonant note. Since it's so sparse, since there is little to inform your ear of the mood, that tritone might carry a lot of weight in your ear. 5. This also gives a feeling as though the chord is not resolved, this is not the "home base" chord, this is not the tonic. This can feel like it should go somewhere else and stop lingering here.. and yet it lingers. 6. When it goes to the B section, the more open chord part, it now clearly has a major third. The chord is a B. It is very normal to go to this chord, but the way the lead guitar plays is extremely sloppy and dirty for something so simple and small. 7. During this sloppy feel, the lead guitar is playing an open B string, while the rhythm guitar is playing that same B up the neck, and is wobbling it out of tune. This is the same note on two instruments, but one is going slightly out of tune. That is a dissonance that can bother people. 8. I don't suspect the C section to be the problem. That's the part that goes up right before the end (starts around 30 seconds in.) Really a pleasant section. I've always found it to be a easy going and clever way to develop the motif so that it felt like it was pointing to an end. And that's all the elements that could be causing this experience for many listeners. I've always loved this song and found it to be a pleasant jaunt. Wobbly fun. Bubbles. Hope that answered some questions!

  5027. musictheory 2019-10-24 08:17:36 destructor_rph
    This is sick! One thing ive found on my never ending quest to make fantasy music, is use a 12 string acoustic and always leave 2 or 3 strings open.

  5028. musictheory 2019-10-24 09:00:06 0nieladb
    Do you tune it to anything in particular? Or just regular tuning with the added effect of the 12-string guitar?

  5029. musictheory 2019-10-24 10:06:12 destructor_rph
    Standard, but honestly the 12 string is only the cherry on top. The real magic comes from the open strings. Try playing inversions on the 3rd, 4th and 5th strings while leaving the 1st, 2nd and 6th strings open. Those pedal notes give a very fantasy feeling.

  5030. musictheory 2019-10-25 11:25:43 Bee_dot_adger
    I know I'm late to this thread, but this is not true. When enough pressure is applied (only fits in aggressive passages) the middle string of a three-note chord is low enough to sound together with two adjacents. This is why \*triple-stops\* are a well-known technique.

  5031. musictheory 2019-10-25 19:12:49 Outliver
    So... I can definitely tell that you're fully into it and that you're kinda feeling it, too. The overall sound reminds of Spanish guitar. But you need to work on your precision with both hands, it sounds kinda sloppy here and there. At some point near the end, you modulated to parallel major - which is fine but might get you into trouble when session jamming with other musicians. So here are a few tips: \- try to play more slowly, perfecting your fingerings. \- avoid hitting the wood with your right hand \- try to keep the rhythm more static \- there are more ways to play chords on a guitar than the zero position open string fingerings. \- also, if you feel like it, experiment with different scales All in all, however, I did enjoy the listen. I think, you definitely got some talent there :)

  5032. musictheory 2019-10-25 21:37:58 Jongtr
    Couple of things: 1. why the capo on the bass? It could be a confusing element as your harmonic positions are 2 frets higher than in your diagram. 2. It might be worth pointing out that all harmonics aside from the octaves are out of tune with equal temperament. The 3rd harmonic 5th (3:2, perfect 5th) is a negligible 2 cents out, but the 5th harmonic (5:4) is 14 cents flat. This will show on a tuner, which might be confusing if someone checks that harmonic. The needle will be central for the octaves and the perfect 5th, but it will drift flat for the major 3rd (C# on the A string). The 7th harmonic (7:4) is 32 cents flat of the minor 7th, and the 11th - if one could actually get that far in practice - is actually mid-way between the perfect 11 and #11.

  5033. musictheory 2019-10-25 22:12:50 bubbleboy222
    1. Yeah, I see that now, but I wanted the harmonics to be played on the G string, because it's easier for me to get the very high harmonics out on the higher string. So, I put the capo on the second fret to get A. 2. This was something I hadn't fully figured out, so I decided not to speak about it, since I don't want to pretend to understand things. If I visit the concept again in the future, I'll do more research on it and try to bring up how the tuning changes with harmonics. Thanks for watching the video and giving feedback!

  5034. musictheory 2019-10-25 22:51:06 Jongtr
    > it's easier for me to get the very high harmonics out on the higher string. So, I put the capo on the second fret to get A. Ah, of course I should have spotted that! Personally I have no problem getting harmonics on the A string itself. (I play bass and guitar, btw) - at least as high as you get on the G. But may some comment in the video explaining why you're using the capo and playing the G string would avoid that possible issue.

  5035. musictheory 2019-10-26 00:54:02 PCFRIM
    you can try to use drop 2 or drop 3 voicing instead of the open string C7

  5036. musictheory 2019-10-26 02:52:24 RatherDashingf11
    Hey, I'm a self-taught guitarist. Used mostly the internet and books to learn over the past 5 years, and I've got a decent grip on theory now (*chords, scales, keys and how they all intertwine*). My advice - learn the piano. If you can afford it, grab your own cheap electric one - they're probably $80-$100. And on top of that, maybe a beginner lesson book. The way a guitar is laid out sucks for comprehending the theory behind it. When you see it laid out on a piano, all the rules and ideas make 10x more sense. Think of it like this: The guitar is basically 6 pianos stacked on top of each other. Each string has a full range of notes, perfectly in order, just like a piano. It gets confusing when you also realize there is a full range of notes in each *position*. I'm rambling, but it just helps you visualize the notes in a much more clear and concise way. I never learned more than basic chords and scales on the piano, it was really just a means to learning more about music in general. Whenever I'd learn something new about intervals or chord construction, I'd pull out my guitar and work it out on there, too. Overall, it'll make those "Aha" moments more regular as you study music theory. **Also**: yes, it's definitely worth studying music theory. You won't get too bogged down into playing "properly" or whatever. In fact, it'll help you become even more expressive. When you know the "why" behind your music, you'll have much more control over the sound.

  5037. musictheory 2019-10-26 09:54:42 ZiegenKaiser
    You need to train your ear to hear these sonorities, like the 7th chords, their alterations, and more importantly the common ways to string these chords together. Playing pop music by ear can seem easier. Often you’re only hearing simpler progressions within a single key, whereas in jazz, musicians frequently modulate around dominant function chords to create more tension and progression in a collection of chords.

  5038. musictheory 2019-10-26 10:32:33 imersial
    No idea how to help you but interested in the music youre talking about. Ive never heard of it but will be taking a listen. Ive (23) been playing nylon string / classical for a long time on and off, been playing guitar for about 15 years. Ive mostly focused on traditional playing abd have had no idea how to branch into the spanish styles. I have been playing around with jazz tbough. Anyway, check out Paola Hermosin on youtube she may be helpful youll have to use subtitles if you dont speak spanish but shes super helpful.

  5039. musictheory 2019-10-26 12:07:23 rizzlybear
    My favorite has to be going from Am to D by making a Bm7 but leaving what would be the root on the fifth string second fret, open and ringing A. A great example of this is the opening/verse chords to ZZ Top’s “Jesus just left Chicago.” Another favorite is going from Am to D9/F# by letting go of the A on the third string second fret and grabbing the F# on the sixth string second fret. You can hear this in the first two chords of “Karma Police”, or in Steve Goodman’s “I just keep falling in love” when he sings “I should know better” and then moves the whole thing up two frets and does it again when he sings “but I don’t know better”.

  5040. musictheory 2019-10-28 06:55:43 JeanSzB
    It’s a piece for a string orchestra, and it happens on most instruments.

  5041. musictheory 2019-10-28 07:40:17 AHG1
    Make sure you understand that a tie and a slur are two very different things. You must tie held notes together. Period. If you do not tie them together, the player will reattack the untied note. (And, if you've been holding for a long time, the player is likely to accent or add a small rest to make the attack even clearer!) In general, you can get away with just writing 'legato', depending on the instrument for slurs... but not for ties. Also, be aware that "slurs" are bowing indications for string players and will be interpreted differently by players of those instruments.

  5042. musictheory 2019-10-28 11:23:12 phalp
    Microtones can totally bring new emotional dimensions to music. A good example is Ben Johnston's [5th](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG4Z8yVEHZI) string quartet. Probably similar emotions could be made without microtones, just like you can say pretty much anything you need to with [only a few words](https://xkcd.com/1133/). But that doesn't mean there's nothing to get excited about. I don't believe that kind of blending of emotions is possible without using the in-between notes.

  5043. musictheory 2019-10-28 16:02:46 blejusca
    I don't know if it's the same thing, but I know my e string is in tune because I can hear my whole guitar resonate with it when I reach the right pitch, so I always thought that's the guitar's natural resonance.

  5044. musictheory 2019-10-28 17:21:40 stereoroid
    It’s not as if microtonality is anything new among “analog” musicians. You can hear it everywhere if you listen. The singer who sings a word a little flat for emotional effect, the guitarist with the subtle whammy bar tweaks, the classical string section that sounds fuller because of natural tuning variations. If this is a reaction to the overuse of AutoTune, then I’m all for it, but it’s not really special. For example, have a listen to Kate Bush, who used her voice as a powerful instrument, her voice will sound all over the place if all you’ve heard before is over-produced pop. I have a particular beef with guitarists who claim they’re “fixing” the guitar by installing frets at tweaked positions, and so on. A standard guitar is an equal temperament instrument, meaning that it will sound good enough in all keys. It’s a compromise, and if you look closely at any one key, it will be less than perfect. If you adjust the scale to better fit one key, you’re making it worse for another key. Which is fine if you understand that’s what you’re doing and are prepared to accept the results: just don’t claim you’re making the guitar better *overall* in the process. This is an area where virtual instruments can do things that physical instruments can not. In the Pianoteq software, for example, you can fine-tune every note for a key, save it, specify a different base key and the adjustments are transposed. Though I don’t think the complex timbres of a piano benefit from this as much as a synthesiser might.

  5045. musictheory 2019-10-28 19:48:06 mrclay
    It’s in a lot of major key pop songs with minor key borrowing. E.g. F - Fm6 - C. Well we know that middle chord is really iiø7 in 1st inversion. In a harmony vocal situation when A goes to Ab a singer on C will move to D almost instinctively. A proper minor key iio - i I’ve definitely analyzed a few. At [1:35 in this well known modern string quartet](https://youtu.be/rVN1B-tUpgs?t=95), in Bb minor there’s the progression Ebm/Gb - Cdim/Eb - Bbm. While effectively this is a minor plagal sound I’m sure I’ve seen a lot more iio to i where the “i” is really a cadential 6-4 suspension on V. So like Bø7 - Am/E - E - Am. More examples escape me at the moment.

  5046. musictheory 2019-10-30 00:18:19 brain_damaged666
    hes talking about chords, not individual notes. The structure of a Traid changes when moved around the scale Like C major is 1 3 5, while D minor is 1 b3 5. All notes from the same key, but the distance between the notes changes. Thats why the traid changes type from major/minor/diminished the names are all well and good, but you need to understand the intervals you can either use what i just talked about, using numbers 1-7 and flatting/sharping to get the other 5. Or just use half steps (or fret numbers. ) in half steps, a major chord is 0 4 7 frets, and minor is 0 3 7. the major scale is 0 2 4 - 5 7 9 11. notice how its 3 evens and 4 odds, easy to remember the major traid fits right in, you can see a 0, 4, and 7. But if you do the math, if you check the triad built on 5 and 7, it also works out to 0 4 7. take every other number from 7. 7 11 2. set the root to 0. the root is 7, so -7 everything for the 2, think of it like a clock. theres 12 notes. count down 7 from 2 on a clock, its 7. i like to just do the math normally, then add 12. It gives you the clock value. 2-7= -5 -5+12= 7 you only add 12 when its a negative. That just means it crosses noon, so you counting down from 12, not 10. That yields the 0 4 7 major triad shape. Try the same thing from 9. 9 0 4 the root is 9, so -9 everything 9-9=0 0-9=(-9+12)=3 4-9=(-5+12)=7 0 3 7 I didn't add 12 to 9-9, because 0 and 12 are equivalent; 12 is just 0 up an octave. In other words, adding 12 just moves up an octave but doesnt change the letter or accidental;its the same note. This is the minor shape. Theres another shape called diminished which only happens on 11 11 2 5 > 0 3 6 the major shape happens 3 times, on 0 5 and 7. minor happens 3 times, on 2, 4, and 9. Diminished only happens on 11 You can calculate these like i showed you, or just memorize them. I think its useful to know these numbers, because it correlates precisely to how many frets apart you shapes are. For a bass guitar, you know how to count frets. but you can do it not just up and down one string, but across strings. Each string is 5 frets apart. So simply moving up a string, but staying on the same fret, is the same as moving up 5 frets. With this, you can play these formulas. Just use the 0 4 7 and count it out you could play this shape - - 7 - - 0 - - - 4 or this one 4 - - 7 - - 0 - - - (see how if you go from 0, then up a string, thatd be 5 frets. so you go back one to get 4. same for 7, you go forward 2 frets from 0) or this one 7 - - - - - - 4 - - - - - 0 - (this time for seven you go up 2 stings to get 10 frets, then back 3 to get 7) idealy, you memorize the fretboard like a grid, and can recognize the intervals visually without counting or calculating. that stuff is just for learning the basics. eventually you should just play it by muscle memory without thinking about theory or shapes or anything. But you have to teach you hands to do it first

  5047. musictheory 2019-10-30 14:17:35 ing777
    For bowed string instruments, slurs indicate that the bow continues in one direction, while the notes you are playing change. This can be useful for two reasons. It can help groups of shorter notes feel more like one whole phrase, with the bow changing direction when the group feels finished. It also helps to keep the bow where you want it. A slur over a run of notes with an up bow will get you closer to the start of the bow, where it is easier to play more powerfully, sort of setting up for the next phrase. It can also help align the down bow with the first beat of the bar, because as it is easier to play with more power on down bows, they typically line up with the most powerful beats of the bar. That's just some stuff about it, but there is so much more slurs do than just things. Hope I helped :)

  5048. musictheory 2019-10-30 19:52:59 simffb
    I'd say that's exactly why OP is upset. Mystics grab a "real" concept, and build whatever they want on top. Even String Theory is used as a basis for mysticism.

  5049. musictheory 2019-10-30 21:57:58 anthonyspare
    This answered something I have wondered FOREVER! So you're saying that open E string on a bass would be **the line under the bottom G line on bass clef.** So the bottom G line of the bass clef would be 3rd fret G on basses E string?

  5050. musictheory 2019-10-31 01:15:59 ShittyShittyNameName
    Correct! And if you play the open low E string on a bass guitar and you play that exact same E note on the piano, the note written on paper is different for piano (it will be written one octave lower on paper).

  5051. musictheory 2019-10-31 03:28:29 BattleAnus
    From a timbral standpoint, distortion as an audio effect pushes waveforms towards being more and more like square waves, raising each odd harmonic of the sound and compressing the dynamics until the attack of the sound is near instant. In simple terms this means a very dense, very loud sound (depending on how high it sits in the mix). Additionally, most of the time there are multiple notes going into the distortion (think playing a chord on a six-string guitar, that's six individual tones) meaning that all those tones plus their odd harmonics up to thousands of Hertz high are all sounding at the same time. Basically the point is that distortion pushes things towards the most energetic sound possible: white noise. White noise is a sound with equal energy at all frequencies, and I would argue that is the "heaviest" (but maybe not most musically pleasing) sound we can hear.

  5052. musictheory 2019-10-31 08:15:01 chrishooley
    Compressed electric guitars with a fat bass, stadium drums, even some urgent strings, and reverb on snares is where the idea of heavy came from. So I agree that history kinda molded the idea of heaviness. But there are different types of heavy. Super dark machavellian organs can be heavy, especially in the lower registers. Lots of types of bass sounds can be heavy. Certain types of drums can be heavy. IMO electronic music has expanded on the previous idea of what heavy is, and IMO some of it is even heavier than the super chunky metal that is associated with heavy. For example, the heaviest song I can think of (according to my subjective view of what heavy sounds like) is EDM. It does have some electric guitar in it, but the electric guitar is outshined by the bassy fat fuzzy buzzy synths (link below for reference) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfHCHgWusHM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfHCHgWusHM) There's also some super heavy dubstep that is nothing like metal but is a newer way to interpret heavy, based on similar synths, which to me sound heavier than electric guitars with tube amped string basses. But, it's all subjective mate

  5053. musictheory 2019-10-31 16:49:46 digididoo
    Thanks, but to call it a Gsus2, doesn't it need an A? I play the A string muted. So it's just five notes.

  5054. musictheory 2019-10-31 16:58:47 Jongtr
    That's quite a common choice. The B on 5th string is superfluous anyway; G x D G B G is the complete chord, and many people think the low B just muddies the sound. And of course the power chord sounds purer too. There is an issue with the B anyway - which doesn't bother everyone - which is that in equal temperament it's a little sharp of the pure major 3rd interval with G. There's no getting round that, because if you tuned that string pure (14 cents down), then obviously every other note on that string would be flat by the same amount, making other intervals and chords out of tune. But the fact the ET note is 14 cents sharp means there is dissonance between the upper harmonics of the G and B strings, and some people's ears pick up on that, meaning they find those two open strings always sound somehow wrong together. (If you can play the 4th fret harmonic of the G string and 5th fret harmonic of the B string - the same note, in theory - you'll hear rapid beating between those two pitches. If you tuner reads the G string as in tune, it will register the 4th fret harmonic as flat.) Of course, every major 3rd on the guitar, in any chord shape, is "wrong" by the same amount, but somehow it seems more obvious on the open G and B strings.

  5055. musictheory 2019-10-31 17:39:26 MaggaraMarine
    Yes, I always leave the 2nd fret of the A string out. It just makes the chord sound muddy because it's in low register (thirds don't generally work that well in low register). No other open chord has a third in the low register. But sometimes you want to include the open B string (3 x 0 0 0 3). Then again, x 2 0 0 3 3 is a useful G/B voicing.

  5056. musictheory 2019-10-31 18:30:07 digididoo
    I include the open B string only when a specific song asks for it. Otherwise I skip both the B's.And I mostly use the G/B voicing when there's a Cadd9 chord. The two sound pretty nice when played one after the other as they have so many notes in common.

  5057. musictheory 2019-11-01 02:42:59 BeesInMyUrethra
    Best way I found is to think of how each note sounds and finding the common rhythm people use. So when you hear the first note you want to guess, play any note on your guitar and figure out in your head "is this note too low or too high * and move your finger up and down the frets to compensate . Eventually you should find the note exactly or come really close. If you find it impossible to find it then it's definitely on another string or a chord or played a unique way. But being able to guess where the notes come from gets easier and easier as you hear them so many times and eventually you might guess the note first try.

  5058. musictheory 2019-11-01 03:16:41 65TwinReverbRI
    Hmmm. Always do from low to high, so it's A string 9th fret, D string 8th fret, and G string 11th fret. That's actually F#, not E in the outer two strings. You have F#-A#-F# Actually it's a Dyad because it's only two *different* notes - one of them is just doubled and that doesn't affect the name of the chord or anything. It's just "voiced" with an extra octave over the root of the chord (assuming this is an F# chord). A "Power Chord" would be F#-C#-F#, and a Triad would be F#-A#-C# So this is just **implying** the Triad with only 2 of the 3 notes. So it's not inverted either - that is, assuming the F# is still the root. The primary benefits of doing this way are really mainly sonic - it just sounds different than a plain F#-A# dyad, and it sounds different from F# octaves or a power chord, or a full triad. But, it also has the potentially practical benefit of covering 3 strings which means there are fewer remaining strings. If you drop it two frets so it's E-G#-E, then the 6th, 2nd, and 1st strings can be added in - and they're E, B and E, so you get an E chord and still have the 3rd in the chord. It's common enough to slide octaves around so adding the 3rd just makes them imply major chords. You could play this shape on the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 10th, 12th, and even 14th (or 2nd) fret to get C, D, E, G, A, and B chords that all will "go with" those open strings (especailly the higher two) which will give you that typical open string jangly sound. It's a common guitar technique. BTW, you also put the "3rd" of the E chord as A, but that's G#. I think it will really help if you start thinking of your chords from low to high, because that's how we name them and the inversions - that can help eliminate some of those simple mistakes.

  5059. musictheory 2019-11-01 03:21:26 DRL47
    Your reading of the tab doesn't make sense. The eleventh fret on the G string is Gb. The eighth fret on the D string is Bb. The ninth fret on the A string is Gb. That is the root and third of a Gb (or F#) chord.

  5060. musictheory 2019-11-01 04:04:17 ChrundlesRatStick
    Wouldn't it be C#9 since the 8th fret on the G string is a D#?

  5061. musictheory 2019-11-01 04:08:45 Beastintheomlet
    Yup, you're correct. For some reason when I visualized the chord shape I was moving the G string a halfstep the wrong direction.

  5062. musictheory 2019-11-01 07:08:31 UzZzidusit
    I'm by no means a pro and to be honest I have no education in music theory(I kinda just save posts From here and never read them, I know I'm dumb) but whenever there's a new song I like, I learn most of it. What I try sometimes is when I listen to a song i try to find a note that I might recognise from another song or a chord and work my way from there. It's not the best strategy but after a while I've gotten quite good at it since after a while you subconsciously have an idea as to the next couple of notes(notes are higher? Go down the fretboard or go up a string. Lower? Go up the fretboard or down a string) it's not perfect in any way but it works for me

  5063. musictheory 2019-11-01 21:26:23 DRL47
    > In most jazz music, chords tend to move in fourths, and this is a long chain of fourths. Even though fifths and fourths are the same thing in different directions, it is better to think of these as a string of fifths (instead of fourths) because that also describes the *function*. Each chord is the fifth (dominant) of the next chord.

  5064. musictheory 2019-11-01 22:24:59 DRL47
    Whether it is major (dominant) or minor, each chord is the fifth of the next chord. That is the important function. Playing strings has nothing to do with whether something goes up a fourth or down a fifth. Theory is the same on all instruments. To me, strings go up a fifth, as that is the open string relationship.

  5065. musictheory 2019-11-01 22:49:44 Partsofspeech87
    You’re talking about dominant as a scale degree; I’m talking about dominant as functional harmony. It might be the fifth note of the scale, but it is not a dominant chord unless it has a major third and a minor seventh. I know that theory is the same for all instruments; what I meant was, as a bass player, I tend to start on a low note and then move up to the next string for the next chord , therefore I think of it as going up a fourth. It’s the same thing, but I think of it and talk about it in a certain way because of my specific instrument (like how brass players tend to be more aware of the relationship in the overtone series than piano players, for example).

  5066. musictheory 2019-11-01 23:59:28 respondee
    String band trio. Three songwriters, three singers, violin, viola, cello, double bass, guitar and the occasional keyboard. Strings player has a classical background and does folk singer type music. Bassist comes from a jazz and trad folk jam background and does oddball Residents-type stuff. I'm into the singer-songwriter and indie rock thing. We take turns leading.

  5067. musictheory 2019-11-02 11:23:11 Zarlinosuke
    P.S. As recently as Dvorak's E-flat major string quintette (published in 1894! score [here](http://ks4.imslp.net/files/imglnks/usimg/8/8a/IMSLP240099-SIBLEY1802.20922.d311-39087009249485score.pdf)), the seven-flat key signature needed in the third movement (p. 35) is printed in the cello part with the seventh flat placed an octave higher than you might guess.

  5068. musictheory 2019-11-03 06:19:07 achrious
    just to rephrase what other people have said, but as a fun maths question, this is only true whenever, if you write a scale as a string of H's and W's (e.g. major being WWHWWWH), there is some element of the cyclic group of the corresponding order such that its action gives you a "mirror symmetric" string. asking for which scales this will be the case is then a nice group theory question!

  5069. musictheory 2019-11-03 10:17:16 SanisiTiger
    The chord progression is primarily minor (even uses minor chords outside of the key signature several times). But it doesn't stay in the same key long; it modulates to different keys. Also it starts in ⁴/4 time but moves to ³/4 which can feel unexpected and unbalanced. And ALL of the instruments are creating tension with subtle changes to timbre. The vocalists did an amazing job. Tremolo in the string section. Staccato and accent notes happen SO often; it makes it exciting and urgent.

  5070. musictheory 2019-11-03 12:03:14 gotthattrans
    It sounds like this is in a non-standard tuning with low 3 strings likely C#-G#-C#. The open 5th/6th can be heard in the intro but aren't used too heavily it seems. The second chord doesn't really sound like that large/low of a voicing. A quick close-enough version in standard tuning would be something like xxx550 xxx552 xxx553 although there might be some notes omitted or doubled in the track. I'm guessing the 3rd string might actually be F# or G# but would have to spend more time listening for clues about that in the rest of the song.

  5071. musictheory 2019-11-03 16:47:42 ScallopOolong
    I've loved playing around with odd meters since forever. I don't really have a favorite. There's a simple but fun iphone app called Rhythm Necklace in which you can play around with meters in short repeating grooves. Musically it is very limited, but fun for exploring odd meters. I went through a spell where I took classical pieces, usually by Bach, and forced them into odd meters, sometimes constantly changing odd meters, and "reorchestrated" for synths. Just, you know, for fun (or as someone said in another comment, to be a jerk). [Example](https://soundcloud.com/pfly/contrapunctabtoose) (Contrapunctus IX, Art of Fugue) I was in part inspired to try such things by the Coda of Bartok's 3rd string quartet, [check it out](https://youtu.be/ux0GnilyF44?t=159). Or [this version with sheet music](https://youtu.be/FXFR2n8kUhM?t=829), though it isn't as exciting a performance.

  5072. musictheory 2019-11-03 20:31:55 Jongtr
    > **specifically American/UK patriotic?** Lyrics in English. Otherwise - assuming you're thinking of "patriotic" in a sense different from a national anthem (let's forget about the sound of national anthems, which are pretty much the same the world over) - it would employ instruments native to that country. That's tricky with America, because most instruments were imported from European countries. Are there any native American instruments? Of course, certain kinds of instrument *groups* are typically American, such as jazz bands. I believe the steel-string guitar was also an American invention (adapting the Spanish instrument of course), and the electric guitar certainly was. So a jazz group with an electric guitar. Playing the blues, or something bluesy, or with an element of jazz improvisation. Rock'n'roll is also American of course, originally - as is all African-American popular music. So it's hard to imagine a kind of music more patriotically American than some hybrid like jazz-funk. The theory of that music is wholly American. Likewise hip-hop or rap. What you don't want is a brass band, or a string orchestra, or anything like that, because that's too European. Of course they could play a jazz or rock tune - and maybe have lyrics rapped over it. Something that *swings,* not something martial - not unless by "martial" you mean the New Orleans march beat. So a New Orleans marching band (despite their use of European instrumentation) might be patriotic enough. Especially with a rapper delivering the lyrics. But a rock band would be better. For the UK, it's more problematic. Native folk culture in the UK is very feeble, generally treated as a joke. Such as morris dancing, concertinas and so on. Things like bagpipes are stirringly patriotic for Scots of course, and pipes are used in Northern England and Ireland. The problem for the UK is we take all our classical music from Europe and all our popular music from America. Obviously we create our own versions of it, but there's still nothing specifically "British" about those versions. Probably the most patriotic English song is "Jerusalem" (William Blake's lyrics), but of course the musical setting follows European classical practices. And it does have a strong Christian theme, which is a little out of date for contemporary UK - and of course it's about "England" not the whole UK. For the UK, of course, that's where "patriotism" gets problematic. England? Or Britain? Including Northern Ireland? Or just Wales and Scotland? Shouldn't they have their own patriotic songs? Personally I think the whole thing is ridiculous - and dangerous too. Patriotism is only one step away from nationalism. "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" - a quote from an Englishman about another Englishman, and more pertinent now than it has been for some time. My fellow countrymen have always, for the most part, found patriotic songs deserving of derisive laughter - and long may that tradition continue. That's one of the things that makes me proud to be British. (Not much else does.)

  5073. musictheory 2019-11-03 20:52:05 Jongtr
    > My guess, bottom to top: E G# C F# A Agreed. Played as x-7-6-5-7-5. I don't see any point in trying to work out a scale for it though. It works as V of the opening C#m chord, an altered G#7: #5(b13) - root - 3 - 7 - b9. I.e., to spell it strictly it would be E (or Dx) - G# - B# - F# - A. (If there is a scale it would be the G# altered scale - i.e. A melodic minor, so there's the connection with the minor iv.) Definitely a sophisticated jazz chord! But found intuitively, I suspect. Going for the aug chord they were familiar with, but adding pinky on 2nd string and allowing the 5th fret barre to continue to the 1st string. I.e., the inclusion of the A on top was probably a happy accident of the fingering, not any consciousness of jazz altered dominants.

  5074. musictheory 2019-11-03 21:28:32 MaggaraMarine
    There's definitely an F# in that chord, but I think it's in a higher octave. Behind the vocals, I'm also sometimes hearing a G#. It's definitely not a plain C major triad. It also sounds like it's not in standard tuning - you can sometimes hear a low open C# string (for example in the intro). I'm pretty sure the two top strings are B and E (I can hear the open high E ringing out in both chords, and in the first chord, it sounds like there's also an open B string), and I also hear a higher open C# string. The tuning could be C# G# C# F# B E (so, all fourths, except for the fifth between the two lowest strings). BTW, the chord isn't actually C major - it's probably better seen as a G#7#5, most of the time with C (or more accurately a B#) in the bass. The G natural is a pretty weird note over that chord, though (it would be the maj7 over a dominant 7th chord). Then again, you could explain it as a "blue note" - it's the b5 of the key. When it comes to the voicing of that chord, I'm hearing the open E string. I'm also hearing an F# in the same octave, and then I'm hearing a C a tritone below the F#. This would suggest that the F# is played on the B string and the E string is left open. If I'm correct about the tuning (C# G# C# F# B E), then the voicing would be something like x x x 6 7 0 (or x x x 7 7 0 in standard tuning). When the G note is added, it's probably played on the high E string (3rd fret), because you can no longer hear the open E string, but it comes back when he stops playing the G note. When he's playing the G, the only other note that I'm hearing in the chord is C. Behind the vocals I'm hearing a voicing that has from low to high G# B# E F# in it, which would mean that the voicing would be x x 7 6 7 0 (if I'm correct about the tuning). In standard tuning, the voicing would be x x 8 7 7 0.

  5075. musictheory 2019-11-03 22:52:20 Jongtr
    >I don’t hear the bottom A in AIG2D. Well, no. If they had tried that, their ears were good enough to realise that it didn't sound right - at least not for what they wanted to introduce that song. I.e. , John was after an introductory chord to lead into C#m. So why would he (or they) have chosen a weird kind of Am chord? I suspect they were thinking along the lines of Do You Want to Know a Secret, and its "mysterious" opening, in free tempo. All normal chords in that case, but in an odd combination. In that case it ends on a B7 (B13 in fact), but occurs to me that the shape in AIG2D is like a B7 shape but with the finger on 3rd string moved across to 2nd. I.e., x-2-1-2-0-x becomes x-2-1-0-2-x; then gets converted into a barre shape 5 frets higher.... Obviously I'm not saying that's how it came about, but I'm sure they would have played those kinds of games with chord shapes.

  5076. musictheory 2019-11-04 03:51:45 65TwinReverbRI
    FWIW, Db is consonant with F, so it can't really be a Suspension :-). It's maybe a "suspension figure" or the "consonant suspension" of 6-5 It's actually has more kinship with the "appoggiatura chord" found at cadences. In fact, ignoring the F bass note, that's exactly what it is. Because the G resolves UP, so it's not a suspension either :-) However it's pretty clear that the parallel 6ths is the unifying element here and it really is a string of suspensions so conceptualizing this first one as that makes sense as well. It's really the F note that's the problem. He's kind of playing with the equivalency between E^o7 leading to vi and G^ø7 (as the E moves to F, which a G^ø7 leads right to Ab as it should) which creates a duality of this vii^ø7 /IV being resultant of suspension figures. So I would say, it's both actually.

  5077. musictheory 2019-11-04 05:51:31 Dune89-sky
    Hallelujah - that was a marvellous example! Thanks! Seems WT rocks with >64th note flurries depicting..evolving nature. Waterdrops, threatening storms...busy ant nests...approaching buffalo.. The trick is to insert so many WT notes into a space it becomes a tapestry where you can’t really sense the WT scale any more. Genius. Debussy. Now how to do that on my 6-string. I guess I’ve gotta brush up my Eddie van Halen sweep tapping with WT! Gives me something to do with WT..for the next ... decade.🤨

  5078. musictheory 2019-11-04 08:32:32 spacefret
    Currently messing around with Guitar Pro and making the beginnings of a progressive piece with two 12-string guitars (one acoustic, one clean electric, submerged in chorus). It's mostly in 4/4 (all one minute of it) but I'm working on a 7/8 part that I'll probably make into a section with shifting meter.

  5079. musictheory 2019-11-04 14:52:01 IdiotII
    >Is it like that with every scale? Yes. >Would C# just be C#D#E#F#G#A#B#? Yes. >And if so then with the key of G# what would you call the regular G that turns up? Theoretically Fx (double sharp), but G# isn't a real key. >Would the scale need to be known as Ab major or can you have more than one variation of a note in a scale. It would be written in Ab, which has the exact same pitches, but they're spelled differently. This is mostly due to pragmatics of notation. There can't be a double flat or double sharp in a key signature in standard notation. The circle of fifths is more like a spiral of fifths. If you follow the circle of fifths all the way through, logically, we'd get: C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#, and then if we continue with imaginary keys... G#-D#-A#-E#-B#-Fx (double sharp)-Cx. We could continue forever and ever, constantly adding sharps to each key into infinity. But that'd be a nightmare to read and understand. We switch lowering and raising indications when a double would theoretically become part of the key signature, for pragmatic reasons. But that begs the question: how does one decide whether to write a piece in Db or C#? That depends on things outside of the notes themselves. What kind of ensemble will be playing it? Brass players would rather play in Db, while strings might prefer C#. It'll affect the intonation in performance, as string players finger C# differently than they would Db. Things like that.

  5080. musictheory 2019-11-04 19:37:38 Dune89-sky
    There is a great Emadd11 guitar voicing for those practice sessions: 0-0-0-0-0-0. That one gives the rhythm guitar player an opportunity to practice string (if insisting on muting the D string) and palm muting as LH fingers are taking it easy.

  5081. musictheory 2019-11-04 20:44:22 ge6irb8gua93l
    String players do just intonations? I've never done that. At least on purpose.

  5082. musictheory 2019-11-04 23:47:59 ge6irb8gua93l
    Sure, but those are two scales that aren't enharmonically equivalent, whereas Db and C# as scales are, because the root of the scale agrees to the pitch of the note on equal temperament system. Otherwise there's no reference, and if an arbitrary reference would be chosen, that would make the string player out of tune with their accompaniment. Or is there something I don't understand here? If Db and C# as scales share the same root pitch, won't their resulting degrees agree in pitches as well?

  5083. musictheory 2019-11-05 00:24:10 DRL47
    Read my reply again. Enharmonic KEYS have the same pitches for all the notes. String players play enharmonic NOTES differently when the function differently. Enharmonic notes are only different in relation to other notes.

  5084. musictheory 2019-11-05 00:58:12 Cello789
    I (try to) play all 5th as perfect. This is definitely not equal temperament, right? If I’m playing a C against a D (min7) I’d try to play the C that lines up with the natural harmonic of the D. That might not be the same as a C two perfect fifths below the D string. It might be a fifth above the F as a harmonic of G, but the real trouble is, say, the E (harmonic) on the A string compared to the low E harmonic on the C string. The cello is a resonant enough instrument that I never know if I should rather play middle C so it resonates with the c string or if it’s a 7th of D, to mute the C and try to bring out that lower harmonic overtone. If we played in equal tuning I think it would not be as nice. I think that’s part of why keyboard/programmed strings never sound quite as good. And of course I’m also a fan of romantic intonation where a leading tone (especially in a minor key) is raised up. In d minor id rather the space from C-C# is larger and the space from C#-D is tighter (because the c# isn’t a harmonic of the D string anyway, so there’s no pre-definition, except maybe being a 5th above the F# overtone of D? But I think sharper sounds better) I don’t know what my personal intonation system is called. Maybe it’s called pretentious and obnoxious... obnoxious, but consistent!

  5085. musictheory 2019-11-05 01:14:20 ge6irb8gua93l
    Okay, so how do string players then finger pieces in C# and Db differently, if their pitches and functions for equivalent notes are the same, as was stated there before?

  5086. musictheory 2019-11-05 03:46:13 17bmw
    Maybe I live under a rock, but isn't analyzing digital representations of sound its own branch of acoustics? And I've never seen a specific definition where acoustics is *only* (or even mostly) concerned with how sound propagates through space. I always thought it was the physics of vibrational waves and the ways we interact and study said waves. So what do you mean by acoustics in a "traditional sense?" Also, specifically caring about how sound propagates through mediums has been a compositional concern for music since the 70s. It's how we get things like Helicopter String Quartets or [Opera for Headphones](https://www.kcet.org/shows/artbound/invisible-cities-composing-an-opera-for-headphones). And [musical acoustics](https://www.kcet.org/shows/artbound/invisible-cities-composing-an-opera-for-headphones) seems to care a great deal about both how sound is represented digitally and how it actualizes. So again, why do we not consider acoustics to be music theory?

  5087. musictheory 2019-11-05 08:54:45 Outliver
    system's not always the same, though. Think "dots" on fretted string instruments

  5088. musictheory 2019-11-05 11:29:20 Portmanteau_that
    I mean this thought experiment totally gets rid of the need for 'sharps' and 'flats' anyway. All the keys could be white. Everything is just separated by a half step. It'd be like a giant guitar string, very simple. You'd just need some sort of marker for octaves

  5089. musictheory 2019-11-05 13:44:20 fictionwriter95
    Generally, for string instruments, you want a key where as many open strings as possible can be featured. This is because the open strings are (somewhat) more resonant than stopped strings, and also (potentially) make double, triple and quadruple stops easier to play (i.e. a C major chord with an open G, E sul D, C sul A). For cello, this means any key with C, G, D, and/or A. I like to use keys where the I, V, II and vi are open strings, so for cello, that means C major would be best IMO. Long story short, look at the melody you're working with and see what key preserves the melodic line while also allowing for as much use of open strings as possible. (BTW this is not saying never write anything for strings in keys that don't use open strings, like B flat or C sharp minor; I'm just a little paranoid about making my music interesting, while also being easy to play, since I'm a college student and most of my players are as well, meaning they're busy as heck and don't have time to learn a piece in D double flat major or something)

  5090. musictheory 2019-11-05 13:47:51 Joe10112
    Perfect. I'm a cellist, and though generally we want to avoid playing open strings (instead playing the "equivalent" note on the lower string), the sentiment is there. But the gist of your comment seems to be: "transpose it to whatever key you want, such that it's easy/nice for the cellist to play", correct? There are some double-stops in the piece, so I might try to transpose to a key that takes advantage of double stops resting on open strings or easy chords in the same hand position cross-strings. But perhaps that's sort of a "finish jotting down the music into the program, then auto-transpose and re-read the music, mentally playing the piece in my head with quick fingerings to see what key feels the easiest to read/play in"?

  5091. musictheory 2019-11-05 14:08:04 fictionwriter95
    Really? Huh, I'd never heard that before. Then again, I'm just a composer whose primary training is in voice and learned pretty much everything he knows about string instruments from orchestration books and YouTube videos, aka not a cellist, so I'd go with the guy who has at least some level of experience with the instrument in question, instead of the guy who read about a cello in a book once. Overall, yeah, that's what I was getting at: changing to a key that makes it so that the mere act of playing it isn't the hardest thing about it. Whatever that means in this specific instance is up to you, since you're already way ahead of me in terms of technical knowledge.

  5092. musictheory 2019-11-05 22:09:54 Joe10112
    Open string produces a more "ringing" sound, while the equivalent note on the lower string has a more "muted" sound, and since playing notes requires you to put fingers on the cello, sometimes it can be a bit jarring if you toss in an open string instead of keeping the same "tone" by playing the equivalent, if that makes sense. Also, you can't vibrato an open string. Not to say to never use open strings, but if possible most of the time I'll be looking to play the equivalent note to preserve the "feel" of the piece, since even though technically an open string has the same pitch/octave as its equivalent, musically the open string might sound a bit out of place (too much ringing).

  5093. musictheory 2019-11-05 22:11:33 Joe10112
    If you're curious, I just posted a comment below about why (at least to my knowledge) string players tend to avoid open strings. But this was very helpful, thanks! Will be focusing more on ease of playing when selecting a key to transpose into.

  5094. musictheory 2019-11-06 03:27:03 65TwinReverbRI
    Well you'd do much better on a Viola forum firstly. Secondly, your teacher should suggest advancing material. There just aren't many Viola Concerti or Sonatas, especially that aren't "advanced". You're probably far better off with the kind of material you're doing, as well as reading the Viola parts in String Quartets and Symphonies. That assume working with a trained Viola instructor who can help guide you.

  5095. musictheory 2019-11-06 05:59:08 65TwinReverbRI
    The low C has an overtone at the same pitch as the one on the G string. It is sympathetic vibrations. It's just imparting enough energy into that overtone to cause the entire sounding length to vibrate.

  5096. musictheory 2019-11-06 06:30:01 tdammers
    G is a harmonic of C, so the C string picks up the G. You may also hear a C sounding, but usually, the actual note resonating (G, in this case) will be more pronounced even on the C string, and it will keep sounding when you dampen the original (G) string. You can easily reproduce this effect on a piano: gently lower the low C key, such that the damper is released, but the hammer doesn't strike the string. You should not hear anything at this point. Now play a sharp, short note somewhere in low C's harmonic series (c, g, c', e', g', etc.); that note you played should keep resonating on the C string even when you stop the note you played. You can even make a whole c triad resonate on the low C string this way.

  5097. musictheory 2019-11-06 07:00:59 65TwinReverbRI
    They're playing a C note on the G string, not a G.

  5098. musictheory 2019-11-06 07:41:45 HAximand
    I'm not fully understanding why a string would vibrate sympathetically with its overtones. Is there a physical explanation for that? Am I just dumb?

  5099. musictheory 2019-11-06 10:14:17 65TwinReverbRI
    Sound is energy - it's displacement - air pressure fluctuations - it's a "mechanical wave", meaning it physically displaces air molecules. In kind of a simple sense, it creates wind waves :-) When a string vibrates - you've imparted energy into a string by plucking it (bowing, pizz, etc.) and causing it to vibrate, and that energy is transmitted through the air. Eventually it gets to our ear drums and causes them to vibrate as well. So in sense, your eardrums are "sympathetically vibrating" with all kinds of sound waves all the time - they're physically reacting to the fluctuations in air pressure caused by the vibrating string (it's the same reason your ears pop when you change altitude - it's a change in air pressure, so they react to it - they're designed to react to very minute fluctuations). Any object that is free to vibrate, will do so when energy is imparted to it. You can literally blow on a string and cause it to vibrate - but it's not a lot of energy right? So there won't be much volume. Now, if you could sit down with your cello, and play a low C, and had another cello right next to it - the C string on it is going to vibrate a LOT - because not only is it free to vibrate, and it's getting air pressure changes from the string you're playing's sound waves ("blowing on the string so to speak), but it's a lot more energy in a bowed note at volume, and resonance comes into play - because it's the same frequency, more of the original energy is imparted to the other string. Now, if you were to play a low D on your C string, it would also cause the open D on the other cello to vibrate - and that's because there's a D overtone in the lower D that is vibrating as well - and that imparts energy to the higher octave - it won't be as loud as the unison C notes, because there's less amplitude (about 1/2) but it still will impart energy. Now it works in reverse too - playing a higher C can cause the overtone of the lower C to vibrate, but since that's "part" of the string (which is why we call overtones "Partials" as well) it has to make the whole string move - that's just physics :-) But every vibrating object that makes sound produces physical air displacement that causes any other thing free to vibrate do so, but when the frequencies are the same or in correct proportions (resonance) it is able to "accumulate" more of the energy and vibrate freely itself. And string instruments - where a string is fixed a both ends, actually create standing waves when they vibrate, which means the wave essentially bounces back on itself to make the amplitude higher - so the low C can kind of "self-oscillate" more easily - and more loud than you think it would under these conditions. HTH

  5100. musictheory 2019-11-06 10:43:28 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, that's even easier. It's always the same shape except from strings 2 to 3, because they're tuned a M3 apart (4 semitones/frets) instead of a Perfect 4th apart (5 semitones/frets) 6th string 5th fret is A. 5th string 7th fret is E That's the interval of a Perfect 5th. If you play them together, you not only have that interval, but, it's a "Power Chord". So Power Chords consist of a Root, and P5 above (and it could have additional Roots and P5s in higher octaves above that). No matter what fret you start on, one string up (higher in pitch, towards the floor) and 2 frets higher is always a P5, except if you start on string 3 (you have to be 3 frets higher on the 2nd string to compensate for the difference in tuning). It might really help you to check this out: https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/music-theory-made-simple-0-index-toc.1371119/

  5101. musictheory 2019-11-06 10:48:08 ok_reset
    > But shouldn't the C string only vibrate when its exact resonant frequency is produced? The short answer is no. Think of the low C string as a kid on a swing: to make him swing, you need to push him 65 times a second (this is the frequency of the cello's low C). Now imagine that for some reason you've lost your sense of rhythm, and instead of pushing 65 times a second, you are pushing exactly twice as fast, 130 times a second (that's an octave higher than low C). You'll successfully push the kid, and then whiff the air when he's on the other side, and then make contact again. It's inefficient, but he's still swinging. So you can see how "driving" the system an octave higher than the resonant frequency can still create resonant motion. And you can see how the other harmonics of the resonant frequency will still be reasonably effective: pushing three or four times as fast, you make contact every time he swings back to you, but just have more "misses". You could even push at completely random intervals, mostly missing the rendezvous, and you would still by chance manage to add a little energy into the system at the resonant frequency. This would be the effect of blasting white noise at the string: it would only respond to successful "connections" at the resonant frequency.

  5102. musictheory 2019-11-06 11:05:30 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, this is kind of what the other poster was saying - A M3 is always 4 semitones. But 4 semitones is not always a M3!!! Go check out the link I sent you - it's a series I wrote for another forum. It's a lot of info but it's aimed at guitarists who want to learn more theory. You should really start from the beginning and work your way through it all, but you could jump to the Intervals (parts 1-4 I think) and read up on how they work - I give "practical applications on guitar" in many of the posts so people can not only do the theory away from the instrument (which you see many have suggested) but apply it to the instrument as well. But short answer, yes, if you're on G on the 3rd fret of the 6th string, and you go up 4 semitones (4 frets) you end up on fret 7 (3+4 = 7) and that's a B, which is a M3 above G. If you play a G Major Scale, you'll notice B is the 3rd note in the major scale (I go over all this stuff in that series). The one catch is, you can play a B 4 frets higher than G, or you could play it on the A string on the 2nd fret - so it's still 4 semitones higher, but it doesn't "look like 4 frets higher" because it's on an adjacent string. This is where it becomes important to understand how each pair of strings are related and where are you letter notes are so you can find everything quickly. So please check out that series - I think it could help you out a lot. Cheers

  5103. musictheory 2019-11-06 19:33:37 Jongtr
    I don't, but I'd suggest the CAGED system as a way of learning all the possible shapes for all 12 major chords, and then working out various I-IV-V sequences for yourself using those different positions. 3-string triad forms are also useful of course (rather than the full 5- or 6-string CAGED forms). [This](https://mattwarnockguitar.com/triads/) is a pretty good guide to those. Scroll down, and he works his way into shapes across more strings (basically the CAGED forms). These are useful for pulling out more open triad voicings - just pick a root 3rd and 5th in any pattern from any combination of strings. (Further down are the minor triad forms.) Again, once you get a handle on those - or at least some of them - you'll learn better by working out your own I-IV-V sequences.

  5104. musictheory 2019-11-07 07:06:40 caneut
    I do end with the F7 tho, kind of... Check the progression, Gm7 > C7 > F7 > F7sus2 here I play the F7 wih F C Eb A and C, but then the next measure I switch the A to a G, which kind of resolves it but might still lead to something desired, to which I play again Gm7 > C7 > F7sus > F73 This time, instead of playing the Gm7 on the 3rd fret root, I play it on the 10th fret root, and the 1st string plays D F D, the C7 is on the 8th fret root instead of 3rd, and 1st string plays C D C, then (I'm using a website for these chord names) the F7sus starts with a Bb changing to the A note transitioning it into the final F7 before starting the D#maj7 A#maj7 loop. I could be totally wrong and this could objectively not resolve, but it doesn't sound dissonant at all to me.

  5105. musictheory 2019-11-08 06:27:13 hardrenaissance
    There's no one formula/set of steps people in the 30s and 40s took to write the jazz standards that are played today. I don't have the research or anecdotes about how certain songs were written, but I'd guess that melody comes early on. Most of the jazz standards that have stood the test of time have very strong, memorable melodies, paired with interesting harmony. Sometimes, the harmony can even be fairly bread-and-butter, but as long as the melody is good, you have a strong tune. The more familiar you are with jazz harmony and song structure as well, the less complex the chord charts reveal themselves to be. Here's an analysis of Autumn Leaves: [https://i.imgur.com/N21Er3q.png](https://i.imgur.com/N21Er3q.png)23 chords! Wow! But when you view the tune as a series of mini-progressions (the ii-V-Is), you can see that Autumn Leaves is really just...two parts (a minor part, and major part), with a short bit that "falls down". **Autumn Leaves is only two things.** What's memorable about the tune isn't really the harmony (*it's been done before*), but how the melody memorably outlines the harmony. The jazz musicians who improvise on Autumn Leaves then, treat the chords as a canvas for their own melodic phrases. The melody is what sticks with you, but the canvas is what you're there for. Take a look at a slightly more complex standard, I Should Care: [https://i.imgur.com/8Zwt4a6.png](https://i.imgur.com/8Zwt4a6.png)Definitely a greater variety of chords - and I used more colors here, to indicate how it temporarily shifts to different key centers. Rather than understand this as a long string of random-ass chords, try to see this again, as a series of harmonic "chunks" that support a melody. Why are there so many chunks? The way I see it: two reasons. 1. Harmonic interest. The first four bars are really just an extended progression in C Major. The "Em, A7" doesn't "need" to be there, we could have just extended the Dm7 for a full bar, and the G7 for a full bar. It's there because it spices things up - it creates a sense that things are moving a little bit more, like "keep up!" 2. Changing harmony supports the melody. On bar 5, the Em7b5 \*sounds\* like we're moving away from the comfy home of C Major and into somewhere darker, sadder. If you instead just repeated the first Dm7 - G7 progression here, it'd sound totally different! Imagine seeing the lyrics on a sheet, and highlighting in different colors how you want lyrics to sound: happy? Pensive? Confused? Sorrowful? That's kind of what's going on here with changing harmony. Some songs are written chords-first, others, melody-first. But usually even when we come up with melodies in our heads, there is an underlying harmony there that we're assuming. When you hum "Happy Birthday" to yourself, your brain **probably** isn't hearing far-out jazz fusion changes under it.

  5106. musictheory 2019-11-08 23:47:20 cowsaysmoo51
    It comes from an old system of tuning called just intonation. Basically, you tune a long string to a certain pitch, then divide that string into various fractions of its length and use the frequencies created by those shorter string lengths (harmonics) to make their scales. These harmonic frequencies are whole number multiples of that initial string. And if you account for octaves, then you get some very nice ratios. An octave is 2x the frequency, a perfect fifth is 3/2, a perfect fourth is 4/3, a major third is 5/4, a minor third is 6/5, and so on. Eventually you end up with twelve distinct notes that are pretty evenly spaced.

  5107. musictheory 2019-11-09 00:04:17 Leisesturm
    Perfect pitch definitely has drawbacks if you don't have the financial resources to have a perfectly in tune piano. If you play an instrument that is transposing it can make life more difficult than not. Maybe that's why most people with Perfect Pitch gravitate to string instruments or voice.

  5108. musictheory 2019-11-09 00:05:55 Scatcycle
    When a sound occurs in nature, it is not simply one Hz, but rather a large set of Hzs: the overtone series. If you pluck a string and it sounds a C, you hear these frequencies: C C G C E G Bb and so forth. The intervals get pretty weird, but they become increasingly inaudible. Those frequencies sounding above the root are what we call overtones, or harmonics. A sin wave theoretically has no harmonics; it is just a single frequency. Our scales seem to be based off the harmonic series, and especially our tonic and dominant functions seem to be. The salient tones of C are C C G E C. As you can tell, the first time that *isn't* C is G. What if we take the overtone series from G? G G D G B. Put em together, you have C D E G B. Looks quite like the skeleton of your typical scale, eh? I won't tell you with certainty that this is why we experience scales and function the way we do, but it certainly is a good point.

  5109. musictheory 2019-11-09 00:06:44 Beastintheomlet
    The biggest reason is the overtone series. When you play any note on any instrument your ears perceive more than just that note, you also here harmonics or overtones of that note. So when you ears hear a middle C they hear the frequency or pitch of the C the most (the fundamental) but you also here the 5th, the octave, and many more ratios of that frequency. This is the reason why we like harmony, or notes played/sung at the same time because it's a very natural part of the way we hear sound. One of, if not the earliest tuning system was made by Pythagoras, a math nerd from way back. He discovered that using strings of different lengths made different sounds and that the simpler the ratio of the length of each the more those notes sounded good together. An octave is the simplest ratio of 2:1, if a string vibrates 200 times in a second or at 200hz (hz just means number of vibrations per second) a string twice as long would vibrate at 100hz and one half as long would vibrate at 400 hz but they'd all sound like the same note when played at once. The next simplest ratio is 3:2, which is a perfect fifth. The octave and perfect 5th are also the two loudest overtones we can hear. Pythagoras' method for tuning however was all about that perfect fifth. So if you take a note, find it's perfect fifth, and then find it's perfect fifth and so on and then you find the octaves for each of those notes you'd have Pythagorean tuning. This results *more or less* in 12 notes before it starts over. The problem with Pythagorean tuning is that it wasn't adaptable between keys. Every note's pitch was decided by whatever note you'd start on and you could end up with some nasty sounding intervals that way. Through history there have been many other tuning systems that improved and changed the way music was made and heard. Around the 1700s equal temperament started to become standard, which is instead of using all these complex ways of establishing notes and exact ratios we basically dived each octave into 12 evenly spaced notes. The means that except for the octave none of the notes you and I are used to are exactly perfect ratios, even the perfect fifth in equal temperament is tad flat. But, and this is important, it means we can use all 12 keys on every instrument and we can we modulate between them. In Pythagorean tuning and those systems you couldn't really modulate between keys. Disclaimer: I'm just some dude who loves theory and wrote this out in a word doc when he was supposed to be working. This is all from memory and I'm sure I got a bunch of details wrong, if you you're interested in tuning and stuff like this there are plenty of articles, encyclopedias and videos that will do better than me. If the idea of using more notes between octaves is up your alley the search word would be 'mircotonal music' of which there are many different systems, the most common being 24 TET which is putting 24 notes between octave.

  5110. musictheory 2019-11-09 02:39:44 cowsaysmoo51
    Yeah, if you take a note (let's go with A since you mentioned it). The A string on a guitar vibrates at exactly 110Hz. If you double it you get 220Hz, which is the next highest A. Double that and you get 440Hz. In fact, our whole tuning system is based on that particular A being exactly 440Hz. There are other systems such as A432, A428, and stuff. So the pitch that is called "A" is slightly different than what most songs use. As far as fifths, thirds, etc., understanding those comes down to understanding note names. So we typically use 7 of the 12 notes in a scale. A common example is C major, which has the notes C D E F G A B. No sharps or flats. Other major scales will have one or more sharps or flats (A major has A B C# E F# G#). If you count from the root of the scale up, that's how we determine intervals. Let's stick with C major. The interval from C to G is a fifth, because that interval contains five letter names (C D E F G). A *perfect* fifth is when that interval spans seven half steps (or keys on a keyboard). Not all fifths in a scale are perfect. B to F is only six half steps instead of seven, so we call that a *diminished* fifth. There is also an *augmented* fifth, such as from G to D#, which spans *eight* half steps. Both the diminished and augmented fifths are wildly more dissonant than the perfect fifth (hence "perfect"). The perfect fifth is significant because it very closely matched the 3:2 ratio from the old tuning system. The perfect fourth works the exact same way, but the notes are in the opposite order (C above G instead of C below G). There is also a perfect octave (2:1), and a perfect unison (1:1), which is just playing two of the exact same pitch. Once the ratios get more complex than the 4:3 perfect fourth, we drop the "perfect" label. There is a major third (5:4) and a minor third (6:5). They are called "thirds" because they span three letter names (C D E). Major thirds span four half steps, and minor thirds span three (minor intervals are a half step lower than their major counterparts). There are also major and minor seconds (C to D or E to F), major and minor sixths (C to A or E to C), and major and minor sevenths (C to B or D to C). Another helpful tip, when you invert an interval (moving the bottom note up an octave), major becomes minor and vice versa, and diminished becomes augmented and vice verse. Perfect intervals remain perfect when inverting. The numbers of the original and inverted intervals always add up to 9 as well. A major third inverts to a minor sixth. A minor seventh inverts to a major second. A perfect fifth inverts to a perfect fourth. And so on.

  5111. musictheory 2019-11-09 05:00:40 markjohnstonmusic
    What? Nonsense. I don't have a perfectly in-tune piano. Pianos can't be tuned perfectly anyway, for both physical and mathematical reasons. And they have a lot of inharmonicity in their sound, which makes it hard to hear exactly whether they're in tune. And perfect pitch doesn't really relate to hearing exactly whether something is in tune or not. Transposition is a difficult skill to learn whether you have perfect pitch or not. People with perfect pitch don't gravitate to string instruments. Rather, string instrument players (as well as pianists, about whom you seem to have forgotten) more often have perfect pitch, and that's because they tend to start earlier (aged 3-6) than, say, winds (8-14) or singers (up to well into adulthood)—who by the way are by far the least common candidates for perfect pitch.

  5112. musictheory 2019-11-09 22:34:34 RsCrag
    Pretty good. Remember that the chords might be simpler than the melody line suggests. Only the string beats of a fast series need to be in the scale for the triad. As a song progresses, the passing tones will often go further afield. We're not talking Stravinsky here. Learning chord voicings and comping will help you shortcut understanding the chord structures of songs.

  5113. musictheory 2019-11-09 22:45:15 cocoa_naut
    > Only the string beats of a fast series need to be in the scale for the triad. As a song progresses, the passing tones will often go further afield. I'm trying to decipher this. I think you meant "strong beats". But I'm still not sure what you mean. Are you saying that in a fast-changing melody, the notes being played on the strong beats are usually in the scale. The notes NOT being played on the strong beats are usually passing tones/chromatic steps?

  5114. musictheory 2019-11-09 23:04:09 tehwoflcopter
    Just string the string's notes together bar by bar, they'll understand what you want.

  5115. musictheory 2019-11-10 02:18:37 Disney_Jazzcore
    Thank you for replying u/MaggaraMarine (will reply to your other messages soon) The reason I asked is that I was researching black metal genre [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETGYLRaheFE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETGYLRaheFE) And the person says roughly "You can leave the open E and A strings while playing notes on the D string (fretting) or leave the open E and play the notes on the A string (fretting)." While I thought this could be a pedal point I was sure. Black metal can be chromatic so that means depending on the note E and A could or could not be a "pedal point" (dominant/tonic) and since E and A are a fourth apart, can it still be considered a pedal point?

  5116. musictheory 2019-11-10 02:19:53 Disney_Jazzcore
    The reason I asked this is below, I'm just going to quote what I mentioned to u/MaggaraMarine (excuse me, hehe) >The reason I asked is that I was researching black metal genre [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETGYLRaheFE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETGYLRaheFE) > >And the person says roughly > >"You can leave the open E and A strings while playing notes on the D string (fretting) or leave the open E and play the notes on the A string (fretting)." > >While I thought this could be a pedal point I was sure. Black metal can be chromatic so that means depending on the note E and A could or could not be a "pedal point" (dominant/tonic) and since E and A are a fourth apart, can it still be considered a pedal point?

  5117. musictheory 2019-11-10 02:45:12 MaggaraMarine
    It's really not a pedal point - it's just the bass note (or the root of the chord). He's not changing chords, he's just playing the root of the chord on an open string and playing a melody over it on another string. A pedal point is something that's held over different chords. So, you need at least two different chords over a single note for it to be considered a pedal point. In this case, there are no chord changes over the open string. The riff that alternated between open A and open E strings sounded more like IV I progression in E minor to me.

  5118. musictheory 2019-11-10 02:59:18 japaneseknotweed
    It really is called "staggered bowing". Often indicated by putting the Down/Up bow symbols right next to each other, at the very beginning, *in parentheses*. There should be a website/wiki page with all the string markings somewhere; the best guides are in college-level orchestration textbooks. I bet Berklee has a good one in its online college bookstore.

  5119. musictheory 2019-11-10 03:08:58 Disney_Jazzcore
    So, the person would play E and A open string while playing riffs or different notes on the D string Or E and playing different notes on the A string along with the open E. Kinda like Pitch Axis Theory maybe? Having E and A as constant and maybe changing the notes on the D It would be E-A-D# or E-A-G# or something... any of the 12 notes on the D with a constant E and A on the bass. This ^ above is not a pedal point? What could be call this? So, on my Bass if I rang the open E and played melodies on the high G, then can E be considered a pedal point? If though the scale I play on the G does not define E as a dominant or the tonic? Ok thanks for replying!

  5120. musictheory 2019-11-10 03:55:08 cocoa_naut
    Haha I was googling “string beats” 😂😂 I’ve looked a little into bebop scales. They have an extra note right? I’ll look into. Thanks!

  5121. musictheory 2019-11-10 04:31:34 65TwinReverbRI
    Rock players - excepting those working in styles definitively linked to classical music - don't "use" voice-leading in the way it's meant in classical music. Or at least, as writers, they don't "implement" it or "think about it" in the same way. For example, Voice-Leading is really about how each note in a chord moves to a note of the next chord. In classical music, where very often a single instrument plays a single note of a chord - such as 4 vocalists each on a note of a chord - how each singer moves to their next note is "voice-leading" (hence the name). When a guitarist strums a 4 string D chord then changes to a 6 string E chord (as what might happen in Norwegian Wood) they don't really think about it - or even care about it - it "just happens" because of the way a guitar is laid out. Or rather, "what happens happens" because if you play the standard "cowboy chord" shapes for D and E (or whatever) you don't really have any control over where the notes go - they kind of go where they have to go, and since it's going from 4 to 6, "extra" singers are suddenly added, or, two were singing one note before and then split off - which isn't what really happens on guitar. Now, when we talk about the vocal harmonies in The Beatles, that's a more typical place to find voice-leading in action. But it's questionable whether or not they were as concerned with where each note went - it their case it would mostly be "as long as it was a note of a chord and didn't double any other part" - though obviously The Beatles were generally more "composerly" about their harmonies than a lot of other groups (Because being a great example - but then, again, that approaches more "classical" composition, as do so many of George Martin's string arrangements, etc.). I take "Voice-Leading" in Rock (or any pop genre for that matter) with a grain of salt. It's not that it "isn't there" necessarily, but that it's more just a result of what happens, rather than carefully thought out like it is in contrapuntal music (and where classical music voice-leading stems from). Now, all of that is not to say it can't be a useful thing to study and learn about, and for those instances where it is more intentionally used it can be helpful in analyzing it and recreating things like that yourself. IOW, George Martin certainly studied, and probably had a lot more influence than we know in sculpting Beatles vocal harmonies - and none of the Beatles themselves could have probably written the arrangements for all the horns and strings in most of the pieces (maybe McCartney could have come close at least later in life). But simply put, it's not a "major component" of Rock music. It's not even a minor component. It's an afterthought in most cases, if it's a thought at all, except in specific situations. As far as Modes are concerned, Mixolydian and Dorian are the two most commonplace and there is a ton of modal music as well as sections and interjections, so they're definitely good to understand. But Phrygian and Lydian are pretty rare outside of a "hint" of them in a piece (and debatable to if they're even actually present in many cases). So they're not as big a deal to worry about. _____ I wouldn't worry about being "knowledgable" versus "expert". I would say, that you know, you can use if you need to or want to. But if you don't know it, you can't use it even if you need to. So it's always better simply to learn as much as you can. But, it's also helpful to have a "guide" as it were (a teacher) so you don't spend too much time on something you don't really need to know at all, or at least, initially. It's important to get the "core" stuff down - so, to be "competent" then move to "proficient". But more importantly, to be that way *in the style of music you're interested in*. IOW, don't spend months learning Counterpoint if you're interested in Rock music - it's simply not present in that way (or again, in any direct way where people are intentionally using it outside of particular situations) and it's not going to really help you "understand" the music all that much. Instead, learning to play the songs, and just figuring out **what** it is you like (not "why" you like it) is going to be much more beneficial to you in the long run as a musician.

  5122. musictheory 2019-11-10 05:21:04 65TwinReverbRI
    Don't forget though that historically speaking, the guitar is really more a Tenor instrument and would have benefitted from using Tenor clef. Also, older guitars (and lutes) had fewer frets and didn't extend above even the treble staff, so it just simply evolved that way. Since I learned piano first, I actually had no problem reading Grand Staff on guitar (knowing about the octave transposition). I suppose it's our fault for putting 21, 22, 24, or even 36 frets on a guitar, and then adding a 7th (and 8th, etc.) string to the mix ;-)

  5123. musictheory 2019-11-10 05:33:28 kisielk
    Yeah, I understand the historical background for it, but that doesn't really make it any easier when having to read the music. I only need to do this for a jazz band I joined recently so thankfully I'm just playing a regular 22-fret 6 string guitar. I do wish more score authors would make use of 8va and 8vb instead of writing long sections above or below the staff, would make it a lot easier to follow I think. I'd hate to try to read a score written for 8 string guitar on treble clef, I'll stick to tabs for that!

  5124. musictheory 2019-11-10 07:52:25 FixGMaul
    Not at all common in orchestral music, but there is this electric guitar gadget called e-bow which you put against the string to produce a continuous vibration against the string and maintain the note for however long you'd like.

  5125. musictheory 2019-11-10 10:45:18 clarkcox3
    Just mark the notes as slurred or tied, any string player in an orchestra will know what to do.

  5126. musictheory 2019-11-10 12:49:36 65TwinReverbRI
    >The classic "I V VI IV", for example, Do you mean like C - G - **A** - F? >but i think it's a fundamentally different thing) As do I. See earlier discussion today about "tonality" (or "Tonality with a capital T" as I call it). This music is something different. However, the point of analysis really is comparative. We look at thousands of songs, analyze them, and then determine if they're similar or not. That's how we identified the "common practice" period - we looked at thousands of pieces and realized that they're pretty much all similar harmonic foundations and frameworks underneath - thus a "common practice". There are "common practices" in many genres - Blues with the 12 Bar for for example. Analyzing that will tell us it's not CPP music, but it will also tell us that "Kiss" by Prince is still using the same underlying foundation as "Gimme One Reason" by Tracy Chapman which is the same as Robert Johnson was. Thus we can call them "Blues" or at least "12 Bar Progressions". Just because the music is modal, or not tonal, or not functional, doesn't mean an analysis can't reveal things - in fact, it should reveal it's not functional/tonal (hence the issue with people broadening the definition of tonality) and operating on some other principle. Which it will. And yes, the RN system has also become a "transposing aid" in a sense - just like Nashville Numbering. It's just there to name the numbers! So we can play it whatever key we want (however there's nothing more annoying then when someone posts a string of Roman Numerals with a question when there's no need for that - just post the actual chords!). So they're useful on both counts IMHO and IME.

  5127. musictheory 2019-11-10 22:27:28 tdammers
    > Like, a ragtime blues stride is only possible when blues notes are on the black keys. What? No. That's nonsense. Some licks are easier in such keys, some are harder. You have to apply different techniques depending how a lick falls in a given key, but it's never truly impossible. And "stride" doesn't have anything to do with it at all: "stride" means that the left hand alternates bass (usually in octaves) on 1 and 3, and some chord voicing on 2 and 4, jumping ("striding") back and forth between the two, while the right hand plays melodies or filler licks. That left-hand stride can be done in any key; it's a bit easier to accurately hit the right keys when they're white, but this is just a matter of precision practice, and absolutely doesn't make it impossible either way. > I've seen many jazz pieces in Eb, Ab, Db, Bb although it's harder to play, why? Because the dominant front-line instruments in the formational eras of jazz music (swing, bebop, hardbop) are saxophones, trumpets, and, to a lesser extend, trombone. Saxophones are written in Bb (tenor) and Eb (alto and baritone), trumpet is written in Bb, trombone is written in C but tuned in Bb (so Bb is still easier to play than C). Playing keys far away from C is easier on piano or double bass than on a wind instrument, so for convenience, jazz folks would generally prefer keys close to C major / A minor on those dominant instruments, which puts you somewhere between C major and Db major in concert pitch (which is D major through Eb major for Bb instruments, A major through Bb major for Eb instruments). > What are the same effects for all the other genres? The mechanism is pretty much the same across genres, and differences are due to the dominant instruments. A few examples: In classical music, the dominant instruments were the piano and the violin (and to a lesser extent, viola and cello). On the piano, "white keys" are easiest, and sharp keys are somewhat easier to play than flat keys; on the violin, most sharp keys sit more nicely in the harmonic spectrum of open strings than flat keys (e.g. Eb and Bb are not part of the lower harmonic series of any of the strings on a violin, but B, F# and C# are), so violins (and, by extension, string ensembles) tend to sound more brilliant in sharp keys. Hence, classic repertoire tends to prefer keys like C major, G major, D major and A major, unless the composition is intended to sound dark, in which case composers would use flat keys (F major, Bb major, Eb major, or their relative minors) on purpose. In rock music, the dominant instrument is the (electric) guitar, and hence, keys that are convenient on the guitar are most popular: A major, D major, G major, and their relative minors. In organ music, we have the added peculiarity that many historical instruments use a tuning system other than tempered, in order to be able to reuse pipes for harmonics (e.g., the organist might choose to mix a pure fifth into the registration, to create a richer timbre, but this only works when the fifth is actually pure, which isn't the case in a well-tempered tuning). However, deviating from well-tempered means that keys close to the reference will sound good (e.g. C major), while keys far away from it will sound absolutely awful (e.g. F# major). Hence, old organ music will often stay close to C major, and particularly avoid keys where you don't get pure fifths in the most important chords. Irish and Scottish folk music make heavy use of instruments that aren't fully chromatic (e.g. tin whistles, bagpipes), so keys are generally chosen such that they can be played on the instruments at hand. A tin whistle player, for example, would typically bring several instruments, but not a full set of 12, so they'll be limited to whatever they have on them, which might be e.g. C, D, E, G and A.

  5128. musictheory 2019-11-11 10:04:04 DRL47
    Tuba reads at concert pitch. String bass reads an octave higher than it sounds. So, you transpose the tuba music up an octave for string bass.

  5129. musictheory 2019-11-12 17:32:20 driftingfornow
    Sorry to a degree I agree with you but there’s parts where the waters get muddied for sure. I fancy myself as a songwriter first and foremost, but every now and again I sit down and connect with my classical roots and write out some sheet music in a notation program. I don’t like listening to baroque music hilariously but that’s where my melodies tend to go a lot. If I write a waltz in classical style for a four piece string ensemble, then export the music as midi, import it into a daw, then assign it to synths and various things and then mix that, was the final product produced, composed, or both? I’m actually curious (I don’t have a dog in this race btw) of your viewpoint just because I find the semantics of classification to be entertaining. I would also as an easier follow up ask: If I write a jazz piece on staff (the chords and notes not the words), is this composition or songwriting?

  5130. musictheory 2019-11-13 01:17:09 Zarlinosuke
    I'll offer a contrasting point of view to what the other poster said: every piece that is in a key is also in a mode, and vice versa--they're simply different parameters that neither cancel each other out nor imply different harmonic languages (at least, I'd argue it's not helpful for these terms to be used in this way). If a piece uses only the pitches C, D, E, F, G, and A, as in your example, the term I'd use for that might be that it's "modally underdetermined"--it's clearly major, but it honestly *just doesn't matter* whether it's Ionian or Mixolydian, because it's neither and both, and it's simply not a distinction that's important to the piece. One somewhat related example that comes to mind is the third movement of Beethoven's A minor string quartet, op. 132, which is famously labelled as Lydian by Beethoven and, indeed, is in an F major that has no key signature and uses no B-flats. Most of the piece feels more as if its tonic is C rather than F, though in its final section, Beethoven returns us to F by simply avoiding B altogether--there are no B-flats, but also no "characteristically Lydian" B-naturals.

  5131. musictheory 2019-11-13 15:10:33 TaigaBridge
    Part of the problem is that tenuto doesn't mean the same thing in all contexts. The book definition is "hold for the full value of the note" but in string parts, it means something more like "very deliberately start and end the note" -- which means we actually leave a brief but clearly audible gap between consecutive notes, rather than playing them legato as we might if there were no marking. Quite the opposite of what you might expect looking at it on paper (and not quite the same thing it means to a pianist.) I think of it as "an accent, but not concentrated at the beginning of the note" - add intensity to the beginning middle and end of the note.

  5132. musictheory 2019-11-13 17:54:04 tdammers
    Depends on the genre I would say, and also on the practicalities of performing. If you're writing for a jazz combo, the situation is probably going to be such that there will not be a lot of preparation / rehearsal (I've often performed with a completely unrehearsed band, sometimes even just handing out lead sheets an hour or so before show time), and musicians will have to not just follow their written parts, but also improvise, which means they will benefit a lot from being able to see the form of the composition at a glance. 4- or 8-bar lines (2 if it's Black Page levels of crowded, 16 or even 32 if there's just improv over modal harmony going on or some such) are essential for this. OTOH, if you're writing for a classically trained string quartet, they will execute the sheet music to the letter, and the need for understanding the form is much smaller. Classically trained musicians will also either be excellent sight readers, or they will prepare thoroughly, or both. Due to the performance culture associated with classical music, things like turning pages can be disruptive, and thus, laying out the parts to minimize things like page turning at critical points in the music, and to comfortably fit the music on the smallest amount of sheets, is more important than following the musical form, so for those genres, a strict 4-bars-per-line layout is often going to be detrimental.

  5133. musictheory 2019-11-13 23:49:47 ok_reset
    > Tenuto seems to imply that if there was no Tenuto, I would cut off the end of the note. That just sounds like lazy and unprofessional playing to me. Believe it or not, this is the default articulation for keyboard music pre-19th century. > Before ca. 1800, the keyboard articulation now called “ordinary touch” was applied to notes without staccato marks or slurs. This touch was achieved by lifting the finger from one key just before playing the next. This manner has a distinctive component: the separation or silence between notes. It seems that this style of execution was suggested only “as a point of a departure.” 10 In addition, the preferred degree of separation varied among authors in the eighteenth century. While C. P.E. Bach (1714-1788) preferred a half of the note's value, Daniel Türk (1756-1813), in his Klavierschule of 1789, suggested a shorter separation. [Dissertation link](https://uh-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/10657/2646/SEOH-DOCTORALESSAYMUSICONLY-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) So you can see how a tenuto marking could indicate to hold for most or all of the note value (still keeping a brief break in the sound), which might also imply *ritenuto* or *rubato* in the tempo. Since wind and string players have a few more dimensions of articulation than keyboard players, tenuto and portato make more literal sense.

  5134. musictheory 2019-11-14 02:27:50 Shadow-of-Deity
    That's not what it means for string instruments. What you describe would be normal planning. Not once have I left a clear gap when playing a tenuto on cello. I only make the attack clear.

  5135. musictheory 2019-11-14 10:33:27 Cryptonomicon63
    Well if it was me I would do soemthing completely different and start with the question of which note is closest to another note. The one next to it on the fretboard or the one with the closest ratio to it in terms of the number of multiples of a vibrating piece of a vibrating piece of string of one wavelength to be equal to an integer multiple of the other. If one piece of string is an integer number of wavelegths it is an octave - these sound good together. Try the note next to it - major second (ratio 9:8) it would take 9 lengths of one piece of string to be equal to 8 of the other. Not real close at all - Play them together - yuk!!! What about the closest non integer ratio of 3:2. That is it would only take 3 of one to be equal to two of the other - called the dominant or perfect fifth - but where is it on the fretboard What if we play them together - Hey power chords!!! If it feels good once do it again - so lets divide this interval in half again to get your major third and play them together - Hey major chords! Lets do it again from the other side of the dominant to get the sixth - Hey Pentatonic Scale!! So why do notes sound good together - why do they make chords and why are scales the way they are? because they are close - but not close spatially, but close mathematically - its all math etc etc etct

  5136. musictheory 2019-11-14 23:17:29 vornska
    >I'm particularly interested in the theoretical consequences of what happens when we treat the fifth the same way we've treated the half-step. For example, what would a map of trichordal set space look like if we treated motion by fifth as parsimonious? A big challenge here is making the circle of fifths continuous. Parsimonious voice leading is a useful model largely because it works with a continuous geometry: I know intuitively what it means to move from A to B, to move half the distance from A to B, and even to move a quarter of the distance from A to B (etc). But it's far from obvious what similar questions would mean in circle-of-fifths space. Half the distance from A to B is E (or B-flat), but what's a quarter of the distance? So the circle of fifths relies on our quasi-arbitrary decision to divide pitch space into 12 steps than the regular pitch-class clockface does. That doesn't necessarily mean it's useless -- but certainly at least counterintuitive. Let's try to imagine the T7 relationship between {C,E,G} and {G,B,D}. This feels like it ought to be the right place to explore such relations, since it's dealing with canonical harmonic objects & relations, and we're using T7 which ought to be modestly parsimonious (equivalent to considering T1 on the clockface). And it's true that each voice only has to move one step under T7: C->G, E->B, G->D. But if we consider the usual voice leading between the sets, it's probably C->B, E->D, and G->G. That's horrendously unparsimonious from a fifthy perspective: E moves down two steps while C moves up 5. Way worse than the organum voice leading that we started with. The exact parallel to a parsimonious PL voice leading (e.g. C,E,G -> B,E,G# under T4) would be (0,1,4) going to (5,8,4) also under T4. Abstractly it's pretty cool that this works, but it's hard for me to imagine a musical sense in which this ought to be the "closest" possible voice leading from (0,1,4) to its transposition. Maybe if we're writing a piece for scordatura string trio; 014 to 584 models two of the players shifting up/down one string on their instrument.

  5137. musictheory 2019-11-14 23:43:36 Jongtr
    Let's sort ouf those enharmonics: Your first chord is A-E-G-C# = A7. Your second is F#-C#-F# = F#5. Your third is B-E-B = E5. These last two are power chords - as is the D5 of your verse. You're right that all these are diatonic to D major, and if D is the only chord in your verse then it's very likely to sound like the key. The A7 of chorus would then sound like V in D major, probably not like a central "I" in A mixolydian - although it doesn't really matter much either way. Likewise, the implication of the F#5 and E5 chords is that they would be minor (the ear would fill in an A on the F#5 and a G on the E5). So much for theory. ;-) I'm not sure chords alone (or modes) will help you get the sound you want. "Lively" is usually about tempo - something fast, or with a strong beat. "Grand" is more about production effects or orchestration (massed brass, strings?) "Outer space" is more about timbre, especially synths, or "unearthly" sounds like the theremin. You can get "darkness" or "mystery" with surprising chromatic chords, or dissonant extensions, but those things are still secondary to the above effects. And they tend to have the opposite effect to "lively" or "grand", for which major keys and chords are best. You might find turning the D chord into Dmaj7 will have a usefully "expansive" effect. That would be 0-2-2-2 on your top 4 strings, and you can probably work out a lower voicing on your bass strings if you want one. (D bass on fret 3 of the 7th B string?) There's nothing "lydian" about your sequence yet, btw. (What made you think there was?) A nice D lydian chord for a 7-string would be 3-x-0-4-2-2-4

  5138. musictheory 2019-11-15 00:33:20 TheChurchofHelix
    Microtones on guitar are fine; plenty of folks play fretless guitars or add temporary additional frets to play whatever maqam a particular piece requires. Also: Tolgahan Çogulu, a Turk, has invented a guitar with independent movable fretlets for each string.

  5139. musictheory 2019-11-15 05:23:30 BlueHatScience
    Glissando and portamento are indeed important aspects (which I momentarily forgot about entirely - thank you for bringing it up!). One might also mention the specific shape of many of of these, namely how both due to specific phrasing ("slide-ins" and "slide-outs" on plucked or bowed string instruments) and due to the way some instruments are built and played, you get notes with a pitch-envelope in addition to the "usual" amplitude envelope (rising/falling pitch during the sounding of a single note). This is part of what I glossed over with "involving quarter-tones".

  5140. musictheory 2019-11-15 17:05:09 Jongtr
    Not entirely sure which chord you mean, but I guess the one between the lines at 2:14-16? That's Dm7b5: D-Ab-C-F. Translated to guitar shape (capo on fret 5), that's x-0-1-0-1-x, which looks like A-Eb-G-C. That kind of fits your description It's just possible he's leaving the first string open by accident

  5141. musictheory 2019-11-15 20:04:26 Jongtr
    Right. So I take it I've got the right chord? I'm as sure as I can be that it's x-0-1-0-1-x (measured from the capo, looking like Am7b5). Actual frets x-5-6-5-6-x, concert Dm7b5. Sounds spot on when I play it on guitar. My Transcribe software (FWIW) shows frequency peaks at Ab-C-D-F, but the D is actually the octave lower, and it's the overtone the software is picking up. The actual D played (fret 5 5th string) appears as a much lower peak. There is no A natural anywhere.

  5142. musictheory 2019-11-15 23:55:18 Dune89-sky
    There is a beautiful song [Padre - Tommy Emmanuel (played by David Bigsby?) ](https://youtu.be/4F8pJNUYcTk) with a gorgeous outro at 4:44-5:00. Drop D tuning, capo 2nd fret, so E major. If we disregard the bass tone the chords are like yours but add the empty first string E (F#): Fmaj7,Fdim(addE),Gm7/6,Dadd9: ||:0-x-7-5-6-0 | 0-x-6-4-6-0 | 0-x-5-3-6-0 | 0-0-4-2-3-0:|| (actually two frets up with capo!).

  5143. musictheory 2019-11-16 00:06:11 Dune89-sky
    Here’s my favorite guitar C Lydian b7 voicing: 8-7-8-7-7-5. It’s a b@@@@ to play, gotta use thumb for sixth string and a semi-barre with second finger. But totally worth it. Next best is IMO, For E Lydian b7, 0-5-6-3-2-2. 👍

  5144. musictheory 2019-11-16 03:52:57 MaggaraMarine
    The note is definitely there if you listen to it closely, but it's not supposed to be part of the chord. The same chord is played at 2:14 and you can hear that it's just a regular Am7b5 (or Dm7b5 in concert pitch). At 2:37 he just accidentally plays the open 1st string - it's simply a mistake, not a note that is supposed to be there.

  5145. musictheory 2019-11-16 16:25:03 Warmspirit
    So most chords that you know are triads, maj, minor, aug, dim, and I assume it's either the three finger inversions, open chords or barre chords right? Well if so they all have three notes, take A major, A C# E This is a triad as it has three notes. The note that makes s chord major or minor is the third, in this case C#, because A is the root and E is the fifth(and because C# is the third scale degree of A major, the interval between them is 4 semitones) however if we lower it a semitone, or flatten, it becomes C natural. This makes it a minor third, and therefore a minor chord. Now a "7" chord Is a four note chord and it follows the same pattern as before, aka every other note in the scale based on the root, so A, b, C#, d, E, f#, G#. It would be A C# E G#. Now the reason it sounds "darker" could be two reasons: the first being that if you see there is a minor chord within the maj7, in this case C#minor, C# E G#, this conflicts the major tonality and creates a very appealing dissonance; the second could be that the distance between A and G# is a major 7th, which is quite a dissonant tone and wants to resolve badly, creating discourse within the chord Also the way you play the chord can affect it, there are obviously inversions that can change the intervals between chords and thereby effect the voicing and sound, but I imagine it's mostly barre chords and the one on the A string is relatively stable because the fifth is heard immediately Hope this helps, if you haven't already try finding weird ways to play them on the fretboard it's super helpful

  5146. musictheory 2019-11-17 02:46:06 Dune89-sky
    Very beautiful indeed, great work! And a very nice video too. You make excellent use of the open B string in this tune in A major. The (mostly) descending bass line adds to the melancholic or sentimental feeling.

  5147. musictheory 2019-11-17 02:59:59 vornska
    >Although, isn't the continuous property you mention partly an artifact of our tuning system? Not at all! With our normal ideas of "up" and "down" in pitch space, it's intuitively easy to know what "up by a smaller amount" means. For any two pitches, I always know that I can find another pitch in between them. (This isn't quite the strict mathematical sense of "continuous," which is hard to describe colloquially, but it's close enough.) I don't need to know anything about equal temperament to use this; I just have to have a sense of "up and down" in pitch space. "Ok, I'm on middle C. Let me go up just a little bit. No--less than that. Even less!" and so on. But what does that look like for fifths space? If I'm on middle C, my first discrete step up from C is G. But if I want to take less than one complete step above C, where do I go? What if I want to go an even smaller distance up? Mathematically I can tell you what the answer should be, but I think it's more vividly unintuitive if you try to imagine it for yourself. &#x200B; > I would say though that, if we did use fifthy-thinking quasi-seriously, we would naturally reinterpret what usual voice leading would look like, right? Totally! There are lots of good ways to imagine what fifthy voice leading might look like. I do like imagining this on string instruments, where the closest voice leadings are just going up or down one string. In that sense, the closest notes to a violin's open D string are its open G and open A. E is two steps up from D. Now try to imagine this with a continuous infinite violin! Instead of having just 4 strings, it has a continuous arc of pitches--maybe imagine this as the surface of the violin's bridge. How do we fill in the space between open D and open A in a way that makes sense? &#x200B; > I'm still stumped that I haven't at least seen discussion of why we aren't using the fifths clockface anyplace we'd use the half-step clockface. Do I live under a rock? At the very least, I think that comparing equivalent set diagrams on both clocks should have been interesting to someone by now! Doing this is the so-called M7 transformation (where M stands for "multiply"). Bob Morris discusses it in *Composition with Pitch-Classes*, though to be honest I don't know if he's the one who invented it. It was popular back in the heyday of sets & serialism because it's another operation you can apply to stuff like 12-tone rows. The neatest application of it that I know is that (037) and (014) are related by M7, which seems significant to me because they have some nice interrelationships anyways. (037) is the ur-consonant triad, and (014) is (to my mind, at least) the most important anti-consonant trichord, or at least the one that Schoenberg gravitated toward. And there's the fact that voice leadings between non-diatonic (037)s, like all the fun neo-Riemannian voice leadings, end up producing lots of horizontal (014)s. (For example, consider the hexatonic pole relationship. The pure verticalities are both common triads, but if you start pulling out "diagonal" sets from the progression, lots are (014)s.) M7 shows us that the reverse is also true: fifthy voice leadings between (014)s produce a lot of horizontal (037)s. Another fun fact: M7 transforms the all-interval tetrachords into each other.

  5148. musictheory 2019-11-17 15:46:52 pivotguyDC1
    Just like triplets, you fit x many notes where there would usually be two. Quadruplets are just the next "normal" subdivision down. You could say quadruplet eighth notes are just sixteenth notes. However, you might find them in pieces that are in some kind of triple meter like 6/8 or 12/8. In this case, since the eighth note usually feels like a triplet, a duplet eighth note would be felt evenly, as if that beat were in 4/4 or something. A string of 8 duplet eighth notes in 12/8 would be indistinguishable from normal eighth notes in a measure of 4/4 assuming there are no other voices. Same goes for quadruplet, as they have half the value of a duplet and you can fit twice as many in a given beat. Quintuplets are fitting 5 notes in the space of 2 in the given subdivision. Sextuplets fit 6 in the space of 2, etc...

  5149. musictheory 2019-11-18 03:50:17 JaviSounds
    It is what it is. If you know how to build a major scale and use it consciously (it is in every single song but you have to understand where you are within it), then you can choose to simplify it into 5 notes instead of 7. It's just a choice depending on taste. I won't tell you how to use it because there are way too many ways to use it. But just keep it extremely simple at first. This idea is literally just taking away 2 notes (the 4th and 7th) of the major scale. That's it. The notes have more space and sound nicer together when played as melodies. It's just an option. Remember the major scale is built of whole steps and half steps. 1 w 2 w 3 h 4 w 5 w 6 w 7 h 1 Translated into frets of a guitar starting from any note along a single string: Root, +2, +2, +1, +2, +2, +2, +1 Get rid of 4th and 7th note to make it "pentatonic": 1 w 2 w 3 h_w 5 w 6 w_h 1 Now the distances are (in frets) Root, +2, +2, +3, +2, +3 But like I said, regardless of which instrument you play, it is a very simple idea.

  5150. musictheory 2019-11-18 04:40:03 SynthHarbor
    Interesting perspective. I realize i didn't specify what instrument I was working with. I played it in using a midi controller voicing a string ensemble so the bass line is actually a walk down: C - Bb - Ab - G. I guess that technically makes it a C Gb/Bb Ab G (sory if im notating these horribly, relatively new to this) I had to play it on the guitar as you described to hear what you were talking about. I actually like the way that your chording plays because it does have that touch of unease(?)/unexpectedness to the bass end.

  5151. musictheory 2019-11-18 20:51:46 benjabeanz
    Just a couple FYIs about some really simple to fix bugs I discovered. First, when the message appears that it can't start because it doesn't have access to the microphone, it just says "Can't start! This app needs access to" as if it seems that text wrap needs to be enabled for this string. Second, in Chrome on my Android phone, the tone sounds played very audibly despite my phone media volume being muted, which some people might consider highly annoying. Overall, though, keep up the good work!

  5152. musictheory 2019-11-19 00:20:16 dantehidemark
    Wow, there is a ton to say. Just a few things: 1. The instruments have four distinct voices, write for them to sing instead of writing on piano and portion out the notes. Make each part interesting in itself. And if you want to make accompaniment lines, shuffle around who is playing melody. 2. If you want to make more interesting bass lines, remember that you often want consonant intervals on strong beats and when the chord changes. In other places you can be more free and write more melodically. Remember also that a bass note in a chord doesn’t have to be the root; try to use other chord notes as bass notes. Besides, you don’t need bass notes through the whole piece. 3. Remember that string quartet sound quite different from orchestra; long sustained notes won’t do much good. On the other hand, quartets can play more rhythmically interesting stuff!

  5153. musictheory 2019-11-19 01:12:13 OperatorSwing
    Listen a bunch of string quartets, some I would recommend are Shostakovich String quartet no. 7 and 8, Ravel Quartet in F major, Beethoven op 131, or any other that you want to imitate or draw influence from. Next I would study the capabilities and limitations of each member of the string quartet. The neat thing is that it's a homogenous ensemble. (has the same timbre from the lowest to the highest note). Learn what notes are in each string, how to voice a chord in both open and closed voicing, what double stops are possible, etc.. The more you know about each instrument the better. Also learn about extended techniques that each instrument can do. (tremolos, sul pont, sul tasto, pizzicato, muting..) The string quartet is so diverse tonally, and depending what sound your trying to go for there is probably something that will help achieve that.

  5154. musictheory 2019-11-19 01:30:16 65TwinReverbRI
    There's no Bass in String Quartet - at least, not in traditional ones. You want 2 Violins, Viola, and Cello. Here is a very helpful resource on various string textures (links directly to PDF): https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwip4Za8o_TlAhWp1FkKHcM-D5YQFjACegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fkingedsmusic.files.wordpress.com%2F2016%2F02%2Fstring-quartet-textures-sept-13.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2Fikxv9TDHKWi5lhWYJelr I would recommend trying to keep it simple melody dominated homophony and not go all nuts and crazy trying to out-Mozart Mozart. Do you have someone who can play it for you?

  5155. musictheory 2019-11-19 01:37:31 imersial
    Idk if it was answered as it was just deleted, but theres the normal key signature but above the piece itll say for example 3rd string F#

  5156. musictheory 2019-11-19 01:42:21 dantehidemark
    This looks totally fine regarding long notes, one problem with say whole notes is that they are hard to phrase. Your first viola note has a direction of energy and will sound good. If the cello part is like this all the way through though, you might want to consider making more melodic bass lines. A few bars it is totally fine of course. Oh, and you are wise not to trust MuseScore’s sounds, but they are still useful if you don’t have a real string instrument at hand.

  5157. musictheory 2019-11-19 14:43:05 65TwinReverbRI
    Ok. The reason I asked is that usually with composition being able to play a "harmonic" instrument is important - Piano being the primary one, but guitar is not a bad substitute. This is going to sound a bit harsh, but I want to throw out a little dose of reality here - I'm not saying this is exactly the position you're in - I don't have your entire musical training in front of me - but since I have a comp degree myself, and I see students coming into our program all the time, these are some "insights" I have: Many people do come to composing "late" - that is, they've playing in band, orchestra, or choir since middle school, or taken piano in the same age range, and have starting writing their own stuff (or today, a lot of people are working in DAWs). So very often, their composition experience is pretty limited coming in - very often there aren't even composition teachers where they live - sometimes a piano teacher is the best they can get. Now, there's nothing wrong with that. But I would say that since you're a Junior now, you've essentially got 1.5 years to get your composing chops up to a good level to be able to get into the best school you can. But I also want to caution, while anyone can take a composition degree for any reason - just to learn more about it for example - really, the "ideal" composition student is a person who just does little else than write music pretty much all the time. Or when they're not writing music, they're playing it, or working with people to play, and record, their music. For example if we see a student come in from high school who's written a Piano an Violin duet, and had two friends play and record it, that's really impressive. If we see a student come in with YASQ (yet another String Quartet) with no clue how to write for strings, who at best has a MIDI mockup of it which doesn't really inform the person how real string players would play it, we're going to be less impressed. Now, we can't fault a person with fewer resources, but at the same time, a lot of people just don't take the initiative to do what they need to do. IOW, they "dabble" in composition. Music Degrees are actually very serious business. They're not for "dabblers". That's why so many people start in music performance, and then switch to music education. They find out that simply "liking playing violin in orchestra" is not enough to be a performance major. A Violin Performance major is for the person who lives and breathes everything Violin, and has realistic goals about what they want to do and is willing to work hard on how to get there. Theory and Composition are no different, and in some ways even worse, because there are far fewer resources out there to get people early starts in those (though again, a later start is OK and even understood because of that, and because people should really spend their first years cultivating proficiency on an instrument). Again, that's not to say you can't major in one of those degrees if you don't fit that profile - many people successfully complete the degree without that kind of investment. But they don't typically then put that degree to work for them. There's another post hear tonight about Theory. I think the responses there will be very informative: https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/dya47j/carrers_in_music_theory/ Your degree choice doesn't HAVE to be career motivated - again it can just be for general knowledge. But, it's a lot of money to spend on that. And if it's not your money, you usually have some convincing to do :-) Also, just FWIW, there's a lot of confusion out there about what "composing" is. A Traditional Music Composition degree is going to focus on notated "classical" music - music for the concert stage meant generally to be performed by live performers. Many schools also include electronic music in this (not EDM, but "academic electronic music") but not so many of them consider "pop" music or even jazz as "composition". And very few consider "making beats" or anything like that to be "composing". So it's very important to look at what kind of composition degree you want and what any school you're intending on attending offers/requires. Ar my university, you'd have Voice as your major instrument, and you'd take even more Piano (4 semesters). You'd take 4 semesters of applied comp lessons, as well as the traditional theory/ear-training/history core, and then orchestration, counterpoint, form and analysis, etc. You'd also take Music Notation, Electronic Music, and Music Technology Survey. The skillset a modern composer needs today is more varied than ever before, and there is or can be less emphasis on traditional orchestral composition, so things you can do to prepare if you're looking for a more diverse program: Start composing every day. Lean to craft, and to hone. Learn that it's not all divine inspiration and there's a lot of work involved - a lot of drafts, sketches, rewrites, aborted ideas, and so on. The skill of composing is being able to craft something, not just write something on the first try (though sometimes that happens). Start listening to the music you're planning to compose every day in any downtime when you can't compose. Learn as much classical repertoire as possible - every piano sonata by Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, every symphony by Beethoven, and the later symphonies by Haydn and Mozart, , all their string quartets, all the "big name" things you hear about a lot - The Four Seasons, the Brandenburg Concerti, etc. - all the "greatest hits" - and then more. And do NOT not include modern music - you should be familiar with Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, all the way up to the moderns - Glass, Ligeti, etc. If you're into film music, now your rep - don't just go in with a knowledge of John Williams, or him and Howard Shore or something. Learn about Korngold, and Hermann, and all the other great film composers. If it's more slanted towards Jazz, then learn all your Big Band guys and the names of the great arrangers. Etc. Learn to use Musecore, or Sibelius or Finale if you haven't already done so. If you have, learn them better. Notate all your stuff. A good looking, standardized, professional score is going to get more performances, have fewer mistakes in performance, and is going to be great on your resume and in your portfolio! Learn some kind of Recording in a DAW - Pro Tools, Logic, even Garageband or Reaper. You should learn basic recording skills - you can sing duets, trios, or quartets by recording yourself - you don't need to master this (unless you're working towards a more DAW driven compositional style) but knowing how to record and being able to is going to help you hear what it is you're writing - especially if you can play it yourself or at least record others who can read through your music (in nice notation :-) for you. Do take those piano lessons. But you need to get as much done as you can. Same with voice lessons. it wouldn't be a bad idea if you could ask your choir director if you could help with conducting sectionals, or if they wouldn't mind spending a little time teaching you how to direct a group of singers. I would try to write a small piece or small set of pieces for a small group in your choir say 3 or 4 people you could get together that you can direct and have them perform your music. If you don't have ideas for original music, or get stuck on a composition, don't be afraid to arrange other music - that's also a valuable learning tool (and inspirational one). Honestly, while knowing some theory is great, we don't expect our incoming freshman to really know much beyond reading music, basic rhythm and pitch, key signatures and time signatures (most people coming in to college don't even know 6/8 is two beats per measure). So the more you can do on this, great - if you can place out of some levels of theory you will be able to spend more time on other musical pursuits such as playing in additional ensembles. But, I would spend the bulk of time on playing and writing, getting your notation, DAW, and piano skills up, and becoming the kind of vocalist that can pass a college entrance audition! I would say, by this summer, you should be seriously starting to work on your portfolio.

  5158. musictheory 2019-11-20 00:00:19 FeatherSmoke
    I just realized that I"m an idiot... It's not a C7 to a D7. It's a Cmaj7 to a D6 (I think). I'm essentially taking the C shape with the b string open and sliding that up two frets.

  5159. musictheory 2019-11-20 02:38:56 Beastintheomlet
    I know a lot instrumentalists gain different levels of this due to open strings or other 'default' notes. I've been playing electric bass since I was 12 and I can recognized an E1 on most instruments due to it being the lowest note on a 4 string bass and used in many many songs.

  5160. musictheory 2019-11-20 06:27:57 65TwinReverbRI
    Harry Nyquist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem Max Matthews As far as older stuff goes, do you consider a Geocentric view of the universe scientific? What about Alchemy? Because honestly, that's a lot about what you're looking at from ancient researchers - the "science" isn't like modern science. Now if you're talking Math, that's a different thing. But most of the stuff like the science that describes how resonance works, or how air columns produce different notes, and so on just wasn't there - remember that even in the 1700s Electricity wasn't well understood - we knew it existed, and could even be harnessed or created, but it hadn't really been scientifically explained. So the same is true with a lot of aspects of Acoustics. So for example, Tartini describes "undertones", but no one knew how they really worked until maybe the 20the century: >Tartini was a music theorist, of a very practical bent. He is credited with the discovery of sum and difference tones, an acoustical phenomenon of particular utility on string instruments (intonation of double-stops can be judged by careful listening to the difference tone, the "terzo suono"). He published his discoveries in a treatise "Trattato di musica secondo la vera scienza dell'armonia" (Padua, 1754) So what we more have then is THEORISTS who contributed to our understanding of music or musical instruments, etc. While some of them may have claimed scientific origins for their ideas, they were more often using questionable science to support hypotheses not really based in fact. Maybe an interesting thing is the science of Bellfounding (making Bells) - or maybe more the "trial and error" of making Bells - see especially the "tuning" section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellfounding That's been going on for a very long time.

  5161. musictheory 2019-11-20 13:35:19 Rogryg
    It's some form of bowed string instrument.

  5162. musictheory 2019-11-20 15:16:04 Sirtheos
    "I would recommend trying to keep it simple \[...\] and not go all nuts and crazy \[...\]" -> This, among other things, would define "elegance" for me. You are right! But where is the limit? Too much simplicity will make it childish and too much complex will make it pretentious... When I said I use the cello as a bass I mean I'm using it to fill the lower frequencies. The link is awesome! Great great stuff! It is a treasure in itself. I will print it and study it with the examples given. Thanks. And I do have someone who can play it for me, or at least one violinist haha. My hope is that, having my hometown an important centre of music studies as it has (where I couldn't study because my lack of perfect sight reading and not having enough time and money to pay for it since I became a father), I will be able to bring together some string players by using the contacts of this violinist. She's a student in that centre. I recently showed her some ideas for a piece for Violin and Piano and she was very interested. Thank you again for your help.

  5163. musictheory 2019-11-20 18:30:38 seeking_horizon
    Root + 5th is sufficient for a power chord. Root + 5th + 8ve is probably more common if you're in a drop tuning, but the 8ve isn't really obligatory. The bassist usually is doubling the root down an 8ve anyway. A lot of 90s bands (Helmet, Soundgarden, Hum, Sonic Youth etc) are fond of using root + 5th + 9th shapes in the same way as power chords. Keep in mind you also started seeing more 5-string basses and better speaker cabs during that time as well.

  5164. musictheory 2019-11-20 19:39:29 Gwinbar
    F A C G: Fadd9 You can play it wherever you want, but it fits naturally in the keys of C and F, or their relative minors Am and Dm. For a cool sound you can alternate between this and a C chord with your pinky in the third fret of the first string.

  5165. musictheory 2019-11-20 20:10:10 emielm1234
    Just a question is this btw the standard with guitarists to start with the bottom string to the above one? I would say: E A D G B E &#x200B; at least that is how I tune with guitarists. As said I play piano so not sure :)

  5166. musictheory 2019-11-20 20:28:14 stitchgrimly
    Most would probably do it your way (myself included) but in actuality the 'top' is the highest note, so OP is technically correct. Confused the fuck out of me when I was 14 and I told my dad I broke the third string so he got me a replacement G instead of D. As a classically trained pianist he thought of it upside down and just assumed I would too.

  5167. musictheory 2019-11-20 21:15:36 heelboy67
    It depends, haha. I mean, a 12th distance is a lot. It was just an example. Maybe don't go over an octave, most of the time. Writing for string quartet is perhaps the hardest thing. I remember how much I struggled with writing for choir trying to distribute all the voices. Don't be afraid to omit the fifth or whatever if it benefits your melodies. I think it should sound nice to each individual player. Listen to what you like and read the score. One possibility for the intro: Leave out the cello and have it enter for the main part?

  5168. musictheory 2019-11-20 22:08:36 TwoFiveOnes
    He got it right, the third string on the guitar is G

  5169. musictheory 2019-11-20 22:10:41 DRL47
    >also tabs wil start with the low E-string on top. A well guitarists thing probably... :P No, tabs have the low E on the bottom.

  5170. musictheory 2019-11-21 01:22:25 Jongtr
    [https://www.musictheory.net/lessons](https://www.musictheory.net/lessons) is the best theory site. It's not dedicated to guitar, but music theory is universal anyway, it's not different for guitar. But it might help you to pair it with a site telling you the notes on the guitar fretboard. [This](https://www.justinguitar.com/guitar-lessons/notes-in-the-open-position-bc-171) makes a good start. It's really important that you hear the sound of each bit of theory (the theory site has sounds) but also that you can *play the sounds yourself.* Provided you're always *playing the theory*, you shouldn't have any trouble understanding it. Work through the site steadily and don't skip anything - except bass clef, you don't need to know that for guitar. (It's obviously useful for piano and bass guitar, but you can pick it up later if you want.) The other thing to bear in mind, if working from non-guitar sites, is that the sounds will be an octave higher than on guitar. Guitar notation is written an octave higher than piano treble clef. On the musictheory site, look out for the speaker symbol at the bottom of the page - click that to hear notes when they're displayed. The first note it shows you is G (2nd line of treble clef). The sound of that G is your 1st string 3rd fret. But on guitar music that note would be written above the top line (still "G", but an octave higher).

  5171. musictheory 2019-11-21 06:36:25 65TwinReverbRI
    Well, really, the correct answer is, it's a Synthesizer. But it's an emulation of some type of bowed instrument, though it could be any heavily processed string instrument (or many other things actually depending on how heavily processed it is).

  5172. musictheory 2019-11-21 09:29:37 Karkovar
    It's muscle memory. But playing the violin relies on your ability to hear correctly, so that way you know when your finger is off and make adjustments by yourself. You don't need to learn first, second and third position. Learn first position first. Understand what note corresponds to each open string (Without fingers on them), and then understand that each movement going 'up' will be 1 semitone. The physical distance between each 'step' is what relies on muscle memory and your musical ear. I cannot stress the importance of a teacher for this. At least a few lessons.

  5173. musictheory 2019-11-21 19:50:02 Jongtr
    The chords are: |Cmaj9 - - - | - - - - |Bm7 - - - |B7/D# - - - | |Em7 - - - | - - Ebm7 - |Dm7 - - - |G6/9 - - - | and the style is "Latin jazz" derived from Brazlian samba or bossa nova. Samba was mostly percusion-based and fast, and bossa nova was a slowed down version, played on nylon-string guitar. [Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnwUoLzyEvc) an example of what they're calling "samba bossa nova", which I'd call bossa nova played at samba tempo.

  5174. musictheory 2019-11-22 02:57:43 Jongtr
    >This makes me think that a song has a bunch of "micro keys" and that each chord basically tells you a key to play for a measure, half-measure, etc. Not really. I mean, you are on to something here, which is "modes". But when you have chords that *share a scale -* as these two do - then it *tends to sound best* to use that scale on both (or all) chords. That's because, essentially, the scale (key) is the thing, and the chords are different expressions of it, different selections from it, whose purpose - ultimately - is to confirm the key. It's when each chord starts to last *long enough* to form its *own key centre* that the issue of changing scales for each chord can arise. So, in a normal chord sequence in a key, we don't hear each chord as a key in its own right; we hear them as a string, beginning from and/or working towards the tonic, the "gravitational centre" of the whole piece. If you apply a different scale to each chord in that context, the whole thing breaks down. The sense of "progression" is disrupted, the sense of "key" is lost. Take a machine to pieces - or rather, replace some of its parts with different parts - and it's no surprise if it stops working. However, this is not to say that you can't *add more material* to the shared scale. You can add passing chromatics, or alter some chords to make more interesting moves between chords. The "machine" still works, but it's like you've oiled the wheels, or supercharged its engine. Jazz does this all the time, employing secondary chords, substitutions and alterations - sometimes implying moves through different keys, but always returning "home" to the tonic. But supposing you deliberately create a sequence of chords that *can't* share a scale? This is - more or less - what modal jazz did. You spend a long time on one chord - or maybe just a couple of chords from the same scale which don't imply functionality - and when you want to make a change you move to a *different set of notes.* This is very like the way that key-based music can *modulate*, between different sections. But modulation doesn't normally involve more than two keys. Modal jazz changes can involve four or five (rarely more). But each "key" (mode) doesn't normally use chord changes within itself. You might have random harmonisations from the mode, but not in a way that suggests a *progression* *within* the mode. Then the change to another mode is just that. Rarely prepared, usually a direct shift. Here's a few examples: [Maiden Voyage](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwmRQ0PBtXU) \- four dorian modes [Little Sunflower](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtB8dEuEmNM) \- dorian, plus two major modes (lydian and ionian, or both lydian) [Flying in a Blue Dream](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SINl5JY7LhI) \- four lydian modes

  5175. musictheory 2019-11-22 17:35:58 Karkovar
    Wait, I don't understand. I'm a pianist too and I'd think of the strings from lowest to higher, so I'd assume 3rd string to be D as well. Why do you think a pianist would think the opposite? I got a bit confused because I can't figure out the logic behind that confusion and I'm genuinely curious.

  5176. musictheory 2019-11-22 18:15:20 globalcitizen05
    Think of it like this chords and scales are like the alphabet chord progressions are like grammar rules when we learn our mother tongue we learn how to make individual sounds then we form those sounds into words then we string the words together to form sentences and *then* we learn how to read (attaching meaning to symbols and patterns on the page) and write (putting our ideas into symbols). In an ideal world music would be taught in the same way but in most places music is taught in the same way as we might learn a second language in high school (reading first). So, it is possible to create music that makes "grammatical sense" without knowing the theory behind it, but being able to communicate your musical ideas theoretically will make it easier when communicating with other musicians because that will be the "common language" between instruments and most western genres.

  5177. musictheory 2019-11-22 22:29:38 Jongtr
    The Lion King track is in D minor, mostly i-VII-VI, modulating to F major after a minute. The final resolution to D minor (from A7) is at 4:12, then you ge that "brightening" effect as it moves via C7 to F, but then it's underlined by the big increase in dynamic and fuller orchestration at 4:21. The real "mood" effects are only partially to do with the minor key moving to the relative major (4:15) - the full impact only arrives at 4:21. So it's the *arrangement and orchestration* (and tempo) that are the main factors. With the other track, again the prime mood signifiers are the tempo, arrangement and orchestration. The key is a normal minor key again - G minor this time - and not modal (usual mix of natural and harmonic minor, as above). There is a distinctive melodic resolution via an Eb on the D7 chord to D on the Gm (0:12 - 0:16). There's some interesting chromaticism from 0:27, when it moves to C7, then via A7/C# to D7b9. Then the big build up at 0:35 is not a change of key - it's just back to the Gm tonic chord. So the mood change there is all about the orchestration! Zero to do with the key or tonality. (I didn't go beyond 1:00, but it was all straight G minor up to there.) I.e., what you need to study is *orchestration.* How to use string sections in particular, how to use dynamic variation, how to harmonise a melody, perhaps how to voice chords. Certainly things like how to use dissonance to create harmonic tension (harmonising that melodic Eb with D7 that I mentioned). But in terms of *chord progressions,* those two pieces contain nothing unusual. The same sequences could be used to support entirely different moods - moods that would be *created* (as these ones are) via tempo, dynamics and instrumentation. (Play these chord changes uptempo on a ukulele, they're not going to produce these effects. ;-))

  5178. musictheory 2019-11-23 07:59:27 Jongtr
    Firstly, choose either flats or sharps, not both Secondly, you just have a string of notes there - but I'm guessing (from your own guesses) they go in threes, so: Gb Eb Bb = Ebm Ab Eb Bb = Ebsus4, or Absus2, or partial Bb7sus4 (least likely) A Eb Bb = weird one, and most likely some kind of partial chord: Ebmaj7#11, Eb7#11? It's not really a thing on its own. Strong dissonance between the A and Bb (assuming the A is the bass) Bb Eb Ab = Bb7sus4, Ebsus4, Absus2 (least likely).

  5179. musictheory 2019-11-23 11:14:25 UncertaintyLich
    The music you listen to us not equal tempered. All vocals and string sections you have ever heard are in just intonation, while all piano parts you hear are equal tempered. The western ear is trained to gravitate to just intonation while simply tolerating equal temperment. Every instrument without frets or keys is played in just intonation. Your ear naturally tunes to just intonation because the intervals are purer and more in line with the overtone series. Have you ever tuned or heard someone tune a violin? You play two notes a fifth apart, and listen for the “beating” of the two notes crashing, and adjust until that beating goes away. The beating you hear between two different notes is essentially the sound of your ear doing math to measure the distance between the two notes. If there’s a complex ratio between the two frequencies like 3.52849372/4 or something, your ear translates that into a complex sound with a lot of “beating.” But if you hear a simple 3/4 ratio, your ear can understand it better and it sounds clearer. Equal temperament is just a sort of compromise instrument makers made with the human ear so that we can play in multiple keys without it sounding too out of tune. The ratios in equal temperament are all a couple of decimal points off, but it’s slight enough that listeners can just ignore it. But it’s actually impossible for a vocalist to sing in equal temperament, because your ear isn’t good enough at math to tune all of your notes a couple of cents “off” for no reason. It’s also worth noting that the need for pure intervals is not universal. Gamelan music is all purposefully “out of tune” because the beating between complex intervals sounds kind of cool. Gamelan instrument makers carefully measure the beats between notes to get iust the right amount of sparkling out-of-tune-ness. But again, it’s impossible to naturally sing that precisely “out of tune”, and vocalists and string players in the gamelan tradition use a completely different scale that’s more similar to western scales.

  5180. musictheory 2019-11-23 19:20:10 Squidwards_Mentor
    I see what you mean with D as the tonal center. I’m learning this on guitar and its tuned DGCFAD, using the open 6th string and 7th-fret 5th string (both D) at the start of each measure, in the chorus and verse.

  5181. musictheory 2019-11-23 22:24:49 Nomb317
    If using standard tuning, the note order (from lowest to highest, which I will also refer to as first to last) would be EADGBE, the last E being 2 octaves above the first. Third fret on the third (D) string is F, second fret on the next (G) string is A, and first fret on the next (B) string is C, meaning you are playing an arpeggio of an F major, there are no direct fourths or fifths, but the interval from F up to A is a major third, and A up to C is a minor third. If you were to play up from F to C it would be a fifth, and F up to a higher F would be a fourth, so I’m not sure where you got the notes you did.

  5182. musictheory 2019-11-23 22:28:47 chastity-spider
    Honestly, I don't even know if I'm saying it properly. Let me clarify. First sequence - I had one finger on the 3rd string (G) at 3rd fret, then picked strings dgbg, so if I understand it right, f a# d a#, then dropped my finger downwards, so 2nd string (b) on 2nd fret, so a c# f# c# Does that make sense?

  5183. musictheory 2019-11-23 22:48:00 japaneseknotweed
    Are you a string player? Did someone in your family sing barbershop, or have you listened to a lot of renaissance music? Do you like pianos or oboes better? Tempered tuning is an average. Pythagorean isn't, it adheres to mathematical ratios, and the upper partials/harmonics line up in a very different way. Sounds like your tuner might be one, and your ears another.

  5184. musictheory 2019-11-24 00:07:05 BelgianSexWaffle
    Standard guitar terms say the third string is the G string. D is the fourth string.

  5185. musictheory 2019-11-24 00:27:46 Jongtr
    No offence, but you need to get out more. :-) I mean, listen to a lot more music, of all kinds. The intro is a standard line cliche, nothing original. The song itself is an episodic piece of prog rock, partly inspired by the Incredible String Band, partly by blues, partly by bands like the Who and Cream. There's no doubting it's a classic of its kind, because of how it brought all those elements together, but I was a teenager in the 1960s, and I'd already heard so much great music - even just in pop and rock - before I heard Stairway, including most of the stuff that influenced it, so for me it was very much "meh". Let "Stairway" be a gateway! ;-) It's great that you like it - that you don't think it's just a piece of old-fashioned hippie nonsense - but if you think it's "perfect", there's a whole load of stuff out there - yes even in "mainstream" popular music - that will just blow your head open.

  5186. musictheory 2019-11-24 01:55:10 65TwinReverbRI
    >Tonight, on guitar, I was practicing an arpeggio, and came up with something I liked. 3rd string, 3rd fret, note sequence was 4323, so F A# D A# then raise the same arpeggio up a string, so 3212, A C# F# C# Well you know twice as much theory as most people in your position, because if you can even name the notes on you're not an absolute noob at all!! >If I understand the circle of 5ths properly, the first sequence moves forward in 5ths, then the second sequence moves backwards in 4ths? Yes? No? No. The Circle of 5ths has nothing do to with chords. It's all about KEYS. So here are your two biggest mistakes so far - or maybe it's just one mistake - and that one is learning things from the internet :-) But, one mistake is not knowing your "spelling". As others have already said, the A# is Bb. Your other is thinking the Co5 is about chords. Easy fixes - and related actually! ___ If you look on the Circle of 5ths, you'll see that the first key to the right is G Major - it has one sharp, F#. So while it's possible, it's unlikely to have an A# in a chord without an F, C, G, or D sharp as, because those are the ones that come in keys (Keys of, G, D, A, and E) before we even get to any key with an A# in it. Instead, if you go the opposite direction, you'll see that F Major has only 1 flat, Bb, and that means the rest of its notes are plain, so since you've got a plain F, and plain D - it's more likely the A# should be Bb - and if it is, all 3 notes fit within the key of F Major! [note: again there are other ways to get at this, but this is just an example of how the Circle of 5ths can provide you information about a Key, and thus what notes are in a Key, and therefore if you're spelling notes correctly]. ______ Now, you said you raised the arpeggio up a string - but it's moved a fret as well. But as others have stated, that's not how guitar is done. MaggaMarine's TAB seems to be what you're saying, but you're saying it in a really convoluted way. We don't really care about the string order, we care about the notes (and string order can be said by "1st string, 2nd string", etc. when it is important). Yes, you have a Bb Major triad, and F#m triad. Both are "inverted" meaning the lowest sounding note is not the Bb or F# respectively. It's Bb/F - which means a Bb chord with its F on the bottom (lowest sounding notes), and F#m/A for the same reasons. As already stated, 3 is the THIRD string on the guitar. D is the FOURTH string. High E is the FIRST string, and low E is the 6th string. Unless you're left handed and playing the guitar upside down, the High E is closest to the floor - so when you move "towards the floor" you're moving UP in pitch, and if you're moving "towards the ceiling" you're moving DOWN in pitch. Likewise, the 1st fret is closest to the nut, so your 2nd chord form is 1 fret LOWER than the first one. _______ Honestly, you should take guitar and/or piano lessons. If you really want to learn, and get better at both, that will really accelerate what you're trying to do and avoid a lot of "un-learning" and "re-learning" of misinformation you've picked up online. HTH

  5187. musictheory 2019-11-24 02:42:34 65TwinReverbRI
    A Sonata in the Classical use of the term is a multi-movement chamber music work for solo instrument, or a pair of instruments, usually one chordal and one melodic, such as Beethoven's "Spring Sonata" for Piano and Violin. >Haydn labels his first piano sonata as such in 1771, after which the term divertimento is used sparingly in his output. The term sonata was increasingly applied to either a work for keyboard alone (see piano sonata), or for keyboard and one other instrument, often the violin or cello. It was less and less frequently applied to works with more than two instrumentalists; for example, piano trios were not often labelled sonata for piano, violin, and cello. Usually they are 3 movements, but even Haydn (the "father" of this form) continues to write 2 movement ones into the 1790s. 4th movements became somewhat more common later on, but 3 is considered the "norm" for the classical sonata, with 4 becoming the norm in the Romantic period: >Of the works that Haydn labelled piano sonata, divertimento, or partita in Hob XIV, seven are in two movements, thirty-five are in three, and three are in four FWIW, Symphonies are essentially "Sonatas for Orchestra" and String Quartets are "Sonatas for String Quartet". However, these two adopted the 4 movement form earlier on. As stated above, "Piano Trios" are essentially Sonatas for that instrumentation. So what basically happens is, they're all "Sonata" in the earlier (Baroque and even Renaissance) use of the term which simply meant "sounded" piece (as opposed to "Cantata", which was a "sung" piece). But when there are specific instruments that are more than 2 generally, or commonly "named" ensembles (Woodwind 5tet, String4tet, Piano Trio, Orchestra, etc.) they are instead named after the Ensemble, or in the case of Orchestral works, whether there's a Soloist or not, and to some degree, the Formal layout of the work. A "Sonatina" is a "Sonata-like" composition for similar ensembles usually for Pedagogical purposes, and is either shorter, or easier, or both, usually for Piano alone, or Piano with Violin (or other Solo instrument), with the intent that the Violin is a student and the part is written as such. Usually, "true" sonatas also have more specific forms for the movements, especially ultimately utilizing Sonata Form for at least the 1st movement, but other "large" forms are more common - Themes and Variations, Compound Ternary Forms, etc. (especially more into the Classical period). Sonatinas by contrast usually use "simpler" Binary and Ternary forms, or more dance-based forms or simple Rondos and so on. There is obviously a lot of crossover here but it's more about length and complexity. Concerti and Concertinos have a similar relationship. While it's possible to write a "Concertino for Orchestra" (just like one could write a Sonatina for for Orchestra) you're not going to hear a piece for single instrument and Piano called a "Concerto". Instead if it's a "showpiece" it's going to be a Sonata. _______ Now we get into the real of "student works". No one wants to play "Easy Concerto". And they won't sell sheet music. "Concertino" makes it sound "more appealing" from a marketing standpoint. Also, composers don't always name their pieces. As mentioned above, Haydn's things we call "Piano Sonatas" today were neither written for the Piano nor called a Sonata when Haydn was writing them. They were "Divertimento for Keyboard instrument" or "partita" for the same. It wasn't until later that he specifically called it a Sonata, and in his lifetime, the Fortepiano was the nearest thing to the Piano as we know it (which would be Pianoforte to contrast with the earlier Fortepiano). However, Publishers would still market things as "Keyboard" pieces so they'd sell to more people - because in those days you played on what was available - which during Haydn's lifetime was Organ, Clavichord, Harpsichord, and Fortepiano - all of which co-existed. Likewise, once Pianos and Sonatas became the "big seller" (like with Beethoven) then many pieces formerly titled Divertimento were "renamed" to what we most often see today - Piano Sonata. The Wikipedia article has NO real information on "Concertino" and the earliest one listed titled as such is from the 1800s - most are the 20th century - it pretty much is a 20th century term - and again was most likely retroactively applied to earlier works. This piece was composed in 1934. There you go.

  5188. musictheory 2019-11-24 05:11:30 japaneseknotweed
    Pop backup goes for the same "ring" as barbershop (which was just the pop of its time)-- and when it doesn't succeed, Autotune does the rest. You're just *right*, not out of tune. :) (says the string player/trad musician)

  5189. musictheory 2019-11-24 17:40:57 Jongtr
    > If it helps explain my jumbled terminology (judging by your replies, I'm obviously not speaking right) then [here's a pic](https://imgur.com/iV7qTJ0) of finger positions Sheesh, why frets 23 and 24? I don't even have those on my guitar! Are those really the frets you're playing? But assuming they are... Firstly, the numbers 2 and 3 on the left of the fretboard are the notes C# (2nd string and A# (3rd string). Secondly the notes on fret 23 are C# F# A# (bottom to top), and those on fret 24 are G-B-E. So the chord on strings 4-3-2 matches the notes down on frets 2 and 3: it's an F# major chord. The notes on fret 24 are an E minor chord. The probably reason these two chords sound good together is they could both come from the key of B minor.

  5190. musictheory 2019-11-24 22:56:51 casualwes
    I’d suggest studying musical form next. Counterpoint is super helpful, but it is mostly a harmonic technique. Knowledge of musical form will help you start from motives to develop phrases, then periods, sections, etc. whereas counterpoint is one way to create pleasing and interesting harmonies to support your themes from a polyphonic approach. To make an analogy, I think counterpoint is like learning the alphabet and how to make words. Musical form is like learning how to string those words together into sentences to form a story or essay.

  5191. musictheory 2019-11-25 00:43:29 ferniecanto
    I guess people are taking my previous response as if it were a joke (it wasn't), so I'll try to elaborate here. There's a problem with the way your request for help is phrases. I mean, actually, there are more than one problem. The first and most glaring one for me is: *which* feeling of emptiness? Is is the "emptiness" of the end of a long lasting relationship? Is if the "emptiness" of being at a crossroads of your life and not knowing what to do with it? Is if the "emptiness" of your laptop not working anymore, and having to ask dad to buy a new one? Is it existential emptiness, i.e. the fear that life might be meaningless? Is it just sheer nihilism? Is if "emptiness" in a positive sense, that is, inner peace and lightness? Is it depression? Boredom? Is it the emptiness of a rich bastard now knowing where to spend their next vacation, or the emptiness of a person living in absolute poverty and thinking death might not be all that bad? When you say "emptiness", each person will interpret it in a different way, and there's a risk that *no one* will get precisely what you mean. If your aim is to be deliberately and creatively vague, that's fine, but considering you're asking for help for chords for a song, I don't think you're aiming for vagueness. And there's another big problem: we have no idea what kind of song you're trying to write. Will it have lyrics? Do you already have lyrics, or will you write them later, or will someone else write them? Are there any vocals at all? Is it a piece for a regular rock band line-up, or a tune for guitar and vocals? Is it a solo piano piece? Is it a string quartet? Is it an ambient electronic piece? Is it a piece for a game soundtrack, or a film soundtrack, or an autobiographical song? Do you already know what instruments will perform it? Have you written any other songs before? How many songs have you listened to? What are your main influences and references? All of those factors affect the kind of answer you'll get. For example, if I were to write a solo piano piece or an ambient piece based on the theme of "emptiness", I ***absolutely would*** write it all on C, because there are many, many, many other elements other than chords that I could explore. Bob Dylan could explore themes much deeper and more complicated than "emptiness" with three or four chords. Depending on the kind of music, you may not even need any chords at all! Listen to [this song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20-5WqAuk4o) and notice how, because the entire backing consists of two alternating notes, there are no "chords" in the strict sense; and yes, "emptiness" is not a terrible way to describe what the band is trying to get across in this song. My personal advice to you is: try to break out of the automatic way of thinking that you need a "chord progression" as your starting point. Leave the chords for last. Think of lyrics, melody, intonation, rhythm, tempo, instrumentation, dynamics. Maybe come up with a bass line first, and later figure out what chords to develop out of them. If you insist on working from chords, think of the simplest, dumbest progression you can, and start from it. Work subtractively: work with as little elements as possible, and then try to remove a few of them. Also, maybe don't start off from a given specific theme; let the music guide you to the most mysterious places of yourself and see what happens. Remember that art is a question, not an answer. And if you think I'm being too dense or unhelpful, well, that's only because you're asking for artistic advice, not technical advice. You're talking to the artist in me, and here's a final word of advice: *never* expect kindness from an artist.

  5192. musictheory 2019-11-25 04:00:14 The_Angel_Of_Def
    I can't speak for brass, but for string, keyed, and woodwind instruments it's just a matter of changing your finger positions. Piano and woodwinds have different keys for flats than they do naturals, so once you get a feel for the shape a key signature is on your instrument, it's pretty easy to sight read in it. String instruments are even easier because the shapes are based off intervallic relationships so they stay the same in every key.

  5193. musictheory 2019-11-25 09:43:28 ILoveKombucha
    No, and as far as I know, it is impossible to do... Well, unless you are willing to accept working in a digital environment. Also, importantly, the first known strung keyboard instrument DID have dynamic contrast via touch. I'm referring to the clavichord, which has a very simple mechanism whereby the key is a lever that pivots, and when you press a key, a metal "tangent" comes up and "frets" the string, and simultaneously sets it vibrating. A related modern instrument is the clavinet, which is often associated with funk music. The clavinet is a beautiful and relatively expressive instrument. So why did the harpsichord (and later, piano) eclipse it? Volume. The clavichord is VERY quiet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zDQvX-gkpo And clavinet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlLxAULuq9Y But no, as far as I know, there has never been a harpsichord that is capable of dynamic variation through touch. There are other ways of getting dynamics on a harpsichord: various mutes, or stops that let you engage multiple sets of strings at the same time (increasing volume). This is referred to as "terraced dynamics" - there are different dynamic levels, but no smooth gradation achievable through touch.

  5194. musictheory 2019-11-25 10:08:38 ILoveKombucha
    Historically, I think a piece you are describing is called a harmonic "labyrinth." The hard part is not so much making the modulations happen, it's making it sound purposeful and good. It's a very mechanical sort of composition. Anyhow, it likely won't sound great, but you can do something like this: C - D7, G (now we've modulated to G). Now, treat each new key center as the IV chord of the next key. So G, A7, D. (G is I in G, but it is IV in D) Now D, E7, A. (D is IV in A) Now A, B7, E. Now E, F#7, B B, C#7, F# F#, G#7, C#. Now we will say C# = Db. Db, Eb7, Ab Ab, Bb7, Eb Eb, F7, Bb Bb, C7, F F, G, C If you string all of this together, though, it will sound mechanical and boring. So you have to find alternative ways of modulating, and ways of extending the music to make it varied and interesting. But the above is a simple and long used way of modulating. The idea is to use the V7 chord of the key you wish to move to. And to use the tonic of the moment as a pivot chord. A pivot chord is simply a chord that has different functions in different keys. For instance, C is I in C, but it is IV in G, and it is V in F. It's also VI in Em, and VII in Dm, and III in Am. So, for example, if you were in C, you could treat C as a pivot chord to go to another key. Let's say we want to go from C to Em. C = I in C, but vi in Em. So we could go C - Am - B7 - Em. (vi-iv-V7-i in Em). Study lots of music and notice how people modulate.

  5195. musictheory 2019-11-25 10:23:42 ILoveKombucha
    I honestly don't really know. I played the harpsichord for a year at college, but I didn't get into the mechanics of it much. I mean, you can well see how it's working when you play it - a jack with a plectrum (quill or whatever) comes up and plucks the string when you press a key down. The quill flexes until the string can pass underneath it. I guess because it is the flex and release of the quill that creates the string vibration, how hard you hit the key doesn't matter. I think you actually can get very subtle dynamic variation by pressing very hard on the keys, but it's not particularly noticeable, and is likely to be accompanied by a "thud" as you press the key down all the way very quickly. But yeah, ultimately I'm not the best qualified to say. With piano or clavinet, you are directly changing the intensity with which the string is struck, imparting more or less energy into the string. With the harpsichord, the bending and unbending of the quill is what creates the sound, not the force you use (for the most part).

  5196. musictheory 2019-11-25 10:53:58 ok_reset
    The loudness of a plucked string is dictated by how far it's stretched before it's released, and in a harpsichord that's dictated by the stiffness of the quill. The quill pushes against the string until the quill gives way, and that displacement is the same, no matter whether the quill moves quickly or slowly. Think about a guitar: the loudness is affected by the strength of the grip on the pick, not by the speed of picking. With a hammered instrument, a quicker, more energetic blow will displace the string more. ETA: If you could somehow add a mechanism to a harpsichord that stiffened the setting of the quill in proportion to the acceleration of the jack, you could have velocity sensitivity. It seems like something that *could* be done mechanically, but it would never be as subtle or quick as a piano action.

  5197. musictheory 2019-11-26 07:55:57 whosmansisthis24
    I probably should have specified. Because im playing trumpet which is more aural then visual... I know on bass i just studied every scaled chord arpeggio and just move it wherever i want on the fretboard but trumpets kinda scary in that regard. Im pretty sure bass and guitar are the only moveable shape instrument (maybe i should say most string instruments?) Even piano you have to think of the sharps and flats in a key signature in order to know what your playing

  5198. musictheory 2019-11-26 10:58:07 Zarlinosuke
    Absolutely--it's a favourite trick of all sorts of Romantically-inclined composers especially. The only thing I'd add is that the tonicised Neapolitan need not be in first inversion (since it's no longer functioning locally as a predominant). There's a lovely tonicisation of the Neapolitan (though all over a b6 pedal) early on in Mozart's C major string quintette (K. 515).

  5199. musictheory 2019-11-26 11:51:23 TaigaBridge
    Just so happens I set myself a task of writing a rondo for string quintet last winter, to clear away some composing cobwebs and see if I still remembered how: [PDF score](taigabridge.net/music/quintet_g_rondo.pdf) and [MP3](taigabridge.net/music/quintet_g_rondo.mp3) rendition using Synthfont and a MIDI file. In retrospect, I am not super happy with the C theme or the 2nd half of the A theme. But am reasonably happy with the overall form.

  5200. musictheory 2019-11-27 16:37:41 Jongtr
    > I'd love to ask my teacher but am a bit embarrassed to do so is, what chords/keys are existential in nature? None - or all of them. In any case, you first need to define "existential". "Relating to existence" could mean anything at all. "Existentialism" is a philosophy of free will; it's not really about the "meaning of existence". I don't really think that's what you mean about the mood of that piece. You mean it's meditative, reflective, it promotes introspection, and so on. >What is it about that song that made me question and appreciate life before the scene ever told me what I should feel? That would b entirely down to some personal association of yours. What the piece does do, very successfully - as I said - is *make you think.* That's *nothing to do with the mode or the chords.* Almost nothing anyway. It's everything to do with (a) the tempo (very slow); (b) the orchestration/arrangement (long high sustained notes on something like flutes or strings); (c) studio effects (reverb); (d) extreme simplicity of melodic material (long measured notes on piano); (e) absence of clear rhythmic pulse. The first minute or so sounds like the composer himself meditating, playing random notes, thinking about what note could follow. Then you get a few chords creeping in, as if now he's forming a more complete thought in his mind. Finally you get a more complete string arrangement, beginning to swell at 1:30, basses arriving to flesh it out. Swelling strings are a classic device for evoking tearful emotion - you've seen that done in countless hollywood films, or accompanying countless sentimental lyrics. In short, what you should ask your teacher is about this piece specifically, and how the composer achieves his effects. Don't start from assumptions about individual elements such as chords or scales - whose effect is hugely exaggerated in popular myth. Your teacher is right *to some extent* about the effect of scale types in different genres, but it only really applies to variations in how much blues influence a genre has. Genres like rock'n'roll (and rock in general) grew out of the blues. Genres which have little or no blues influence (classical, folk, mainstream pop) all share the same scales, regardless of what mood individual pieces produce. Jazz mixes classical scales (major and minor) with blues, and so does country music. (All American popular music does.) The major scale can be used for "happy" and "sad" music alike, as can the minor scale. "Dorian mode", e.g., could be used for something like "Any Other Name", but it's also used for [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7ATTjg7tpE). Spot any similarity? ;-)

  5201. musictheory 2019-11-28 02:07:29 tdammers
    This is almost certainly because pop music and related guitar-heavy genres are grossly overrepresented in the sample, and these four keys just happen to be the most convenient ones on guitar; they're also convenient on the second most prominent instrument family in pop music, the keyboards. If you were to sample other genres, you'd get different results. For example, marches and other wind band music will be biased towards Eb and Bb major. Chopin's work uses a lot of black keys, because that suits the playing style better. Jazz tunes are all over the place, but biased towards flats. String ensemble music is more likely to use sharps than flats due to the harmonic resonances of open strings. Irish folk music favors D major, because that is the most common tuning for the tin whistle. I could go on, but you get the idea.

  5202. musictheory 2019-11-28 02:07:51 Scatcycle
    There's going to be vastly different key tendencies for each genre of music. Piano, for example, benefits greatly from the use of many black notes; Db major is said to be the easiest key. In trap, one will generally pick keys around C-F as this is the range where most subwoofers excel and the bass will sound phat. In pop, you'll want to highlight your singer's voice, and keys may reflect the average natural tessitura of the human voice. Now, piano and trap pale in historical popularity compared to pop within the last 100 years. This is changing, but it will take a while for the stats to reflect that. It will be interesting to check these stats again in the future. As for whether it's a good or bad thing that the keys tend to center around simpler key signatures, it's probably not a maximization of potential, but that doesn't mean the songs would be better were they a different key signature. As pointed out earlier, certain songs will sound better in certain keys due to tessituras, or even things like open strings on string instruments. There's a reason Adagio for Strings is in Bb minor. This means that people may be missing out on these small nuances because they fear reading dealing with a key signature that has Lots of flats or even double sharped notes. The key is that they probably would have played worse on this difficult key anyway, stagnating their creativity and ruining songs. So, it's good that they chose a key that works for them. It might not be the best possible, but it's the best they can do.

  5203. musictheory 2019-11-28 02:08:38 RothkoRathbone
    Found this quote on [another thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/WeAreTheMusicMakers/comments/15ir8o/hey_musicians_what_would_you_say_the_most_common/) u/2efgh56782 >this. the usual tuning for a guitar is EADGBE. the lower four strings are tuned in perfect fourths (E up to A = A up to D = D up to G = perfect fourth) and if the other two strings were tuned the same way, they would be tuned to C and F. rock music is built on perfect fourth and perfect fifth intervals, moreover, using an open string as the root note in the chord has many advantages, so the most used chords should be E, A, D, G, C and F. unless you're using non-standard tuning, in which case this all falls apart.

  5204. musictheory 2019-11-28 06:06:00 HammerAndSickled
    A lot of guitarists tuned down a half step back in those days, either for comfort or string tension reasons.

  5205. musictheory 2019-11-28 06:10:43 flug32
    BTW, anyone wondering why stringed instruments dislike playing in flat keys: Someone else can talk about guitars & the like, but as far as violin, viola, cello, and bass: Strings are tuned to notes favoring sharp keys - C, G, D, A, E and the like. Students are taught mostly in keys with a few sharps, so they're most comfortable in those. Because of the standard positions & fingerings taught, enharmonic sharps and flats are literally different notes for string players. So A# and Bb are fingered and played (and just as important *tuned* differently. So more advanced players learn to play in all keys of course. But for example when someone brought a orchestra piece into our composition class in four flats. It was to be played by our conservatory's orchestra, which was a relatively advanced performing group. "Better change that key," was the first thing the prof. said. "It's going to sound like shit in that key." "But all the performers have to learn all the keys and all the scales, like going back to junior high. They can play in Ab major!" "It's just going to sound weak and out of tune, take my word for it. You could maybe get away with that key down at the Symphony where everyone is a long-time paid professional but even there it would sound noticeably weaker and worse than just moving it up a half step to A major. For a sight-reading performance at the Conservatory you're just asking for trouble." So you can believe that or not as you like, but he was talking from like 40 years of experience arranging things for different string groups at different levels from the lowest to the highest.

  5206. musictheory 2019-11-28 10:03:17 lucayala
    I tune my 12 string guitar 3 half steps, so I got a lot of songs in C#m, F#m, B...

  5207. musictheory 2019-11-28 21:54:43 SamuraiKidd
    Aren't sharps and flats the same thing? What does it mean for a string ensemble to favor sharps over flats?

  5208. musictheory 2019-11-28 23:19:25 driftingfornow
    Yeah pretty much. I otherwise agree with you that D is kind of limited in standard tuning. One of the things I can never get around is the standard voicings for A, G, E, F, B, and C all have tonic chords with the root on the bottom four strings which have chunkier voicings. D string just doesn’t want to do that and has a sparkly characteristic.

  5209. musictheory 2019-11-28 23:38:36 Peter_Pansen
    100% right. In Metal most songs are in the keys of E-minor or E-phrygian because of the use of pedal point on the lowest guitar string. Of course many Metalbands today tune down or use 7/8-string guitars, but the lowest string defines the key in most cases.

  5210. musictheory 2019-11-29 02:13:32 tdammers
    It means that keys on the "sharps" side of the circle of fifths sound more brilliant and are easier to play. Both have to do with open strings. In most "sharps" keys (G, D, A, E, B), the open strings and their lower harmonics (5th, 3rd) align with notes in the key: C#, D, E, F#, G, A, A#, B are all part of one or more harmonic series of an open string on the violin (also double bass), and if you include cello and viola, you gain an additional C. So any of these notes will have richer harmonics in a string ensemble due to open strings resonating. And those notes happen to cover the keys of C major through B major, essentially all the "sharps" keys except F# major. Now, of course you are free to respell them enharmonically, but in all seriousness, only a sadist or a hopeless pedant would write a composition in F flat major.

  5211. musictheory 2019-11-29 09:13:47 Zarlinosuke
    The reason, as I understand it (I'll admit I'm a string player, so I'm not speaking from firsthand experience) is that it means you don't have to learn a whole new set of fingerings for a new instrument. Clarinet in B-flat and a clarinet in A are both called for often enough in orchestral repertoire, and if they were all written in C--or all written in B-flat for that matter--it would be like having to learn two different instruments (since a written C would be produced differently on the two), whereas in the current way, it's like one instrument that happens to have two differently-pitched variants. A B-flat on a B-flat clarinet and an A on an A clarinet may sound like different pitches, but to the player they're the same because they both look the same on the staff and are produced the same on the instrument. Essentially it makes a little more work for the conductor and composer for the sake of making it a little easier for the players. On the other hand, for some instruments the reason is by this point entirely historical. Horns used to come in just about every key imaginable, but now only the F horn has survived, and things would be totally fine if F horns were now notated in concert pitch, but they aren't just because of tradition inertia.

  5212. musictheory 2019-11-29 09:23:21 tamkit
    The beat frequency is simply the difference between the two interfering frequencies. So say you have an A string tuned to play a tone equal to 440Hz. If you add another A string, slightly detuned so it plays at 430Hz, you would create a beat of interference of 10Hz, being the difference between 440 and 430. You would, theoretically, want to tune one of your B strings 65Hz away from the frequency of the other, either below or above. A note that to make it a 'binaural' beat, this would require having one of the B strings playing only in the left channel, and the other, detuned B string, playing in the right channel, thereby creating the auditory illusion of a binaural beat to a listener with headphones on.

  5213. musictheory 2019-11-29 10:03:29 Achilles1300
    It's a long answer and a little complicated but I'll do my best. Instruments are either quarter wave resonators or half wave resonators (and then there's percussion but that's a whole other thing, also with the voice it's a quarter resonator but it's a lot more complicated so I'm talking specifically about instruments). Piano/guitar/mandolin/violin (stringed instruments) etc. are all half wave resonators. While instruments such as brass or woodwind are all quarter wave resonators. Now here's the tricky part. Think of a sin wave. This is how frequency is produced. When you hit a guitar string, g2 for instance, that string is oscillating at 98hz. That means the string is completing that sin wave 98 times per second at its fundamental frequency. Stringed instruments are easy to retune though so they're clearly not the issue. It's those quarter wave resonator instruments that are at the core of the answer to your question. With these instruments the natural key of the instrument is determined by the length (which is especially important) and the shape of the instrument. There's a whole lot more length of tube to a tuba then there is tube to a trumpet, hence why they are in different keys. The length of the tubing is what's determining the key that a particular instrument is. I hope this helps, let me know if you've any more questions! This is my jam 😊

  5214. musictheory 2019-11-29 11:58:43 Kryspeh
    65 bpm = 65 cycles/min * 1min/60sec = 1.08333 cycles/sec = 1.083333 hz. The difference frequency will be created by the difference between two frequencies, so you should tune the other string 1.083333 hz sharp or flat.

  5215. musictheory 2019-11-29 14:07:37 Zarlinosuke
    Ah OK! Yeah, what I think is often underacknowledged (by all parties) is that a lot of classical musicians use staff notation essentially as a form of tablature. For instance, I play cello, and when I see a note on the top space of the bass staff, my first thought is not "G below middle C," but rather "fourth finger on the second string in first position."

  5216. musictheory 2019-11-29 17:52:34 HashPram
    **Medieval** Plainchant. There are numerous branches of chant - Gregorian being the one most people have heard of, but if you want something that shows the kinds of regional variation in chant - and are arguably sylistically closer to the near-Eastern origins of Christianity - you could try [Byzantine chant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8M10AE9Ki0), [Old Roman](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JOShBSsql0) chant, [Syriac chant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1p1kLwNdTc) and so on. And after plainchant came harmony - or the beginnings of it at least. [Leonin](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngCRm7uLirA) and [Perotin](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA_XhMKH6oo) are the standout names in the early medieval period - they're making music at the point at which we're transitioning from single and double-line plainchant to music with four independent parts. In terms of "when" it's roughly around the time when Stephen and Henry II were on the English throne - middle 1100s. **Baroque period** Monteverdi is a must. He didn't invent Opera but, like Haydn and the string quartet, he took it and made it his own. Stylistically he sits somewhere between the Renaissance and Baroque - his early music has more in common with the Renaissance and his later music has more in common with the Baroque. The middle baroque is something I'm not over-familiar with but the standout names are Corelli and Lully. The later baroque is stuffed full of people you'll have heard before - Handel, J.S. Bach, Vivaldi. They'll all great. **Classical period** Haydn. Mozart and Beethoven get enough love. He wasn't the first person to write a String Quartet but he possessed the form so thoroughly that he may as well have invented it. His output is prodigious (68 string quartets (one unfinished), 107 symphonies, in the region of 50 piano sonatas), he mentored Mozart and tutored Beethoven, his music is (generally) _irrepresibly_ jolly, he was loved by just about everyone who worked with him. And, if you like to trace "transitional" composers, you could do worse than C.P.E. Bach. J.S. (his father) gets a lot of attention (deservedly so), but C.P.E. was both an influence on, and influenced by Haydn and was far more famous in his day than J.S. **Romantic period** I really like [Borodin's String Quartet #2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrbJyzyOG6A). I wouldn't call it pivotal, I have no idea if it's influential, and I doubt it's groundbreaking - it's just lovely, lovely writing. "I have a cassette called 'best of music'. I only like one side" -- Steven Wright

  5217. musictheory 2019-11-29 20:10:11 MaggaraMarine
    > a lot of classical musicians use staff notation essentially as a form of tablature This may apply to cello (and other string instruments), but I don't think it applies to all instruments. On string instruments it makes sense because you can play the same note in many positions and string instruments are very "shape based" instruments. But on piano, I'm pretty sure people don't only think about fingerings, they also think about note names (because note names are so easy on piano). Same probably applies to wind instruments, especially brass where you can play different notes on the same fingering.

  5218. musictheory 2019-11-30 00:17:47 Zarlinosuke
    For piano I would definitely expect players to think of note names over fingers. For brass though, I'm kind of surprised to hear you say that, and evidently (according to other commenters here) not everyone does, but still I had expected that brass players would think even more in fingerings than string players (since on strings most notes can be made in multiple ways too), but still it's interesting to hear your perspective on this! and thank you for sharing it.

  5219. musictheory 2019-11-30 01:13:14 puntopasta
    not bad for a string player! most of them just laugh at me when i try to explain them this as sax player

  5220. musictheory 2019-11-30 02:49:50 MaggaraMarine
    The thing with brass instruments is that different notes have the same fingering, and it doesn't follow a similar "logic" as string instruments. This is why I would expect brass players to be aware of the notes they are playing. So, it's basically the opposite to string instruments - on string instruments you have many ways of playing the same note, whereas on brass, you have one fingering that is the same for multiple notes. I have experience playing both trumpet and guitar, and guitar is such a pattern-based instrument that I pretty much only focus on shapes, not really note names. My note knowledge on the fretboard is still pretty bad - I know the notes well on the two lowest strings, but naming the notes on the higher strings takes some time. But this is because you can just shift the same pattern up or down - you really don't need to know all of the note names (and this applies to basically all stringed instruments). Trumpet and other brass instruments lack these patterns, and you need to learn every key separately, and this is why I would expect brass players to think more about note names.

  5221. musictheory 2019-11-30 03:57:00 Zarlinosuke
    Yeah I wouldn't expect most string players to get it!

  5222. musictheory 2019-11-30 07:46:20 Jongtr
    Yes, but how will you actually tune the note? How does the figure help with actually tuning the string?

  5223. musictheory 2019-12-01 00:37:09 Xirrious-Aj
    I mean to say that uncertainty is a quantum behavior at heart, and here we see it manifesting at much larger scales in the domain of classical mechanics. The math is the same, that's another way of putting it. It's funny we see math occur in repeating fractals like this, or having the same equations describe vastly different frame of references. Electron movement versus standing waves on a string for instance. It's just pretty neat, I think. Not claiming I have a super comprehensive grasp on wave mechanics though, just making observation.

  5224. musictheory 2019-12-01 01:17:47 FormlessEdge
    An instrument or string would continue to resonate, so this would be impossible to replicate. But this can easily be done on a computer. If a wave is stopped mid cycle, then it sounds like a click.

  5225. musictheory 2019-12-01 01:52:11 Dune89-sky
    Why not just play rootless backing chords on guitar. You know, like pianists in jazz trios comp themselves in solos. That way bass gets full freedom. Voice your chords no lower than note D on fret 5 of fifth string. In sparse bands like guitar trios vocal harmonies may be an important addition to provide more richness and strength. I mean fingerstyle guitar sounds a bit weak even if amplified in a live setting (One man band Tommy Emmanuel is a notable exception).

  5226. musictheory 2019-12-01 03:56:22 CatMan_Sad
    Yeah just don’t play the low roots. Stick to the D string and up and you’ll be fine, I think there could be some reeally cool harmony and chord melody by focusing on that smaller interval.

  5227. musictheory 2019-12-01 04:46:33 BondsJimmyBonds
    So if I only play a palm muted open A string on my guitar for an instant and percussive hit, it's not an A? Nope, wrong! It's still an A... Are you saying that if I palm mute every single note all the way up the neck, on every string, just for an instant percussive hit, there's no change in pitch because the frequency hasn't completed a complete wave cycle yet? You may be saying that, and my response would be, you're tone deaf.

  5228. musictheory 2019-12-01 15:31:56 nmitchell076
    So Greenberg is basically regurgitating very common critical consensus about these pieces. There's not a lot here that I think differs from what most basic surveys of Gershwin's concert music would say about these pieces. It's sort of the classic thing to say about Gershwin: dude could write melodies, but he couldn't string them together or work convincingly with large-scale form. But really, the hand-wavey "technically speaking" stuff is just a mask these critics wear so they don't have to talk about their aesthetic assumptions and can pretend like the faults are an objective fact. But what's *really* going on is that these critics are operating under a romantic notion of what makes a piece of classical music good. Basically, a classical piece is good, according to this view, if all the ideas seem to fit together in a way that each idea feels like it "naturally" follows from the last. Romantics often like to summarize this idea as "the piece feels unified." Often times, this really means that there are details in the main theme that seem to have an impact on stuff that happens later on in the piece: such as a motive that reappears in a new context later, or an interesting melodic motion that later becomes an interesting chord progression that even later becomes an interesting succession of keys or something. Romantics eat that shit up. Because one can pinpoint purely musical reasons for why things happen the way they do in a given piece of music. It's often hard to do that in Gershwin's concert music. Seldom does a small detail in a Gershwin theme have consequences later on in the piece. There's very little "development" of ideas, ideas just sort of happen, and then the next one does, and so on. This makes it a bad piece for Romantics, at least from a structural standpoint. Though critics often make an exception for the slow movement of the Concerto, which admittedly is GORGEOUS. I also think that the fact that Gershwin *has fun* with his fast movements is a problem for Romantics too, since they expect their genius artists to be exceedingly broody and hyper-serious. Gershwin definitely ain't that, so I think even the sheer fun of a Gershwin fast movement is a problem for romantics. But one doesn't really have to adopt that romantic view in the first place. And if one doesn't care about this strange thing called "musical unity," then the supposed defects of Gershwin's pieces vanish into thin air.

  5229. musictheory 2019-12-01 15:46:11 Xenoceratops
    >when it comes down to the enjoyment of the art a normal person's opinion matters as much as the genius does >... >I dont think anyone cant really judge what people like, but where I think we can agree is that almost all of the most acclaimed scores and compositions have been unique. You're correct that taste in art is a subjective. Yes, you like things because of your unique experience, as does everyone else in the world. What's missing here is an account of the objective realm of causality. Movie studios (as any capitalist enterprise) make cultural products the way they do not because of some commitment to artistry and satisfying consumers' ears, but in pursuit of an abstraction — profit. Former Disney CEO Michael Eisner, for example, once wrote in an internal memo: >>We have no obligation to make Art. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make a statement. But to make money, it is often important to make history, art, a statement, or all three." Let's back up though. Think about this: how much of your taste is really yours? Could your pattern of cultural consumption exist without the underlying culture? Surely, all the people and things you bring up in the OP — Michael Giacchino, Nathan Johnson, Hans Zimmer, John Williams, orchestras, string quartets, the Western tonal-harmonic system, the heaping pile of film-scoring clichés, the American film industry itself — arise from a specific cultural context. You don't hear bluegrass music as the default style for film music. Critical theory studies the link between our objective, material circumstances, social relations (all the people behind film music are employed through a top-down hierarchy that places demands and limitations on their output; the system of intellectual property in the West exerts its own pressures too), and manifestations of the underlying socioeconomic system on society. If you have the time, I recommend you watch Renegade Cut's video on [Late Stage Disney](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0lSoHNmMTA) and Tantacrul's video on [Corporate Music](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIxY_Y9TGWI).

  5230. musictheory 2019-12-02 03:50:55 tylerguitar75
    If you’re a guitar player, it helps to visualize intervals on the fretboard (that’s the only way I can do it since I don’t fw piano or sheet music). So a relative minor is 3 frets down. Like C on the 8th fret E string -> A on the 5th fret. A major third would be up (up in pitch, not physical height) a string and down a fret. Go down another fret for a minor third.

  5231. musictheory 2019-12-02 09:21:24 pysience
    id just listen to some music that is related to what you want to create. Find some finale movements of string quartets and other pieces and listen to how they form motifs (usually they're pretty short-winded in these forms. don't feel to pressured to make the most beautiful motif, especially because its just for a class.) Here's a Mozart rondo that I feel might inspire you! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hrz8w_faDs

  5232. musictheory 2019-12-02 13:11:37 bowtiesandsouffles
    SHARPS SHARPS SHARPS, I’m a guitar player and flats are the death of me. You see- sharps for us live within the same string, for flats you have to go to a different string so it’s... a pain... to sight read. More than 2 flats and I think I’d rather die.

  5233. musictheory 2019-12-02 13:51:44 biggerbluejay
    roll some dice to come up with a random string of notes, then use that as your motif

  5234. musictheory 2019-12-02 14:11:46 R3neRen3R3n3
    So you piqued my interest and I got looking into this song. The first thing that seems clear to me is that you have the chords enharmonized. C# should be Db and F# should be Gb. Once you do this, the song looks like it's 'in Db with extra steps'. (Db-G|Ab-Gb|F-Cb|Gb-Ab) Now, the only chords that are strange here are G and Cb. The rest are mostly just I, IV and V. To explain them I found the first page of the sheet music for the Perfect Circle cover of the song (which, apart from being in E major instead of Db seems to be just the same) -G here shoud actually be Eb/G which solves the first mystery instantly: it's the Dominant's Dominant. Right after goes Ab, the dominant, so the resolution is very clear. So far we have (I-V6/V|V-IV|iii-?|IV-V) -Cb is more interesting, because by itself it seems pretty weird, apart from the fact that its fundamental is the 7th of the V7 of the Gb that follows it (which should already suggest an infection to the IV). And actually that's the key. If you look at the melody, it goes F-Eb-Db on top of the Cb chord. If you string the two of them together, you soon realize that it's not actually a Cb chord but a Db9/Cb, so the Subdominant's Dominant, which is also resolved immediately. Our progression ends up being: (I-V₆/V|V-IV|iii-V₂9/IV|IV-V) After that the only chord that seems slightly weird is iii, but then you have to realize that it makes a melodic tritone in the bass, just like the first measure, and it's probably this thematic tritone that gives the progression its sour character. Hope it helps.

  5235. musictheory 2019-12-02 16:38:05 cellophant15
    I used to do the same with string quartet pieces!

  5236. musictheory 2019-12-02 16:56:26 tdammers
    Listen to Beethoven's 5th and meditate on how he builds an entire fucking symphony out of 4 notes, three of which are the same note. What I'm trying to say here is that the "motif" doesn't matter all that much. Sometimes, we are gifted a divine melody that carries itself, and everything falls into place; but you don't need a divine melody to write good music. The lousiest of material can work just fine, it's not about the material, it's about what you do with it. A common problem in this context is choice paralysis - "here's all the empty music sheets you want, pick any instruments you like, no technical restrictions, now write some music in a genre of your choice" is literally the worst composition task, because you have too fucking many choices. Just arbitrarily fix a bunch of things and stick with those, focusing on the areas where you do allow yourself some choice. "Compose a 2-minute rondo for an amateur string quartet that sounds tonal, but not too conventional" is a much easier composition task, because so many parameters are fixed, and all the limitations imposed by the assignment are actually helpful, because those are all choices you don't have to make. So go and create some limitations. It can be absolutely stupid: roll a dice for 5 notes, draw random dots on a sheet of music paper, throw darts at a circle of fifths, whatever, and then challenge yourself to use that as your main motif. Anything to break the paralysis.

  5237. musictheory 2019-12-03 02:36:19 peduxe
    it's not really that hard, I see on the comments you play guitar so familiarise yourself with the shapes and practice chord changes as much as you can. in the major key 1-3-5 are major, 2-3-6 are minor chords. some extensions work better than others but you need to find out that yourself. for example having a minor 6th chord from the 2nd degree always sounded very off to me but on the 3rd it works. Slash chords are easy, take your know shapes and add the bass note either by barring on the nearest bottom string that is muted/open, you can also do this with chords that are played just on the top 4 strings and add the bass note with your thumb. suspended chords can be used to prolong the return to the home work, they can also function as a V dominant chord, augmented and diminished chords the same. look up the fingerings and explore that yourself there's no better way.

  5238. musictheory 2019-12-03 04:12:23 vornska
    I think the most important change of perspective is that people stopped believing in value judgments like this. If (like most modern scholars) you think it's patently absurd for scholarship to rank the greatness of art, you stop investing energy in this sort of game. It seems nearly as juvenile as debating whether Vegeta or Mewtwo would win in a fight. That said, there has been something of an efflorescence of interesting scholarship on Schubert's music in the last 3 decades. One recent source for this is the book *Rethinking Schubert*, edited by Lorraine Byrne Bodley and Julian Horton (Oxford University Press, 2016), which assembles chapters by various scholars interested in Schubert's music. I haven't read the book (and from what I gather, the chapters are of mixed quality), but Part II is devoted to the instrumental music. Also worth mentioning is Suzannah Clark's book *Analyzing Schubert* (Cambridge University Press, 2012). One important strand in the recent reevaluation of Schubert has to do with the subfield called Neo-Riemannian Theory, invented by David Lewin & followers in the 1990s. Schubert's instrumental music (such as the B-flat major Piano Sonata, D. 960) provides many of the canonical examples of Neo-Riemannian theory. The scholar Richard Cohn played a leading role in the development of this theory & the situation of Schubert's music at its core: the classic article here is Richard Cohn, "As Wonderful as Star Clusters: Instruments for Gazing at Tonality in Schubert" *19th-Century Music* 22, no. 3 (1999): 213-232. Basically the idea is that Schubert explored chord progressions that are "purely chromatic": they make more sense if you think in terms of the voice leading between chords that is possible in the chromatic scale, without needing to relate those chords to roman numerals or diatonic function. Cohn offers a wonderful summary of this research in his book *Audacious Euphony*. Form in Schubert is somewhat less popular, still, although there's a long tradition of interest in the late string quartets. Carl Dahlhaus has a landmark essay "Sonata Form in Schubert: The First Movement of the G-Major String Quartet, op. 161 (D. 887)." Other recent work on Schubert's use of form includes Su Yin Mak, "Schubert's Sonata Forms and the Poetics of the Lyric" *Journal of Musicology* 23, no. 2 (2006): 263-306; Anne Hyland, "In Search of Liberated Time, or Schubert's Quartet in G Major, D. 887: Once More Between Sonata and Variation," *Music Theory Spectrum* 38, no. 1 (2016): 85–108; and Jonathan Guez's dissertation "Schubert's Recapitulation Scripts" (Yale University, 2015) and his publications since then, e.g. "The 'Mono-Operational' Recapitulation in Movements by Beethoven and Schubert," *Music Theory Spectrum* 40, no. 2 (2018): 227–247. The theorist Stephen Rodgers has been interested in Schubert's use of form at a smaller scale (e.g. at the phrase level), as in his "Schubert's Idyllic Periods," *Music Theory Spectrum* 39, no. 2 (2017): 223–246. The study of form itself has undergone a renaissance in music theory since the 1990s, basically the same period during which one finds more interest in Schubert; though it's not clear that the two trends are directly connected. Musicologists have had an equally important role in the recent Schubert research literature. The first thing I'd mention is Kristina Muxfeldt's wonderful book *Vanishing Sensibilities: Schubert, Beethoven, Schumann* (Oxford University Press, 2012), though I shouldn't ignore Susan Youens's multiple(!) books on Schubert's songs. A good deal of musicological interest in Schubert was spurring in the early 1990s by the speculation that he might have been gay or bi, as explored by Maynard Solomon ("Franz Schubert and the Peacocks of Benvenuto Cellini") and Susan McClary ("Constructions of Subjectivity in Franz Schubert's Music," eventually published in the book *Queering the Pitch*). It's possible that the LGBT movement and the foundation of Queer Studies has played a role in growing appreciation for Schubert's music; even before Solomon & McClary's work, there are works where people seem to be speaking around Schubert's sexuality, like the classic analysis "Schubert's Promissory Note: An Exercise in Musical Hermeneutics" by Edward T. Cone in *19th-Century Music* 5, no. 3 (1982): 233-241. I'll end by mentioning that at least one scholar, John Gingerich, suggests that Schubert himself invites the comparison of his instrumental music with Beethoven--that in the year 1824, Schubert seems to have set out to start composing works in the same register as Beethoven. (See the book *Schubert's Beethoven Project*, published by Cambridge University Press in 2014.)

  5239. musictheory 2019-12-03 04:28:38 DRL47
    The second ledger line below the bass clef is C, not E. The low E on bass is \*written\* as the first ledger line below the bass clef, but it sounds an octave lower. The A string is written at the bottom space and sounds an octave lower. Bass is written an octave higher than it sounds, so the high G string is written as the top space in the bass clef, but sounds an octave lower. You probably won't have a ton of ledger lines.

  5240. musictheory 2019-12-03 05:25:57 MaggaraMarine
    You generally don't see bass guitar written much higher than the high E (9th fret of G string), and that's just two ledger lines above the staff - easily readable. Or sometimes you may go up to the high G on the 12th fret of the G string, and that's just 3 ledger lines above the staff - still fairly easy to read. Maybe some bass solo stuff goes higher than that, but in typical rock band playing, you rarely use the highest register of the bass (notes above the high G are very rare). But I wouldn't really worry about it, until you see the bass parts. BTW, I have played Godspell on bass (it was the "New Broadway Cast" version), and I just checked the score and there's one high A in one song (that is above the third ledger line above the staff) and maybe a couple of high G's. But most of the time it stays below the high E (and even if you are playing a different arrangement, I doubt the high notes will differ that much - the highest register of bass just isn't very common in rock band context). Also, since it's basically rock music, you may sometimes just have chord symbols, and not have everything written out (and even if everything is written out, it doesn't mean you necessarily need to play everything exactly like it's written - if you listen to the "New Broadway Cast" recording, you'll notice that the bass player sometimes adds some stuff that's not written in the score).

  5241. musictheory 2019-12-03 16:38:44 dulcetcigarettes
    Yes, I would say so. Of course you can learn more than one instrument at a time, but learning the piano will make everything so much simpler in general. Flute and oboe for example aren't prime instruments for a DAW but if you wanted to, you could use physical models for both - play the part with a piano and use a breath controller (which will allow also to replicate the proper articulations). Or if you happen to become a really good pianist and you can afford it, you could get something like Continuum and after that nearly any instrument you can imagine - if it has a solid physically modeled plugin of it, you can just play it as if it was the real thing (for the most part). All woodwinds have great physical models of them thanks to SWAM engine by audio modeling. Same goes for string instruments that aren't the guitar. Brasses I'm not 100% sure of. So basically, here you should be thinking in terms of whats most versatile instrument and that's just always going to be the piano. Every DAW is designed so that you should be able to easily integrate a midi keyboard into the workflow and any instrument you use can be controlled by it. But keyboard has its limitations and only expensive keyboards like Continuum or Seaboard overcome those. Actually I think smallest possible seaboard keyboard doesn't cost that much and it would probably work very well for most traditional instruments as their range is always pretty limited anyway.

  5242. musictheory 2019-12-04 02:33:46 dooffus
    Are you just looking for something that sounds complete? If so I’d say just go one fret further on the high E string, so you go from B to C. Then go back from there. Another reason it mightn’t sound quite right is that you’re starting on F. Usually scales start on the root of the key, ie C for the C scale. It would sound more complete if you started on C, or maybe E or G since they’re part of the C chord. For extra completeness you could even finish by playing G (on low E string) to C (on A string). This is a classic 5 - 1 progression, which sounds very complete and resolved.

  5243. musictheory 2019-12-04 02:49:32 FwLineberry
    If you're trying to hear the scale, I'd recommend starting on the C at the 3rd fret of the A string, ascend to the B on the E string. Descend to the F on the low E string. Ascend back to the C on the A string. If you're just trying to get the fingering down, stick to the notes in the pattern/position. and go backwards once you get to the top. Another thing you can do is ascend to the B, like you're doing, then shift up one fret to C and descend 3-notes-per-string in the next higher position down to G on the low E string. From there shift back down to the F. You can play a two-position loop this way. What is your sticking point? Is it just hearing the scale as you try to play it? In order to use a scale musically, you have to be able to play any part of the scale ascending or descending without and hang-ups.

  5244. musictheory 2019-12-04 04:09:59 ChuckEye
    Buy a Roland GK-3 pickup instead of building your own. It has six discrete outputs, one for each string.

  5245. musictheory 2019-12-04 04:11:51 Beastintheomlet
    I'm far from qualified but my first few thoughts are: Bleed, since pickups create a magnetic field it'd be difficult to create a pickup that only 'hears' a single string and not a neighboring one. Analyzing what the fundemental is and what's just an overtone. There's a way around this as tuners can already tell which of the frequencies is the fundemental, but I have no idea how they do it and I know on guitar for many notes the first fundemental (the octave) is actually louder than the fundemental is, at least when you look at in a spectrometer. All of this becomes vastly harder once you introduce overdrive and distortion into the mix because they just cranks the overtones of everything. I hadn't heard of anything like this but it's an interesting idea. Definitely reach out to some electrical engineers or better yet someone who makes pickups as they'd be able to really see issues before they crop up.

  5246. musictheory 2019-12-04 04:28:14 VikInari
    Thanks for the reply, actually the idea is not to assign just 1 or 0 to each magnet. I'm aware of the fact that other strings near will interfere with the main string I want to catch Example: | 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 | means that the G string has been pressed What actually happens: | 0.35 - 0.67 - 0.85 - 0.91 - 0.80 - 0.58 | even though all magnets will report some noise, the circuit of the pickup I wanna build will compare all the 6 values and return the highest where is more probable the string has been picked (in this case G). For the beginning, in order to have some positive results, I could just debug this on clean sound and adjust the algorithms in the back to adapt the software to process all kind of overdrive or effects.

  5247. musictheory 2019-12-04 06:43:32 65TwinReverbRI
    >2 - A normal Single Coil pickup has many magnets all wired together with many layers of copper and connected to a single output, that's why I can't distinguish the string that vibrates the most in a power chord for example, does it seems logic to wire magnets individually in copper and provide a different output for each string (6 in my case) in order to get different results from them when notes are played? You need a MIDI pickup. It has separate magnets for each string (Variax is another form of this).

  5248. musictheory 2019-12-04 22:02:24 Orsonius2
    would it be wrong to say then that the lowest note in my chord dictates the root? Like for example I play in drop Eb tuning on my guitar (F standard with a downtuned low E string) so a sus2 would be an open powerchord where I play the 2nd fret on my second Eb string. which creates the Eb Bb F arrangement but if I wanted it to be a sus4 I would play an open Bb F and a Eb either on my Ab string or my C string

  5249. musictheory 2019-12-05 00:14:51 UderMows
    Yeah I’d say the lowest not usually dictates the root but not always. If you play C/E or C/G it would sound like an inversion of a C triad. I think that both of those voicing will sound like Eb chords if you play your low Eb string. If you just voice it out starting with your open Bb string I think it would sound like a Bb chord. But it also does not really matter too much, both chords have the same notes and inversions and substitutions are great!

  5250. musictheory 2019-12-05 00:41:48 RichardPascoe
    To get out of the habit of using scales a guitarist can practice improvising with just thirds and fourths on the two high strings. With chords knowing the notes of a chord can really be useful. For example with a Cmaj7 chord when improvising I will use the open G and B in combination with the the C and E played at the tenth position (C taken on the 10th fret high e string and the E taken on the 9th fret g string). Playing octaves is another way of breaking away from scales. If you learn the melody to "Summertime" by Gershwin and then play it using octaves this expands your improvising vocabulary. That is my approach when improvising but I am sure there are other ways of avoiding linear scale playing.

  5251. musictheory 2019-12-05 03:36:35 Baklyn
    Ok. Sounds good. Obviously, because there are already working examples out there, it can be done. I can't think of anything off the top of my head to immediately eliminate a problem where it may be hard to distinguish a weaker signal from a string directly over a pick up pole from a weaker one on another string. Maybe using the concept from a 'shotgun microphone' might work i.e. pole pieces set deep inside the housing with magnetic shielding inside the cavities. Have you considered using the Hall effect? Just thinking outside the box..

  5252. musictheory 2019-12-05 12:35:34 peduxe
    that half diminished chord is one of my favorite chords, lots of indie pop/rock songs uses them - most common fingering is (x10.11.10.11x - Gm7b5) root on A string and is a movable shape.

  5253. musictheory 2019-12-05 13:09:25 AlbinoRhinoUS
    Re the last question, the 5th fret A string is a D note and 3rd fret D string is an F note. D-F is a Dm, potentially a sort of diminished chord, but those are less common

  5254. musictheory 2019-12-05 16:39:41 TheGrog1603
    You need to be careful with your terminology. When you said *inverted* powerchord, judging by your description you actually meant *upside down* powerchord. An inversion is a different thing all together. What you have described is a minor dyad. The 5th fret of the A string is a D, which is your root; and the 3rd fret of the D string is an F, which is the minor third. So it is a Dm dyad. You could fill it out into a full chord by adding the fifth, which would be an A - 2nd fret of the G string. Simply speaking, an *inversion* in music theory is where you take the notes in a chord and re-order them so that the bass note is something other than the root.

  5255. musictheory 2019-12-05 20:55:01 jbbbr
    It makes the widest range of chords the easiest to play. The minor third string is really useful for forming basic minor and major chords with much simpler fingerings. If you ever tried to play a guitar tuned to anything else, like various open tunings or all fourths, all fifths, etc, you'd quickly figure out tunings like that really draw your playing to certain keys and certain chords/tonalities, and standard tuning just happens to be one of the most neutral and flexible ways to tune an instrument. It's still "colored" to a certain degree, and it still favors *some* tonalities and chords more than others, but by and large, it's pretty open-ended.

  5256. musictheory 2019-12-05 21:30:45 maestro2005
    Try it, and see what happens. You'll find that it's nearly impossible to play 5- or 6-string chords. Standard tuning is fairly close to spelling out an Em chord. You get two roots, a fifth, and a third, which is already pretty good voicing, and you only need to "fix" the A and D, which are easily done by bringing them up two frets to another root and fifth. Make it a major chord by bringing up the G one fret. This requires only 2 or 3 fingers, so you have a whole finger left over to make a barre and move the shape all over the fretboard. All-fourths tuning is good for melodic playing, and you can still easily play 4-string chords, so there are definitely times for it. But standard is standard for a reason.

  5257. musictheory 2019-12-05 21:53:29 johnmatthewtennant
    Standard tuning allows for 6-string chords. It’s hard to play them in perfect fourths tuning. However p4 tuning has many other advantages over standard. I’ve been playing in p4 for a year now and I don’t think I’ll go back.

  5258. musictheory 2019-12-05 22:06:03 victotronics
    >The minor third string How is the G minor? G-B is a major third.

  5259. musictheory 2019-12-05 22:07:47 Neamaw
    I thought about this the other day and I realized that if there was a p4 between each string, it would create a b9 between the first and the sixth string. (E - a d g c - F) So then you tune the F string to a E back. (E a d g c E). But then the most obvious chords that you can play, E minor and E major, are now with a minor sixth in it. It would be so easy to just have the fifth again. - tune down C to B. Now you have an instrument that is very much in the key of E. The chords are more accessible. that's my take.

  5260. musictheory 2019-12-05 22:09:09 victotronics
    A tuning in all fourths makes playing open chords very hard. Compare the guitar to the viola da gamba, an instrument that superficially looks like a 6-string cello. However, it's tuned in fourths: D-G-C-E-A-D low to high. See? It also has a third, but one location displaced wrt the guitar. The gamba literature is full of open chords. That would be a lot harder if you had all fourths. So 1. There is no reason for where to have a 3rd instead of a 4th, but 2. There is a good reason for having one!

  5261. musictheory 2019-12-05 22:31:53 ZeonPeonTree
    Mnemonic to remember the string name. I prefer ‘Easter bunny get drunk at Easter’

  5262. musictheory 2019-12-05 22:42:38 DRL47
    Besides being better for more chords, there is an historic aspect. Lutes, the precursors of guitars were tuned in fourths with a third between the middle two strings. The third was just moved over one string.

  5263. musictheory 2019-12-05 23:15:00 Zarlinosuke
    In contrast to what others are saying (which is the most common practice), there is an argument floating around that you actually *are* supposed to take the repeats on the da capo, at least in classical-style music. The main bit of evidence that comes to mind for this is that at the end of the trio in his op. 59 no. 2 string quartette, Beethoven writes "Da capo il minore senza replica" twice (since he wants you to take the DC twice), and the fact that he specifies "senza replica" both times suggests that the norm would have been to take the repeats, and he's trying to make sure that that convention is overridden. Still though, I'm not sure anyone quite knows what the most common practice back then was for certain, and the assumption nowadays is generally that repeats aren't taken.

  5264. musictheory 2019-12-05 23:36:28 ChuckEye
    I've been delving into 5ths tunings myself the last few years, first with an electric mandocello, then with a mandola. In the next few weeks I should be getting a 5 string tenor guitar tuned CGDAE, where the high E is the same pitch as on a guitar.

  5265. musictheory 2019-12-05 23:54:29 outstanding_slacks
    That 5 string tenor guitar sounds great. I'm primarily a guitar player but I started playing violin a couple of years ago and now I'm looking out for a tenor banjo. I like the traditional fiddle tunes.

  5266. musictheory 2019-12-05 23:55:47 noldor41
    Awwww, what happened to being generous..? You’re just being nonsensical with that last statement. Every octave introduces one more harmonic, until it becomes a series of thirds, which creates triads. You can literally hear them. Well maybe you can’t, but that doesn’t change how sound works. There is an audible major triad in the harmonic series in the third octave. Period. Do you by chance play guitar..? Hit the ninth fret harmonic for a pitch reference, & then play the open string. The third is there. It’s even used as a key reference when tuning pianos to equal temperament, b/c it IS a fundamental part of every sound.

  5267. musictheory 2019-12-06 00:03:43 skribsbb
    It's a balance between being able to play easy chords and easy scales. The Em chord on the guitar requires you to fret 2 strings. From bottom-to-top it's 0-2-2-0-0-0. The E chord is 0-2-2-1-0-0. If you did EADGCF, then it would be 0-2-2-0-4-2 for Em, or 0-2-2-0-4-3 for E. That's a much more difficult fretting position. The bottom and top string are the same, and the 2nd string is the perfect of those. It allows those two highest strings to fill the same harmony as the lowest strings. If you were going to play exclusively scales and single-notes, then E-A-D-G-C-F would be better. If you're going to play almost exclusively chords (or especially slide guitar), then an open tuning (i.e. DADFAD) would be better. But if you're going to play notes and scales, then standard tuning is the best compromise.

  5268. musictheory 2019-12-06 00:05:08 mikeputerbaugh
    Cello tuning is C-G-D-A from bottom to top string.

  5269. musictheory 2019-12-06 00:07:37 Jenkes_of_Wolverton
    That's got something to do with getting the best string tension, from the days when strings were made from natural materials ("cat gut"). In the early 18th century there was also a shorter scaled "terz" guitar tuned either a major third higher, or to A-standard if preferred. At that time A wasn't fixed at 440 Hz, so the precise pitch was not an issue since guitarists rarely played with orchestras. Mauro Giuliani's [Guitar Concerto No.3 in F major Op.70](https://open.spotify.com/track/7nKYPY98HUrr7jxHdxJap8) was written for terz guitar, but somewhat ironically it probably gets performed today transcribed for standard sized instruments.

  5270. musictheory 2019-12-06 00:19:15 Jongtr
    It derives from Lute tuning, which has the major 3rd between the 4th and 3rd strings (G C F A D G). The reason is *not* that chords are easier than in all 4ths tuning. Mandolin, for example, is tuned in all 5ths - like a violin - and chords are no trouble. In EADGCF, some shapes are actually easier than in EADGBE. For the rest, one just has to learn new shapes. It's barre shapes that become unusable, because of the difference between 6th and 1st string. But there are alternatives. It's only because one is used to EADGBE that EADGCF seems stupidly difficult. It's more likely, IMO, that the reason for EADGBE is that it makes it easy to tune by ear. The 1st and 6th strings are the same note, the B string is it 5th, and the D-G-B strings form a major triad. The same would obviously have applied to lute, and I imagine the reason for shifting the strings tuned a major 3rd apart was to keep them all as natural notes, no sharps or flats.

  5271. musictheory 2019-12-06 00:30:15 kisielk
    I tried it for a while last year. All the interval patterns and chord shapes become repeating on every string set. So it becomes a lot easier to do runs across strings because you basically follow the same shape and just shift it up 2 frets every other string. Chord shapes are just movable anywhere, with root on any string. So you basically have 1/3 the number of chord shapes to remember. In standard tuning you need to memorize a different fingering depending on if a chord starts on the 6th, 5th, or 4th string. These are all nice things. The disadvantages are that you can’t simply use existing shapes and some chords become a lot more difficult to play. Ultimately I went back to standard tuning because I realized I already had years and years of ingrained muscle memory that would automatically compensate for the major 3rd interval.

  5272. musictheory 2019-12-06 01:50:19 ChuckEye
    A cult? A way of life? A mindset for a new approach to playing guitar? Tough to say. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar\_Craft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar_Craft) But the results are interesting: * California Guitar Trio playing a Bach prelude, handbell choir-style, where each player only plays one note, then the next player plays the next note, etc. [https://youtu.be/6JTL3uxSYhI?t=127](https://youtu.be/6JTL3uxSYhI?t=127) * CGT [playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdEAccE7BMs) more as an ensemble. * [Robert Fripp String Quintet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_fPaRajJ0A) doing a 12-bar blues of sorts * [League of Crafty Guitarists](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3dicKNdKa8)

  5273. musictheory 2019-12-06 01:57:54 BadMotherFolklore
    Many people do tune in fourths, EADGCF. That's a very common tuning for six string basses and it works well for slide guitar. The half step compromise of the high strings came about because of human hand proportions and the ergonomics of comm chord forms. It would be more logical to not do this but it makes the instrument more playable.

  5274. musictheory 2019-12-06 02:55:01 shardik78677
    Thank you for the reply! Hearing how you can easily go up two frets every other string does make playing sound really simple.. very interesting. Cheers

  5275. musictheory 2019-12-06 03:29:59 Alynnwhitaker
    I wish I knew the chords, never took the time to really listen/figure it out because hey, emotions. But, I'm sure it's all inspired by Copland. It's used in movies about inspirational pioneers, but it's always played by the string section. I'll have to go analyze that now.

  5276. musictheory 2019-12-06 03:31:16 Komprimus
    The pentatonic scale makes much more sense with the all-fourths tuning. It's the same pattern all over the neck, no asymmetrical string skip.

  5277. musictheory 2019-12-06 03:32:33 Komprimus
    > It’s hard to play them in perfect fourths tuning. It can be a bit tricky to play the 6-string chords that you would play on standard tuning, but there are many 6-string chords that work fine with the P4, and many that only work with the P4.

  5278. musictheory 2019-12-06 03:55:32 metalliska
    10 fingers, playing 10 notes on keyboard. 6 strings with 6 frets (or if you have a 12-string guitar, the same frets just dual-lined strings with one octave up)

  5279. musictheory 2019-12-06 05:17:05 cartoptauntaun
    All-fourths tuning makes vertical transposition of chords and scales easier, so it's great for movable shapes. Maybe that is why you find it neutral. However, all-fourths tuning makes certain inversions more difficult to play and reduces the utility of 1-finger barring. This limits the number of useful chord shapes (I'm going to focus on the 5th below, but the same goes for 3rds). - In standard tuning you can 1-finger bar a 2 octave unison on E as well as the 1.5 octave 5th for both E and A strings. - In standard tuning the 5-1-3 major inversion is a single bar on the D string, and the b3-5-1 minor inversion is a single bar on the G string. - The M3 interval allows for tighter voicing with the high E and B strings because it shifts the voices closer to the next closest string, G. (especially the P5 interval.) - The barred 1.5 octave 5th in standard tuning is useful for most spread inversions. Alternatively, the barred 1.5 octave #5th in P4 tuning is a rare harmony to lean on. In general the Standard tuning has more utility for chord voicing, and the P4 tuning is easier to modulate, which makes it more convenient for shredders in some tonalities. Some voicings are out of reach in P4, some out of reach for Standard, but in general the standard set is more useful. P5 and 8ve intervals are important in all western music, even when #5 and b2 are used in the piece. Standard tuning takes longer to learn because of the string shift, but that seems worth it to me.

  5280. musictheory 2019-12-06 06:12:03 ChuckEye
    The current high string is a minor third above normal high guitar E. Some players can get a .010 up to that without breaking, but others use a .008. They tried getting a .007 to A instead of G, but haven't committed to it. If they were going straight 5ths, it would have to go all the way up to a B, a 5th above the normal high E. Nobody makes a .005 or whatever it would take to get that high with a normal scale length guitar.

  5281. musictheory 2019-12-06 06:38:02 LuisegeschlosseneLip
    On a 6-String Bass on the other hand, all strings are tuned in 4ths, since you don't play chords like you would on a guitar.

  5282. musictheory 2019-12-06 07:34:23 Komprimus
    > Maybe that is why you find it neutral. Well, yea, if all the keys look the same, it's neutral. > However, all-fourths tuning makes certain inversions more difficult to play and reduces the utility of 1-finger barring. It makes certain inversions easier to play/possible, and it increases the utility of 1-finger when using altered chords. > In standard tuning you can 1-finger bar a 2 octave unison on E as well as the 1.5 octave 5th for both E and A strings. In P4 you can 1-finger a b9 as well as the #5 for both E and A strings. > In standard tuning the 5-1-3 major inversion is a single bar on the D string, and the b3-5-1 minor inversion is a single bar on the G string. In P4, all the inversions look the same and you don't have to learn them three times over. The inversions you mention here are extremely easy to play with P4 as well. > The M3 interval allows for tighter voicing P4 allows for more spread voicings. > The barred 1.5 octave 5th in standard tuning is useful for most spread inversions Like I said, I think the P4 tuning is much better when it comes to spread inversions, for obvious reasons. > Alternatively, the barred 1.5 octave #5th in P4 tuning is a rare harmony to lean on. Not when you play jazz it isn't. > In general the Standard tuning has more utility for chord voicing As a long time player of both tunings, I disagree. I now know more chords than I would have known had I never made the switch to P4, simply because you can learn more in shorter amount of time. > Standard tuning takes longer to learn because of the string shift, but that seems worth it to me. You're saying it as if you can somehow "learn" the guitar completely. You can never learn everything there is to learn about guitar playing, but the P4 tuning can get you much closer to it. If two people practiced the same amount of time, but one did it in standard and the other in P4, the one doing it in P4 would be ahead. I see this with my students as well. A couple of them tried the P4 tuning, and their progress sped up a lot. Like, really a lot. It was kinda unbelievable, actually. But I suppose it ultimately depends on what kind of music you want to play. If you want to play folk or classical, P4 is probably not the best option unless you want to write your own stuff. But for jazz or any music that deals with improvisation, I think the P4 tuning comes out on top big time, all things considered.

  5283. musictheory 2019-12-06 10:54:18 MegadoomerX
    I played that one with a low F# and all fifths for a while, couldn't get it to work. Needless to say, I play primarily metal, so not a lot of large chords. But solos were extremely weird. A lot of movement on string changes for a half-step/full-step.

  5284. musictheory 2019-12-06 13:50:37 FootofGod
    Makes it easy to switch between major and minor keys. E major? Move that setup over one string and have A minor, and now you can pretty much navigate from anything to anything even without knowing much of anything about music. The thirds just kind of moving from major to minor when you make that jump is just so damn handy!

  5285. musictheory 2019-12-06 14:47:04 jesucont01
    All the great solos are end products of countless attempts of shaping an idea to fit a given piece. The late great Billy Taylor called solos, “A string of little melodies.” Hendrix was sideman for years for a lot of acts, which give him opportunities to try a lot of ideas to see what, and what does not, work before we got the “Experience.”

  5286. musictheory 2019-12-06 15:19:48 TwoAfter909
    I think you could get more responses over on r/piano but I'm a pianist so I'll take a stab. The difference doesn't come out of the mechanics of the piano. You're right in saying that the deed is done when the pedal is down but before the hammer hits, there's a lot that can happen. The better pianist and better piano the more you can hear the difference but it boils down to a change in attack. Especially in a string of staccato notes you can hear it because each attack effects the subsequent attack. This is the best way I could explain it. Honestly, sometimes I can't tell the difference either but I've definitely felt it.

  5287. musictheory 2019-12-06 15:39:10 alphabhatiacharlie
    What I've heard (and it seems pretty solid) is that it makes chord shapes much more ergonomic, and hence easier to play. The same chords on other string instruments where the interval is constant are either harder to play (if the number of strings is the same or more) or easier (if number of strings is lower).

  5288. musictheory 2019-12-06 16:03:17 FwLineberry
    G7 - C - G7 - C for the intro C - Fmin - Bdim/Ab - Cmin - Fmin/Ab - G7 - Cmin F#dim - D7 - D7/F# - G Then over the G pedal it's something like Emin7 - Eb - Eb - ? - ? - F#dim - F#dim/C - G7 - C I'm not versed enough in classical analysis to correctly label that last string of chords. The Emin7 might be better labeled G6. The ? chords sound like D Ab Bb G then Db Ab Bb Db. Maybe somebody else will jump in and clean this up.

  5289. musictheory 2019-12-06 23:29:38 fillmore1969
    Ok here was so sure you could no one's talking about it.... You can initiate your phrases on the off feet or other downbeat. the ability to take a solo and to emphasize offbeat and tell me you'll hear this with Jimmy Hendrix and any other master of guitar all the jazz guys do this....going beyond that you can use equation a little before down and even change that...It's very in the place within the music and the solo happens. Triplets are necessity.... You combine this with some of the things already stated about the ideas of call and response and of course needing some empty spaces and mostly you need energy in your fingers for your souls to fly off the fretboard. Don't think too much about all the modes and all that stuff to Just get the right sounds there, as Allen holsworth says you want to play four notes in a row on the same string So start working with that. and get a feel for the notes that sound right with your style of music Hope this helps I have really practices so long until recently but since I started things are really flying for me.....

  5290. musictheory 2019-12-07 00:12:55 2handband2
    **PART 1:** &#x200B; To fully understand this, it's instructive to go back in time. The "mostly 4ths with a single major 3rd" paradigm for six-string necked chordophones goes all the way back to the Renaissance lute. There's no clarity as to how it evolved, but the intervallic structure of Ren lute tuning was very close to that of standard guitar tuning. The only distinction is the placement of the 3rd, which is dead center between strings 3 and 4. You can duplicate this by tuning the 3rd string of your guitar down 1/2 step to F#. &#x200B; The lute was the king of instruments during the Renaissance; take it away and you deep six well over half of the instrumental music written during that time, and perhaps as much as 85-90% of the SOLO instrumental music. It also accounts for the overwhelming majority of non-religious vocal music; secular song was largely published with lute accompaniment. The only exception was in Spain, where the lute was a little bit too reminiscent of the Moorish invasion and partial occupation of the Iberian peninsula... the lute's antecedent, the oud, was an import from the middle east. In Spain the vihuela became popular, which was guitar-shaped but larger than the guitars of the day, and with more strings. Like the modern guitar, the vihuela had six courses of strings, but with the major third in the middle like the lutes of the period. &#x200B; It's important to understand the role these instruments played; their music was that of the aristocracy, and written with the anticipation of being played by professionals or skilled amateurs. Even the song accompaniment tended to require a certain level of proficiency; "hold this chord shape and bang on it" was not really a thing. That, rather, was the role of the guitar, which was a smaller instrument with only four courses of strings. It was tuned with 4ths between the outer string pairs, and a major 3rd in the middle... in other words, like the top four strings of the modern guitar. It's primary role was simple strummed song accompaniment, although a limited amount of more sophisticated art music was also composed for it. &#x200B; It is tempting to assume that the vihuela, which was much more similar to the modern guitar than the actual guitars of the time were, was the instrument that evolved into the modern guitar. It is also incorrect. As keyboard instruments began to replace plucked strings as the vehicle of choice for solo instrumental music and accompaniment of art song, the vihuela fell into disuse inside of a single generation. The lute was still extensively played during the baroque, although it no longer held the dominant status it had enjoyed before. The role of the guitar expanded, and it gained an extra course of strings. But instead of maintaining the symmetry of having the 3rd in the middle, it simply tacked on a string pair a 4th below the lowest string of the four-course instrument, leaving us with a tuning identical to the top five strings of the modern instrument. In other words, the guitar got it's A string. &#x200B; Actually it's not as simple as that; there was some odd re-entrant stuff going on with the guitar during the baroque. But for the purposes of our discussion, it will serve. The guitar increased in stature, being used not only as a folk instrument but also as a vehicle for instrumental art music, with hotspots in Spain, Italy, and France. The lute vastly expanded it's capabilities, with variants sporting as many as 16 strings or courses of strings. In Italy the archlute retained the Renaissance lute's intervallic pattern on the first six strings, with a diatonic scale going down from there, whereas in most of the rest of Europe the mainline lute used for solo music would become the "french" lute, which sported a Dm tuning (ADFADF) on the first six. A curious tuning, perhaps, but highly suitable for solo music. These two lutes were not the only ones available; the lute during the baroque existed in impressive variety. &#x200B; The death of the lute, which would lead to the predominance of the guitar amongst necked chordophones, is amongst the most misunderstood and misrepresented events in the history of western music. In no way did the guitar replace, outcompete, or supplant the lute, nor was it an issue relating to the complexity of an instrument with 13-16 courses of strings. What happened was in fact very simple: plucked instruments fell out of favor with the aristocracy of Europe, roughly in the middle of the 18th century. And let us not forget: it was the aristocracy, in those days, writing the checks for very nearly 100% of the professionally composed music in Europe. The guitar and the lute were both affected, and for the ensuing half-century very little music was published for the entire class of instruments. &#x200B; The guitar survived this cataclysm mostly due to a difference in use case. The lute, being more difficult to build and expensive to buy, was an aristocrat's instrument, and it's entire tradition was one of complex art music performed by professionals and skilled amateurs. The guitar was in on some of that action, but it's *primary* use case was one of simple songs and dances being performed by people who could barely play (yes, that's a poke at the modern singer/songwriter). The guitar was carried forward by it's role as a folk instrument. &#x200B; It was during those fifty years of compositional inactivity that a number of important improvements were made to the guitar, most notably the addition of the low E string. By the turn of the 19th century you in essence had the modern guitar, with six single strings tuned EADGBE. This instrument has proven remarkably resistant to change, and attempts to expand it's resources have largely proven to be transitory. We can remark upon the increased use of seven string electric instruments in today's world... but what actual percentage of sales do they represent? The number is very small indeed.

  5291. musictheory 2019-12-07 00:13:27 2handband2
    **PART 2:** We are now in a position to see that this basic tuning system... mostly 4ths with a single major 3rd... has been with us for a very long time, and has long been the de facto standard for pretty much any plucked instrument with six strings. Nevertheless, anyone who has been playing for any length of time cannot help but be struck by the limitations imposed. Close-voiced chords with the root on the lower two strings are an issue, and our choice of voicings is often made for us. Many extended chord voicings can only be played in one or two inversions, or are only available as shell voicings. Solo music is problematic at best, with classical guitar music being legendary for difficult stretches and acrobatic whizzing up and down the fretboard. &#x200B; That said, one who has delved heavily into alternate tunings is forced to the conclusion that for an instrument with only six strings, mostly P4 with a single M3 is the best compromise we are likely to get. The 4ths allow for a respectable amount of range, while the 3rd makes chord voicings reasonable. Also, we must remember the guitar's primary use case as a folk instrument. These tunings allow for simple major and minor chords to be played in voicings that repeat several notes in octaves, which can be played with a single strum encompassing most or all of the strings. Also important is the relationship between the lowest string and the two highest, which allows you to place a barre encompassing those three strings and play chord or scale shapes in between. Also, it is possible to do the same using the 1st and 5th string. *This relationship is the single best thing about this family of tunings, and the primary reason they have been with us for so long.* &#x200B; I find Renaissance lute tuning to be marginally superior to standard guitar due to it's symmetry with the centered 3rd, but that is neither here nor there. A completely regular tuning of all 4ths seems logical on the face of it, and for melodic playing is unquestionably superior... but even a simple perfect triad, with the root both on the bottom and on top, becomes much more difficult. For chords, it's a loser. &#x200B; Many problems can be solved by moving to a tuning with smaller intervals, with the obvious problem being one of range. Jazz player Ralph Patt developed and advocated for a tuning in all major 3rds, with an additional string added to make up for the lost range. This solves many harmonic problems, but you lose the traditional guitar usage with simple major and minor triads being played in voicings that can be played with a single strum across most or all of the strings. &#x200B; And here we have our quandary. The ideal solution to most of the problems associated with standard guitar tuning would be a move to smaller intervals, adding more strings to make up for the range. It's been tried... more than once... but it's always battered down by the fact that the guitar is, first and foremost, a folk instrument, and any solution that involves giving up cowboy and barre chords has never had a prayer of being widely accepted. I say who cares... those are mostly badly voiced chords anyway, and the entire singer/songwriter crowd should be required to sit in a dark cave for a year thinking about the bad things they have done. But I am the minority. &#x200B; The tuning I use and advocate uses alternating minor and major 3rds from strings 6-2, with a single 4th for the top interval. I only use instruments with seven or more strings. My exact tunings are as follows: &#x200B; **Seven string electric:** E A C E G B E **Eight string electric and eight string classical:** D E A C E G B E **Eight course lute:** E G C Eb G Bb D G **Fourteen course lute:** C Db D Eb F Gb E G C Eb G Bb D G &#x200B; If anyone would like a detailed explanation of the exact logic behind this tuning scheme, I will expand.

  5292. musictheory 2019-12-07 02:59:27 cartoptauntaun
    >inversions you talk about are just as accessible with P4. They aren't barred though, so that is not really true. So there is agreement that P4 makes chords easier to learn because of symmetry across the 5 and 6 string, that point is pretty clear It also seems like there is not a good response re: the usefulness of barring in standard vs P4 tuning. Is it fair to say that the useful double stop invervals and barred voicings are an advantage in standard tuning? Because to my knowledge this is the reason standard tuning rose to prominence.

  5293. musictheory 2019-12-07 04:33:26 FwLineberry
    Most of what you're asking is answered with try it and see if you like it. I wouldn't have even thought to do it where you already have. In my organizational scheme, this sort of thing comes from blues music. Modern blues is usually played with dominant chords (major chord with b7 added) and using the b3 over those chords is a sound we're all familiar with and expect to hear. By extension rock and country players end up using the same sound over straight major chords and millions of people like the sound of it. Along these same lines, using major chords that follow a minor root pattern is extremely common in rock music - E G D A, for example. My theory on this is that much of this music is currently or was, originally, guitar-based music. The first thing most people learn on guitar are a bunch of major chords. They try to string those chords together into a progression and naturally land on roots following the minor pentatonic scale because it sounds cool. I've seen this again and again teaching beginning guitar students. Likewise, the first scale that guitar players usually learn is the minor pentatonic. It's only natural that you're going to try playing that over the chords they know. >Is it because the b3, b6 and b7 all make a minor scale of some description so it's just temporarily dipping the melody into a minor flavour while keeping the chords diatonic? I think that can be a valid way of describing some things. In the same way you'll see a lot of chords in the major key analyzed as being borrowed from the minor key. Mixing of major and minor shows up a lot in popular music. >I guess what I'm getting at too is are there other songs, musicians, styles and examples that use this in that way so I can hear how other people use it, i don't know how to search for it. This stuff is everywhere. Now that you know about it, you'll probably start seeing it all over the place. Classic rock is a good place to start looking. so many of those songs were written on major chords but used a major chord built from the b7 degree of the scale and used minor pentatonic to play lead over it. A good example of this is the CCR song Fortunate Son https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec0XKhAHR5I For the intro, the bass is sitting on a G note, while lead riff outlines Gmaj (B-G), Fmaj (A-F), Cmaj (G-E), Bbmaj (F-D) and ends by playing the b3 (B) to the tonic (G). When the chords come in, the progression is Gmaj - Fmaj - Cmaj - Gmaj for the verse and Gmaj - Cmaj - Dmaj - Gmaj for the chorus. Meanwhile the lead fills that happen at the end of each phrase are based on G minor Pentatonic, and the vocal melody uses Bb over the Cmaj chord (b7 relative to the chord, b3 relative to the key).

  5294. musictheory 2019-12-07 05:49:30 globalcitizen05
    Lol this was me during my undergrad. Don't blame yourself for not having started practising these skills earlier it's not your fault if your earliest teachers didn't have the patience to drill these skills with you when you started learning. Singing is the best tool to improve aural skills if you can sight sing well, dictation is just the same thing in reverse. (It's not about singing beautifully it's about strengthening your audiation/inner ear. Being able to hear and sing intervals (up and down) is crucial. Practice singing scales returning to the tonic every other note (eg C major - C D C E C F C G etc.) Also having a reference of the open strings of your instrument so you can hear at least those notes in your head. You tune your instrument everyday so just be more mindful of hearing intervals when you're doing it and try to only use a reference note/tuner for the top string. Practice repeating back melodies you hear. If you can memorise a 4 bar phrase after listening once that's decent. Another technique is to imagine playing the melody on your instrument (but personally I think singing, once you get the hang of it, will be much more reliable and widely useful). You can easily work this stuff into your daily repertoire practice as a warm up for your brain and your ears. Just keep at it you'll get there.

  5295. musictheory 2019-12-07 06:31:16 ttd_76
    1) The blues is an exception to the rule. In a blues every chord is dominant. Whether it's the I, IV, or V. 2) You don't HAVE to play the 7ths. Either in blues or really most music. It just might sound "out-of-genre" and not the tone you're looking for.. It's just the major/minor triads with an extra note. If you leave it off, the progression is a bit blander. But sometimes you want it that way, because it give you more room to spice it up with the lead. Take a basic 12 bar blues. If you want to go heavy rock/metal, you might just play power chords, so only the root and the 5. If you're doing something more melodic/straight ahead rock, then you play C major instead of C5, so you add the 3. And if you're going uptown/jazzy with it, then you might play C7 or even C13 or something. So if someone is speaking from a rock context or they're just trying to keep it simple they might say that the first chord in a twelve bar blues is C, instead of C7, though I think most people would agree that in blues, the 7 if not played is at least implied. After all, when you play the minor pentatonic over the I chord, you're playing the b7. The way to harmonize a scale is to see it as stacked thirds, or "skip every other scale note" So, in the key of C, you have C, D, E, F, G, A, B. C, E, G=C major. D, F, A= D minor E, G, B= E minor F, A, C= F major G, B, D= G major. etc. See the pattern? If you want to utilize the 7th, you just stack another third to the string: C, E, G, B= Cmaj7 D, F, A, D= Dmin7 E, G, B, D= Emin7 F, A, C, E= Fmaj7 G, B, D, A= Gdom7 &#x200B; So in a non-blues situation, where you want to harmonize a note and include a 7th, then you would use Cmaj7 as your root/I chord. Your IV would be Fmaj7. Your V would be G7. And you can keep doing this to add fifth note to each chord to come up with your diatonic ninths, and then another to come up with your 11ths, and another to come up with your 13ths. But if it's blues, and you want to include 7ths, it would be C7, F7, G7. That's just how it is. It doesn't follow the normal rules.

  5296. musictheory 2019-12-07 08:18:27 Trioptio
    I think it has 2 main reasons: playability and tune-ability. The playabilty one has been described by many here so I wont go over it again. But having an octave and a fifth on the upper strings makes it much easier to tune by ear (and historically that was how most often was done). If you stack p4s (by ear) one over the other you will get a minuscule shrinking difference every time that, stacked 6 times, would make the notes of a well constructed fret board sound out of tune between strings. Instruments that are tuned by perfect intervals either dont have many strings or dont have frets (or both). When you tune a violin/viola/cello by ear, you dont really care if the first string E makes a decent major 13th with the las string G, you just verify that each 5th apart sounds well. And that often gives you a too big major 13. It is generally no prob. But as any historical-cultural process, guitar's standard tunning could have gone another way. The contemporary standard tunning of the guitar is just a good answer to many needs that we have been using for a while. It could have landed on another interesting solution, and in the future it may change.

  5297. musictheory 2019-12-09 01:14:50 65TwinReverbRI
    Are you TUNED a half step down? If so, in order to make Am SOUND like Am to everyone else, you'd have to play it 1 fret HIGHER to compensate for the fact you're tuned to what is essentially 1 fret lower. But we as guitarists, no matter what tuning we're in, or when using a capo, still often thing of the "shape" as X chord, not the "sound" of it. So if you're tuned down a half step and play your big open E Major chord, it will sound like Eb Major, but most of us are going to be thinking "I'm playing an E chord". If you are tuned down, and playing the shape that is usually an Am chord, say either the open position "cowboy chord" of Am, or the Barre Chord on the 5th fret, then you'd still play "what would normally be" an Am scale over it (assuming the key is Am). Like the scale form for Am that begins on the 6th string 5th fret. If you were playing a standard tuned guitar, and listening to a recording of something that's tuned down a half step, but they're playing an Am shape, it's going to sound like G#m (or Abm). You would now have to play a fret lower to make the sounding pitches the same. So you'd either play a G#m scale on the 4th fret now, or a G#m barre chord on the 4th fret to make it come out sounding like what they originally played on the 5th fret. When you see Tablature or Chords, sometimes they don't always tell you if it's tuned down or not, and sometimes the person who transcribed it didn't know people did this and it will all be "one off" from what it sounds like, or looks like when you see them play it, and so on.

  5298. musictheory 2019-12-09 09:23:29 ok_reset
    Well, there is a geometric basis for the pentatonic scale, but not the one you're thinking of. A geometric sequence of five values, with a common ratio of 3/2 (a "fifth"), results in the "major pentatonic" scale. This is what get by tuning strings "in fifths". For example, starting with 440 (A), we get: 440, 660, 990, 1485, 2227.5, which are the pitches: A, E (+2 cents), B (+4 cents), F# (+6 cents), and C# (+8 cents) --- The sum of the interior angles of an n-sided polygon is (n-2) * 180. Since we are simply increasing the angles by 1 for each n-gon, this ends up generating an arithmetic series on 180, that is, all the integer multiples of 180. (AKA the "harmonic series"). That 180, however is arbitrary, and depends on the units (degrees vs. radians vs. whatever you want). We get 1(180), 2(180), 3(180), etc. ---- So the polygon justification is a a roundabout way of saying that the pentatonic scale springs fully formed from the harmonic series. And the evidence for that is very thin on the ground, especially considering what a weird sounding scale you would get if you actually used [notes straight from the harmonic series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music\)). Looking at that 7th harmonic particularly, the one you get from the nonagon angle sum, you can see it's *much* closer to a lowered 7th than a 12TET major 6th. You're wide of a major 6th by *69* cents! Whereas the geometric fifths construction (which mirrors the way string instruments have actually been tuned for millennia), at its worst, goes off by 8 cents from 12TET on the 3rd. EDIT: Arg, after writing that wall of text, I forgot to address the "backed by math = biologically innate" argument. I think there's something to that, but it's tricky. No infant will sing a pentatonic scale unbidden; however, the mathematical simplicity of the scale may mean that it's easier to *retain*, because it's easy to store and regenerate from memory.

  5299. musictheory 2019-12-09 10:38:28 baklarsumtir
    I believe it's F#. The root is the 2nd fret on the low E string.

  5300. musictheory 2019-12-09 11:31:20 65TwinReverbRI
    Ok, so here's some basic information: The "key" of the song will either be F# Major, or F# Minor. "root" refers to the lowest note of a *chord*, but when we're talking about a *key* we want what we call the "Tonic". So the Tonic of either F# Major (usually written as just F#) or F# Minor (usually written as F#m) is going to be the note F# (we also use Tonic in other contexts to refer to the "Tonic Chord" which would also be an F# or F#m chord). And yes, that is the 2nd fret on the 6th string. But this song is not just "in F#" (which would imply F# Major when written like that) it is in fact in F#m. Now, can you tell me any of the following: Why it's in or what tells you it's in F#m rather than F#? The Key Signature for F#m (and F#)? What notes are in an F#m scale (and an F# scale)? What the notes of the main riff are? What the harmony behind the main riff is?

  5301. musictheory 2019-12-09 12:00:05 ok_reset
    This is like saying [harmonics](https://youtu.be/GPcI_W9tsyg?t=35) are not "different notes" because you are only "bringing out" an overtone of the string.

  5302. musictheory 2019-12-09 12:40:03 ShittyShittyNameName
    >Anyway, I always felt that jazz guitarists have to force the instrument to comply with structures it doesn't excel at. Not just jazz guitarists but damn, that’s a succinct way of stating it! I don’t necessarily agree with the rest of your analogy regarding the guitar-piano dichotomy mostly because the guitar really is easier than the piano, for the most part. Learning guitar certainly gives you the ability to play music that almost immediately sounds “fuller,” what with strumming chords and all. It takes very little for a song on the guitar to sound completed solo than it is for a piano. >You do gain the advantage of having repeatable shapes which your fingers can memorize and align to for quick access (like a "cache" in computing terms), such as the shape of a major chord or a minor scale, which remains consistent as long as it is on the same set of strings. For the most part, only string instruments get repeatable shapes of this level of quality. Not even pianists get that, since each transposition of a key/chord/scale has a different visual structure to it. This was how I first learned and I sometimes wonder if the compartmentalizations of the chords have affected how I think about music... You’re right about the piano where the shapes aren’t the same. And when I play the piano, I really only recently started to get a feel for the shapes of a few minor chords (C#m, Dm and one of the flat chord minors, probably Ebm or something). The guitar for me was like learning telephone numbers when I was younger: it wasn’t the numbers that I memorized, it was the shapes that I dialed. (Oddly enough, I found an old NES at a bar where they had Mike Tyson’s Punch Out! and I was still able to remember some codes...) >I believe guitar is simultaneously one of the greatest and one of the worst instruments for learning music theory. Truth.

  5303. musictheory 2019-12-09 14:57:45 tdammers
    I don't think "adding more layers" is what makes music better. Some of the best music I've ever heard was just an unaccompanied solo instrument or voice. In my book, if you can pull that off, then that is the ultimate mastery. Having more options at your disposal is great, and I enjoy that a lot myself; but it doesn't make you a better musician, just like painting with a full selection of oil paints on canvas doesn't make it easier to produce great art than a single black pen does. Picasso famously made sketches consisting of a single stroke of ink; they are just as great as his more pomous works, and maybe reflect his genius even better. Personally, me experience is that constraints make a composer's life easier. "Anything goes" is far too overwhelming. "String quartet using only open strings", now there's an interesting challenge. But anyway, if you're interested, do some research; Beethoven was a bit of a tech nerd, and both Haydn and Mozart were reportedly fascinated by mechanical instruments for their ability to transcend what human performers could achieve, and I believe they composed music for those. I don't have anything on and, but you might unearth something that might give youa glimpse if what they might have done.

  5304. musictheory 2019-12-09 16:00:58 CarrionComfort
    A guitar is pretty much the same as any instrument in the violin family. The wrinkle is that the guitar was developed to play chords. Playing melodies was incidental, unlike a violin, which has it the other way around. Even standard tuning, with it's pesky major 3rd between the G and B strings instead of a 4th, exists to facilitate chord playing. This is why Stanley Jordan, [who plays the guitar like a keyboard instrument](https://youtu.be/aGoGyGSnVuA), uses all 4th tunings, so all interval relationships remain consistent across the fretboard. A piano student learns a C chord is C, E and G notes played at the same time. They are free to mix up any way of playing those notes right off the bat, and can easily see the relationship between those notes as they plays them. A guitar student learns a C chord is a funky way of contorting your hand to press down on certain frets on certain string. 6 strings, but it's 3 notes. The intervals between them are hidden kowledge to the beginner. So you have this extra layer of translation between the notes on a page and what your are doing with your body that doesn't exist with keyboard instruments This allows people to learn how to play music on a guitar, but not know *what* they are playing. Combine that with the popularity and accessability of guitar, and that space of "know how to play, but not the theory" gets very large. I mean, there are books published with nothing but various chord shapes which exisit to serve a population of guitarists who don't know how chords are constructed. Can you imagine a book like that for piano? I don't know much about reed and woodwind instruments, but I imagine they don't get the same issues as guitar does because dealing with that abstraction between written music and physical movement is dealt with right from the start.

  5305. musictheory 2019-12-09 17:41:52 MadMax2230
    I learned to relate things in terms of intervals really well. For example low e string 5th fret to a string 3rd fret is a minor third. Same thing for every other place on guitar except G to B. I do this for chords as well, 5x665 is the same as I x M7 M3 P5. The major seven is just a semitone below the octave. I think piano is easier for someone without a strong music theory and ear training background, but for someone who does have that guitar can be pretty easy. Modulating to different keys is so much easier and relationships between notes are easier to visualize. For example a major 6 can look way different depending on which note you start on piano, but on guitar there are a only a few shapes that are moveable up and down the fretboard.

  5306. musictheory 2019-12-09 18:22:44 _stice_
    But the guitar's complexity is actually n^2 and not n (or equivalently, 6n), because learning to traverse, say a major scale on guitar, does NOT take 6 times more effort. It's not like we're doing one per string or something. The difficulty IS compounded by the fact that you can play the next note either on the same string or the adjacent string, whichever is appropriate. Feels like OP is correct, it is more computationally complex, it's n^2.

  5307. musictheory 2019-12-09 18:36:35 pianouniversity
    Yup! I was just trying to keep it simple for anyone who happened to read my comment, haha. For sure, the sixth string A on the 5th fret definitely sounds a bit different than the A on the open fifth string. And you can definitely generate notes that are difficult or impossible to do on piano. Bends, slides, hammer ons, pull offs, whammy bar....

  5308. musictheory 2019-12-09 18:41:51 Lizard
    I feel like we don't have a good definition of the "effort" that we are trying to measure. Is it lookup of a single musical note we want to play? In that case, sure, there are multiple representations of the same note, where on the piano there is a 1:1 correspondence. But I don't feel comfortable presupposing a linear scan in the search for the available options of generating that note. It's more like a hashmap: "Oh, I want to play F2? That's available from the E string here, or from the D string here, or...". Agreed that the lookup is context-sensitive in that you have to figure into it as well where you are coming from (i.e. what note you played previously) as well as the sound you want to achieve, but then again, so is choosing a fingering on the piano. Maybe a complex activity such as this is just inherently hard to model as an algorithmic process using basic data structures :)

  5309. musictheory 2019-12-10 01:48:33 HashPram
    For sure. There are going to be other reasons ... AC/DC write stuff that relies on open strings, so it's not a skill limitation but an artistic choice. Could always detune ... but often (on the guitar at least) this is done to make it easier to play in a key the guitar is already will suited for, or to give you a nice open bottom string. Sevilla by Albeniz is usually transcribed DGDGBE for the latter reason and at least one of Tarrega's pieces uses DADGBE for the same reason. My old guitar teacher had a student who had been in a car crash and had sustained a brain injury that left him in love with the key of A and he couldn't be persuaded out of it. If it wasn't in A it wasn't for him. So there's another reason even though it's a bit unusual.

  5310. musictheory 2019-12-10 03:19:21 fillmore1969
    I find playing scales on one string and work up and down It's much easier to learn the modes and all of that stuff using these techniques rather than going across the strings and maybe jumping octaves. I work in the little shapes especially on the three high strings. It helps because I play piano too

  5311. musictheory 2019-12-10 03:22:00 TheHatedMilkMachine
    Great post. I do think the fact of shapes being “perfectly moveable” is a huge help on guitar from a note mapping perspective. At least at my very novice level, I’m finding I really don’t have to individually memorize all the locations of Eb, I just have to know that in this shape the root is on the 6th, 4th, and 1st string, the fifth is on the 5th and 2nd, and the third is on the 3rd. I sort of memorize them in clusters based on the chord shapes, if that makes sense.

  5312. musictheory 2019-12-10 15:58:19 ttd_76
    They both have their pluses and minuses. To me, just in terms of pure theory learning to read standard notation is fairly instrument neutral. Yes, it’s harder having to memorize the fretboard as opposed to the linear layout and clearly labeled keys of the piano. That gives piano an advantage over most other instruments. But mostly, piano and other instruments more or less force you to read music and along with that, most people learn with a teacher whereas far more guitar players are self-taught. It’s not THAT hard to learn to read music or to memorize the fretboard. Guitar players are mainly just lazy because it’s so easy to get up and going with tabs that they never learn the fretboard— either in terms of the note names or the intervallic relationships. You can learn two shapes using two fingers and just memorize the notes on 12 frets on one string and immediately comp your way through the entire Real book more-or-less. No need for standard notation, or memorizing key signatures or what notes are in a G7. That ability is both a blessing and a curse.

  5313. musictheory 2019-12-10 19:17:02 Jongtr
    The first thing would be **scales.** E.g., on guitar, learn how to play a C major scale in open position (frets 0-3). Learn what the notes are. Learn what chords can be built from those notes (C, F, G, G7, Am, Dm, Em). Then the G major scale. That has an F# instead of F. Goes up to 4th fret (D string). Learn the G major scale chords: G, C, D, D7, Em, Am, Bm. (Yes you already know some of those from C major.) And so on. D major scale (notes and chords) next. Still staying with open position (frets 0-4), which will cover all the possible keys you could learn. As you say, this will involve some of those basics you already know. It's about filling in the gaps and revealing connections that may be somewhat fuzzy at the moment. It's important (with guitar) to get thoroughly familiar with frets 0-4, because (a) that's 2/3 of the entire range of guitar and (b) it's then easy to translate those patterns and shapes up the fretboard, and to understand it as you go. Learn the notes up each string - again starting with the natural notes (ABCDEFG); the sharps and flats are just the frets in between. It's important make the link between shapes, patterns and notes, because the note names reveal the important connections across the fretboard. Obviously if you also play keyboard that will help. Keyboard is the ideal workbench for studying theory in general, because you don't need technique in the way you do with guitar, and it's a little easier to understand notation with keyboard.

  5314. musictheory 2019-12-10 20:02:10 Dune89-sky
    I would just go [020033][353453][x32233][x21233]. I play the C6/9 with 3rd and 4th finger on str 2 and 1. Might as well use lonky for those strings and keep it for the B7#5#9, matter of personal habit. You are right that the pinky is the ‘first mover’ from the E note of the G13 approacing the C6/9, gliding down barely lifting it from the strings (it does need to switch onto str 1), other fingers taking their places immediately after. You can also try [3x3200] for the G13 and have the pinky in place already (I would use thumb for the bass note but you don’t have to). In this case you keep the pinky on the high G string all the time! [8x991010][7x78810] or [877787][767787] also work. In the last chord you must use the thumb for the bass note and do a semi-barre on str. 3 and 4 with the middle finger. Not the nicest one to finger, admittedly. But a very cool B7#5#9 voicing with the root on top. I prefer the first option myself for its smooth voice leading.

  5315. musictheory 2019-12-10 20:20:42 StarlightXD
    Learning an instrument is basically a combination of music theory, knowing the positions of notes, then physical technique of playing the instrument. You can definitely self-teach yourself to play any instruments. Piano is perhaps the least complex in terms of technique to get started with in comparison to string and wind instruments. Depending how you use your DAW, you might already have familiarity with keyboard instruments anyway.

  5316. musictheory 2019-12-10 23:43:35 WowserBowser28
    Just throw your pinky out two or three frets on the High E or B string. Doesn’t matter what chord your playing. It works. /s jk obviously. (But also, kind of not.)

  5317. musictheory 2019-12-11 05:16:52 GoldYogurtcloset1
    The multiple string parts sound way to exotic for natural minor in my opinion.

  5318. musictheory 2019-12-11 05:34:41 GoldYogurtcloset1
    Interesting. What makes it less likely to be Aeolian, as the person above suggests? The simple looped lick could indeed be natural minor if I'm not mistaken. Is it the multipe string stuff at e.g. 6:33 that sounds too exotic to be natural minor?

  5319. musictheory 2019-12-11 09:11:54 WowserBowser28
    I’ve literally spent whole days, during college, stoned doing different palm muted rhythms between Am, Em, and G7 and sliding/hammering High E and B string from 1-3-5-7. Just idiotically impressed with my oh, so ‘soulful’ phrasing. White girls bought it though. 😂

  5320. musictheory 2019-12-12 06:33:41 Jenkes_of_Wolverton
    A more usual approach with multiple guitar parts is to have them playing the same chord in different positions. So one could be playing e.g. Bm with its root at the second fret 5th string (Am shape with a barre), and another could be playing Bm with its root at ninth fret 4th string (Dm shape), and so forth. Another approach is to have one of the guitars set up in an open tuning - like Keith Richards (of Rolling Stones) uses open-G - which gives different voicings to what you'd get from standard tuning.

  5321. musictheory 2019-12-12 06:50:24 ChuckEye
    Yep, I'm a fan of both the idea of different chord voicings/capo settings on multiple rhythm guitars, or having one in "Nashville tuning" — essentially the upper octave set of a 12-string guitar pack.

  5322. musictheory 2019-12-12 18:02:49 XDFreakLP
    String harmonics can do that no problemo

  5323. musictheory 2019-12-12 19:00:45 avlas
    I feel that piano is the exception here. It is the instrument with the widest range, which makes everything playable without any difference in effort by the musician, and its timbre is rather consistent throughout the range - it is built exactly for this purpose, doubling and tripling the strings when it's needed to achieve a more uniform tone. Most other instruments have a more restricted range, AND the extreme low and/or high ends of this range have different tonal characteristics compared to the middle of the range. The human voice is the prime example of this, but any woodwind or brass instrument features similar characteristics, requiring a lot of extra effort for the low end of the range and often employing overtones for the highest notes. String instruments will be extremely challenging to play in their highest registers and will definitely change their tone. The first example that comes to my mind, completely out of opera or classical repertoire: [Moanin' by Charles Mingus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyOlc8BaR0A). The opening baritone sax "lick" is a work of extreme effort by the sax player (Pepper Adams, who reportedly HATED playing this piece because of how hard it is to produce the lowest note) makes it sound exactly like a moan, a lament, a display of frustration.

  5324. musictheory 2019-12-13 03:51:12 looking4moosik
    >https://ibb.co/p3kMRRb Thank you for the time you took to do this. I'll be sure to correct my rhythms as well as implement the advice you gave regarding stems. \> Bar 4: First chord correct (B7#9). Are you saying the chord I wrote is correct? Because I have Bm7 not B7#9 I've noticed a lot of your corrections involve changing just one note in a chord. For instance the opening CMaj7 chord whose C on string 3 I missed. I want to know how you're able to hear these *hidden* notes. How do you hear these inner tones when they are often obscured by the notes above and below them? Often, his chords are *rolled*, allowing me to determine *how many* notes are in the chord. But even if I recognize 5 notes are being rolled, I find I cannot sing back all of them. I logically must be hearing all of them; I can hear each attack. I don't understand how I can't identify their pitches.

  5325. musictheory 2019-12-13 04:56:35 looking4moosik
    Someone else said that it's B7#9. Are you saying there is definitely a D#, the third of BMaj, in the chord? Could you identify the fret and string?

  5326. musictheory 2019-12-13 06:31:52 The_Onionizer
    I agree! It annoys me too! Although I think that since there is a lot of prestige around music theory and pressure to be good at it in order to call yourself a good musician, a lot of people who might play their instrument well but feel like the theoretical part is lagging behind, will most likely have a pretty bad feeling about it. Then some smartass starts talking about Bach's fugues being as complex as 10 chess games being played simultaneously and how they arranged a string quartett version of barbie girl for fun before going to school in the morning. I can see how that would ruin someones urge to study theory.

  5327. musictheory 2019-12-14 01:11:52 FwLineberry
    I only listened to the studio version. The song is in C major and the guitar player is using C major pentatonic (mostly) and string bends to get the pitches. I'd recommend you download the song and pull into audacity (or similar program) so you can slow down and loop the parts you're having trouble figuring out.

  5328. musictheory 2019-12-14 19:43:03 Dune89-sky
    Translation: ”Are there also 7 D Dorian, D Phrygian etc. scale fingering patterns in 7 guitar fret positions to learn?” Answer: No, just learn all 12 major scale in 12 (9 is enough IMO) fingering positions, i.e with different starting notes on the 6th string (ascending scale). The seven modes of that major scale are contained within those fingerings. If we are talking about making music besides finger-muscle training, modes can not in general be played quite as indiscriminantly (equal weighted notes) as the pentatonic mostly can because of various ’handle with care’ notes and OTOH important modal characteristic notes.

  5329. musictheory 2019-12-14 22:33:41 Komprimus
    No, you're playing the same things, you just have to use three different fingerings depending on what string group you are on. That is the opposite of freeing, it's extra obstacles in your way.

  5330. musictheory 2019-12-15 00:27:53 peduxe
    Amaj7 - Emaj7 - Dmaj7 - Dmaj7/A play this with the 7th one octave up (guitar's high E string) and it will sound magical.

  5331. musictheory 2019-12-15 01:27:53 65TwinReverbRI
    In functional harmony, which implies CPP practices, an + Triad resolves two primary ways: C - C+ - Am/C - in this example there is chromatic upward motion from the note G to G# to A. G+ - C, or more commonly, G+/B to C. In this case the + chord is an "altered dominant" and again there is chromatic voice-leading: G - G D# - E B - C Notice how both the 3rd and the raised 5th of the V chord move up a half step to the notes of the I chord. These are often used a secondary dominants as well: C - C+/E - F To re-orient this, it's actually similar to the first one, except that the 3rd of the first chord moves up to the root of the 2nd. Compare: G - G# - A E - E - E C - C - C with G - G# - A E - E - **F** C - C - C However the 2nd one doesn't happen commonly in that position because it produces a 2nd inversion triad which would only be found in rather specific contexts. In the "pop" world, it's still common to find + chords that resolve as V+ to I without the voice-leading considerations. It's commonly found in Blues-based pop songs where it acts as a turn-around chord to lead back to the I. Famous examples are the intro to "No Particular Place to Go" by Chuck Berry, and the more typical example in "Oh Darling" by The Beatles. The other most common pop use isn't really a "resolution" at all, but is created either by "Line Cliché" motion or a m3 or blue note: Cm - "Eb+" - Eb/Bb - Am7b5 - Abmaj7 - etc. This is the "Chim Chim Cher-ee" progression. Often the chord above remains Cm so it's Cm - Cm/B - Cm/Bb - Cm/A, etc. - basically a static Cm chord with the bass line descending chromatically. But it is sometimes just the 3rd and 5th of the i chord - Eb and G in this case. That would spell (in this key) Eb-G-B making an Eb+ chord. But really, it's kind of "not really" an Eb+, just some chord we *are able to give a name* that is produced by this chromatic motion. Note that this is one of the few examples where an + chord moves to (or from) a **minor** Triad (however, again it's not really "resolving" in that sense, just *resultant of* chromatic motion. [side note, the same can be said about my very first example and in so many contexts that I+ triad moving to vi^6 goes by so quickly or with such little emphasis that it's just considered resultant of voice-leading or the G# (in C) is just considered a chromatic passing tone, and again, basically non-functional harmony, if a "chord" at all] Another common pop move - again in minor - is to have the m3 of the key, such as Eb in Cm, over the V chord - so G Major with a b3 on top (G-B-Eb, again making what looks like a bIII+ or Eb+/G but really isn't) and that b3 resolves melodically down to scale degree 1 like so: Eb - C B - C G - C This can be heard in "Stray Cat Strut" by The Stray Cats (though IIRC it's a G7#5 but the principle is still the same) though in typical pop fashion the voice-leading is only important in the melody line. The other major pop use is also the line cliché not unlike my very first example and sort of the opposite of the "Chim Chim Cher-ee" example, where it's an upper note in the chord that is moving up/down (instead of the bass note). Happens in "String of Pearls" by Glen Miller: C - Cmaj7 - C7 - C6 - C+ - C then up the same way. This just involves the chromatic line C-B-Bb-A-G#-G over the static C harmony. So again, "non functional" and arising through chromatic motion, which is pretty much how all + triads arise; it's just that when they produce an *augmented dominant* chord that resolves to I (not i!) do we see it as functional and a "resolution" per se. Hope that helps.

  5332. musictheory 2019-12-15 01:32:15 65TwinReverbRI
    >You don't need any theory. If you learn to play a bunch of songs, Quoted for relevance. A substantial number of people who are "songwriters" and guitar players who write songs in bands know very little Music Theory beyond the absolute basics. That's not to say that you wouldn't benefit from knowing more theory, but to do that what you should to is take guitar lessons and learn them in the context of learning to play your instrument better. But "good sounding chord progressions" don't come from Theory. They come from learning what other people wrote (that's where theory comes from in the first place - observations about what other people have done). Then you string together similar things until you find something you like.

  5333. musictheory 2019-12-15 02:35:04 65TwinReverbRI
    It's called "de-tuning" not "de-keying" right? :-) If you have two oscillators and you slightly detune one to get a thicker sound, it's not going to make the notes "out of tune" or "out of key". Our ear kind of averages the two oscillators (or our brain does) and we hear the combination note - if they're close together - using a "Fine Tune" control, then it may not be perfectly in tune with the A=440 standard (or at least one of them won't) but they'll be so close most people would not think of them being out of tune or anything. If you have a "Coarse Tune" control, that usually moves it by larger amounts - often a semitone. So if you have two oscillators set to the same note, and detune one by 1 Coarse Tuning unit - a half step - it's going to sound like two different notes being played at once - and probably pretty nasty (depending on what kinds of oscillators and everything else you're using of course). So in the first example - with Fine tuning, you're playing a C and another C that's somewhat "out of tune" - but really just "detuned", hence the word. Think about a Piano - a piano actually has 1, 2 or 3 "oscillators" per note - the low notes have 1 string, the middle notes have 2, and the upper notes have 3. So it's impossible to tune 3 strings to EXACTLY the same frequency. But when you play a piano note that uses 3 strings, you just hear that one note. It's only if one or all of those 3 strings get way off from each other that we notice it being "out of tune" or "badly tuned" and so on. Detuning piano notes on a synth is one of the ways they get the "honky tonk" piano patches. Slightly out of tune, but not horribly so, but enough to be noticed it's not perfect. In the 2nd example - the Coarse tuning - it would be like playing a C note and B note at the same time. Now, you asked about "key" and that's kind of tricky. Both the notes C and B are found in a number of different keys. So if you coarse tune a pair of oscillators so they produce B and C, they are both "in the key" of C Major. But they're not going to sound so great on their own and most other notes you play (E and F would be the only other ones that work) are not going to be in the key. A more common thing would be to coarse tune one oscillator something like a 5th up so you'd get C and G sounding together when you press a key. C and G are both in C Major. If you play a D note, you're going to get D and A. Those are both in C Major. If you play an E note, you get E and B - those are both in C Major But when you play B, you get B and F# - and F# is NOT in C Major. So the oscillators coarse tuned a 5th apart are going to sound good on its own, but if you play the notes of a scale, one of them is going to produce a note that's not in the Key. It all depends on what note you tune the 2nd oscillator to - Unison or 8ve will sound fine. 5ths and 4ths will produce one out of key note. Major 3rds will produce only 3 in key notes and 4 out of key notes. So Fine Tuning is usually only going to thicken the sound without causing any "Key" related problems or even note related problems. But Coarse Tuning you have to be more careful with - it really depends on what you tune the 2nd oscillator to, and how loud it is compared to the other oscillator (amplitude of the 2nd oscillator can be a major factor here). Using the Transpose button if there is is another can of worms.

  5334. musictheory 2019-12-15 02:41:51 RiggsBoson
    I think so. I can name pitches without an instrument at hand for reference. I taught myself to do this 12 times, by identifying notes in individual songs that serve as reference tones in my memory. For some notes, I rely less on my mental reference library, because I have a stronger sense of what “E” (for example) sounds like. For others (especially sharps and flats), I still use my training wheels, and spitting out an answer takes a moment longer. I’m not accurate to cents, of course. I probably can’t tell you if the A string on your guitar is ringing at exactly 440 Hz. But there was a decade or so when I didn’t use (or own) a guitar tuner, because I thought I was hot stuff. I’m not certain whether the mental reference tone approach is what people mean when they say “perfect pitch.” But it has been pretty helpful for teaching songs to the bands I’ve played in, over time. And that ain’t bad.

  5335. musictheory 2019-12-16 04:45:53 65TwinReverbRI
    I'm not sure. Would be an interesting Dissertation probable (though someone has probably already done an exhausting one). It most likely comes from String literature where there are a number of different types of tremolo - measured, unmeasured, bowed, etc. Really these types of "tremolo" are actually "Trills" (though the root word for both comes from "tremble" thus "shake" or "waver" etc.) But I think the rationale is that it's much easier just to see a whole note and go "it's the whole measure". That's what it would be if it were repeated notes - a whole with the 3 little bars on top. There's actually inconsistency in some scores as well because some use half notes and stems no matter what the meter. Remember that in the old days, engraving was a very labor and time intensive process - anything they could do to make things easier was used - 2 half notes mean drawing in 2 stems - 2 whole notes didn't. So it could be as simple as that.

  5336. musictheory 2019-12-16 05:22:37 CatMan_Sad
    [Microtonal string quartet by Ben Johnston.](https://youtu.be/jgFQAGyF0Gw) Very haunting, hard to get into for some, if you’re not used the the intervals. Really interesting though.

  5337. musictheory 2019-12-16 06:00:29 Butter_BR
    It's pretty Although I'd love a string quartet arrangement

  5338. musictheory 2019-12-16 08:34:07 cass_eleven
    What an interesting question! I’m going to guess that it’s possible. Compared to a guitar string, there is much more obstruction to airflow for vocal cords, and the force of opposing muscles. I imagine that if enough force were exerted and the person was somehow able to maintain a vocal position then yes, audible sympathetic vibration would occur. Out of curiosity, I just tried this by singing a tone, trying to maintain the vocal position, then playing the same tone on my phone at maximum volume with the speaker going in to my open mouth. I felt absolutely no vibration in my vocal tract and the sound hurt my ears. After this disappointing experiment I speculate that the volume required to elicit vocal vibration would be too loud for most hearing people to tolerate. Also I think would be very difficult for most people to maintain a vocal position so exactly without being able to hear themselves TL;DR: Maybe

  5339. musictheory 2019-12-16 17:26:45 JoeDoherty_Music
    Ok: I am assuming you're trying to write something medieval sounding, like a fantasy video game or movie. (Like something you might hear in lord of the rings or skyrim) First off! Listen to music that evokes that feeling for you. This just sounds like trap with medieval sounding midi instruments. Especially listen to just regular classical music too. They just *don't* use rhythms like that. Study how the music flows and is structured. Modern music has a very different song structure than songs from 300-500+ years ago. I also recommend the Elder Scrolls Oblivion soundtrack. Also keep in mind that what we call medieval music is really just music based in classical music and/or renaissance music. So a lot of what you study should really be looking at classical music and renaissance music. They didnt have hip hop drum beats 500 years ago. Percussion in classical music was much more free flowy and less organized unless it was a simple continuous rhythm, usually on one drum (I am generalizing here but they definitely didn't have your typical kick snare kick snare pattern) the drum set didnt exist. Generally one person per drum. The percussion was used to accentuate the music, rather than to push the music forward as in rap, rock, and pop. So I would recommend deleting the drums you have and add in a marching snare kinda thing and see where that takes you. Remember, no drum set. Crash cymbals were played like those monkey toys, one person, one cymbal in each hand, not on a metal stand. Hi hat didnt exist, the clicking might have been done by clicking the two cymbals together. Bass drum was used more sparingly (think big open notes rather than groovy beats) The intro is very pizzicato (short, quick notes) this is usually used less in this kind of epic fantasy music. If it is used, it wont be a simple repeating pattern like this. It'd probably be a longer melody with more note diversity, not just "the same melody but with a slightly different ending". It would also have more of a pretty feel, like the middle of the skyrim theme song for example, where it drops down and you hear that delicate melody. Use lots of long string notes. Have a cello just hold a note for a whole bar. Use it to add tension and release to the melody. Also use the humanize feature in your DAW if you have one. You're trying to emulate music played by humans, and 5 different string players dont all start playing their notes of the chord at the exact same time. Turn off the clamp-to-grid tool and adjust the notes a tiny bit. Maybe even have them build slowly together, or have them stagger the chord. So anyways I hope this helps. Its 1am and I'm not an expert but I am a songwriter and musician, and really like that epic fantasy music stuff and have studied it quite a bit. This song sounds like you listen to too much rap and not enough of the music you're trying to write. While this could be an awesome rap song, it isn't doing what you are trying to accomplish, and I think some of what I've said here will help you wrap your head around the concept better. Good luck

  5340. musictheory 2019-12-16 22:22:11 Kamanaoku
    FYI it’s not just the high hats but the use of the bass foundation chords, and I also noticed the timbre of the (plucked string) intro instrument being used in Rich Da Kid’s music

  5341. musictheory 2019-12-17 00:51:56 yourdaddy69420
    Learn these things as for I was in your shoes. But now I am actually pretty good at guitar cuz of these things: Musical alphabet Major and minor pentatonic scales (Aka basically 5 shapes that are shared with all the keys. All you gotta do is find the root note and do the shapes.) Notes on the Low e and a string. This is important cuz this is where the root notes for most normal chords are. Circle of fifths Order of sharps and flats. Chords and everything else is basically based off of this shit I learned all this shit by my self. Do ur own research music theory will allow you to see your guitar as a tool instead of a magical Fucking box that makes music.

  5342. musictheory 2019-12-17 01:34:50 rivers61
    String pizzicato

  5343. musictheory 2019-12-17 02:09:49 rivers61
    I like descending triplets a lot but it may not work. The hi hat and kick need to go if you want it to sound mid evil. Look into other ways to add rhythm such as pizzicato or more traditional percussion such as timpani. Im more of a try and see how it sounds person, but I think since you already have a plucked string for the lead that a pizzicato rythm section could compliment that.

  5344. musictheory 2019-12-17 10:50:55 RadioUnfriendly
    I don't think of any key as being inherently anything. I'm a guitar player, so I think of some of them as being drop tuning or capo keys. Major keys A, B, C, D, E, F, and G all contain the note E, which is your top and bottom string as a guitar player. The key of B only leaves you with 2 open strings, though. So without changing the tuning or using a capo, guitar players are usually in A, C, D, E, F, G or any related mode.

  5345. musictheory 2019-12-17 13:25:50 gustinnian
    The secular concept of a string quartet was yet to be conceived... ...he was more interested in glorifying God via experimentation it seems. Bach is quite possibly the Milky Way's toughest act to follow, nothing to stop you and me trying though! ; )

  5346. musictheory 2019-12-17 18:34:06 Instatetragrammaton
    What is your actual price range as a number? Keyboards - "arranger keyboards" or "home keyboards" come with a variety of sounds, but these can usually not be edited by the user. Digital pianos in the lower price ranges tend to have fewer sounds, but higher-quality ones. The method of sound generation is sample-based, and for the same total amount of memory space fewer sounds means more detail per sound. Additionally, these arranger keyboards have a lot of built-in styles - a rhythm and accompaniment section that can act as a backing band of sorts. The rhythms aren't very useful to learn to play, but they might be if you want to do solo performance. It is always possible to add more sounds afterwards by means of MIDI. A so-called module is a synthesizer minus the keyboard part. All you need is a 5-pin MIDI cable! Alternatively, if you are not averse to computers, you can use your computer to run instruments on. All you need for that is an USB MIDI cable ($30 or so for a decent one). The computer receives the notes (think of MIDI as digital sheet music - it tells you what to play, but not what it should sound like) and sends them to a software instrument, which then makes the actual sounds. Since digital pianos have run into what's best described as diminishing returns - quality improvements have been evolutionary vs revolutionary in the past 10 years or so - any piano sound from that timeframe is going to be as good as it gets. Still, if you want even better, you'll likely end up with a sample library of several gigabytes (most keyboards measure their sample size at a hundred megabytes or so or a multiple of that - [https://cinesamples.com/product/piano-in-blue](https://cinesamples.com/product/piano-in-blue) is 11 gigabytes) or a physical modeling solution (the piano is simulated, and the end result of striking a string is calculated in realtime instead of stored in memory). In both cases, computers tend to run this, or the really really high-end digital pianos ( [https://www.roland.com/global/products/rd-2000/](https://www.roland.com/global/products/rd-2000/) or [https://www.viscountinstruments.com/digital-pianos/physis-piano.html](https://www.viscountinstruments.com/digital-pianos/physis-piano.html) ). Personally, I'd go for a digital piano. Casio Privias are really affordable. It's better to save up some more and to buy something halfway decent - or like /u/HashPram said, go for a slightly older model - than to get something new but cheap. Arranger keyboards tend to age pretty badly in terms of price, because new models are virtually released every year, and the slight increases in quality are available for the same price.

  5347. musictheory 2019-12-17 18:36:42 tdammers
    > I believe (my brother looked into this) there are models of pianos that allow you disengage the keyboard from the piano and, essentially, function like an electronic keyboard in that respect. Yes. Yamaha pioneered this with their "Silent Piano" system, which you can buy either as a complete piano, or as an aftermarket kit that can be installed on most existing pianos. By now, other manufacturers have built their own versions that work fairly well. They all work the same way, more or less. The first component is a lever that moves a damping bar towards the stems of the hammers, stopping them just short of the string; this makes practically no difference to the feel of the key, because by the time the hammer hits the damping bar, it has already come loose of the hammer mechanic that drives it and has no physical connection with the key anymore. The only difference is when you play fast repetitions; then the way the hammer bounces back is slightly different. The other half of the system is a series of optical sensors mounted under the keys, with little reflective patches glued to the undersides of the keys. These sensors measure the speed at which a key is pressed down, and convert that into a MIDI signal, which then drives a sound generator module. Because the sensors are optical, they do not influence the playing behavior in any way. There are additional sensors on the pedals, though those may be mechanical. I have a 1970's Schimmel upright piano with such a system installed, and it works fairly well. Only downside is that the damping bar sometimes doesn't retract fully, cause a muffled sound when playing acoustically; when that happens, you have to reach into the piano and push the bar back a little. I think the system currently costs around €1000 as an aftermarket kit; piano store threw mine in with the piano when I bought it. The sounds aren't stellar, but they're good enough for the occasional nighttime practicing, and if I want something better, I can always hook up an external module.

  5348. musictheory 2019-12-17 19:41:29 Butter_BR
    We just need 3 more people since the only string instrument I play is electric bass lol

  5349. musictheory 2019-12-17 20:00:33 Jongtr
    The "Spanish scale" is phrygian dominant, 5th mode of harmonic minor, which is particularly effective on an nylon-string guitar, e.g., for flourishes in the middle of a theme. Otherwise, you're right, the "Morricone effect" is more about electric guitar (vintage tone + reverb and/or tremelo), which may be some kind of cultural memory of the guitar instrumentals of the late 50s/early 60s (Duane Eddy, Shadows) which frequently had cowboy themes. If you really want a cheesy spaghetti western aesthetic, then consider sound effects, like whips, gunshots, or percussion that evokes horses hooves. :-)

  5350. musictheory 2019-12-17 20:13:44 PorkpieDiplomat
    String players: F# Wind/ brass players: Gb

  5351. musictheory 2019-12-17 23:27:48 65TwinReverbRI
    This is really a matter of perspective - it seems weird to YOU, but for a Sax player to be able to pick up any saxophone and play it is a godsend for them. The fingering for C is always the same on all the saxes - so once you learn to play one, you can play any of them. And obviously, there'd really be no need for all of them if they all played the exact same range. So this - from the instrument's perspective - makes it much easier to pick up any of the saxes and play it without having to relearn how to play an instrument! It alsohas the added advantage of giving us a family of instruments that can cover a wide range of pitches - like a String Quartet in many ways. It is a historical thing. It's just something you need to accept, and learn, and move on from. But yes, it's about readability - same thing with all the different clefs - the Viola sits right in the middle range of the staff so using Treble or Bass clef just doesn't make much sense - the Alto clef does - it keeps more of the music on the staff. This is true about octave transposing instruments too. But for the "non-C" instruments, it's more about the player being able to switch instruments without relearning. In many ways, it's exactly the same a using a Capo on guitar, or tuning the guitar down a half step - me, as a guitarist, I'm still thinking "G Shape" but it only comes out sounding like a Concert G chord in standard tuning. If I have a Capo on the 3rd fret it's now concert Bb, or if the guitar is tuned down a half step it's now concert Gb - but I can just be lazy and think "same old G chord I've always known" - and my music will be written as such.

  5352. musictheory 2019-12-18 00:42:57 Zarlinosuke
    Whereas I'm a string player who's much more used to playing in sharp keys than flat keys, so I probably default to G-sharp. It would be interesting to take a big survey on that!

  5353. musictheory 2019-12-18 10:48:57 TaigaBridge
    As a string player, I have a notion of 'levels of brightness' that is tied mostly to how many open strings are used in that key, which in turn affects how resonant our instruments are. But it's a different lineup to yours: I find C and G full-bodied but neutral (maximally resonant, both high and low pitches); A a little bit "twangy" (only the high strings resonating); Eb warmer and not much 'darker' as 'richer', with the low resonance predominating; the extreme sharp and flat keys muted. That tends to color my view of most symphonies in part because classical symphonies are string-heavy, and in part just because I've internalized the keys that way. It is possible to contradict that mood, of course - the light bouncy middle part of Till Eulenspiegel, for instance, is in F, and if played well sounds about three keys "brighter" than F usually does... but it is noticeably harder to create that effect playing in F than it would have been in G or D!

  5354. musictheory 2019-12-18 13:21:37 Zarlinosuke
    > Is there some other reason I'm not seeing? Nope, you got it! The reason is basically that the interval pattern seen in the C major scale--which extends to all major scales and all modes of them--is that interval pattern called *diatonic*, and in the thousand years since the notes were named after letters, the diatonic interval pattern remains the basis for the vast majority of music that we encounter in the staff-notated Western world. The octave didn't have equally spaced semitones until way way more recently, like eighteenth-century recent. That may sound like a long time ago, but compared to the more basic fundamentals of the diatonic system, it's nothing, and those fundamentals still inform how diatonic music works. To put it another way, yes, our octaves may (usually) nowadays be divided into twelve even semitones, but we don't act like it is! And in a lot of vocal and unfretted string music, musicians will keep right on dividing the octave unequally, because it's ultimately more natural and beautiful that way.

  5355. musictheory 2019-12-18 13:29:43 ESP_Viper
    With no other context given, I think it's more intuitive to go up the row and name notes as sharps, unless you're used to call it otherwise for specific reasons. I'll say C#, F#, G#, but Eb because it's my standard guitar tuning, half-step down (when I drop the 6th string though, I'll call it C# because I like it more lol).

  5356. musictheory 2019-12-18 17:48:17 HashPram
    > Like what could you learn from just arranging your music in piano? Arranging music for the piano, or arranging music on the piano? Arranging music _for_ the piano (taking existing music and making a piano arrangement of it) will teach you about piano arrangement. Arranging music _on_ the piano (arranging SATB or string quartet music on the piano so that you can hear how the voices are moving and play the piece without needing to leap around trying to be a string quartet) may teach you about arranging for the specific forces you're arranging for.

  5357. musictheory 2019-12-18 18:02:51 Jongtr
    > Reading the wiki here [https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/wiki/faq/history/alphabet](https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/wiki/faq/history/alphabet) says that the naming is because of historical reasons, where many of the sharp/flats did not even exist. But I still don't fully understand because I would think that totally destroys the concept of an octave having equally spaced semi-tones... But the 12-equal-semitone octave is a much later concept. It's a rationalisation of the earlier structure where a tone was only *approximately* twice a semitone - and there could be two sizes of tone. Once, the octave was divided according to simple mathematical ratios, because they sounded good. A perfect 5th was 3:2, and a perfect 4th 4:3. They added to make a 2:1 octave. Multiply 3:2 by itself you get 9:4, which becomes a 9:8 step or whole tone. The major 3rd would be 5:4. But if you have any mathematical skill at all, you'll see that three 5:4s are not going to add up to an octave, as three major 3rds do in our system. Likewise, in an ideal world twelve perfect 5ths should be the same as seven octaves. But multiplying 3:2 by itself 12 times won't come to a neat multiple of 2, as the octaves will. (It very nearly does - just not quite.) That was OK, because each key was tuned differently. That only became a real problem when composers wanted to write freely in all 12 keys, especially when they wanted to modulate within a piece. All kinds of "temperaments" (tweaks of the simple ratios) were tried, until 12-TET (12 tone equal temperament) finally became an official standard, surprisingly recently. The guitar makes a good test bed here. If you look the fretboard, you'll find the 12th fret (octave) is at 1/2 of the string length, as you'd expect. The 7th fret (perfect 5th) is at 2/3 of the string, also as the frequency ratios would have you expect. Likewise 5th fret (perfect 4th) is at 3/4 string length. The 4th fret (major 3rd) seems to be at 4/5 string length, but here the harmonic will give the game away. If your string is in tune, and you play the 4th fret harmonic (1/5 of the open string, 5x the frequency), a tuner will tell you it is out of tune - slightly flat. That's because the tuner is calibrated to the "unnatural" 12-TET system, not the pure or "just intonation" system. The 5ths and 4ths are also out, but by much less. The octave is the only interval that is exactly "in tune" according to the pure ratios. Check the [greater perfect system](http://www.peterfrazer.co.uk/music/tunings/greek.html#2.6), which was a way of tuning a two-octave scale to simple ratios - but would only be perfectly in tune in one key. (Of course that didn't matter to the ancient Greeks.)

  5358. musictheory 2019-12-19 01:38:26 Jongtr
    > Given 1/6 on a string beeing the overtone and 1/2 and 1/3 beeing the related undertones: Not sure what you mean here. There are overtones (harmonics) at 1/2, 1/3 and 1/6 of string length - and other fractions of course. 1/2 = octave; 1/3 = perfect 12th (octave plus 5th); 1/6 = octave above 1/3.

  5359. musictheory 2019-12-20 01:16:55 wood_and_rock
    An F to a G is a second. An F to an A is a third. What kind of second or third depends on whether you have a flat (diminished, minor in this context) or a sharp (augmented in this context). F to Gb is a diminished second. F to G is a second. F to G# is an augmented second. F to Ab is a minor third. F to A is a perfect third. F to A# is an augmented third. There are no assumptions there. These are the definitions of the words. Using a number system on guitar and saying "fourth fret on the E string is both G# and Ab" is not music theory. It is a single tone. Giving that note something to play against - an interval - begins to define a chord, and calling it a G# is wrong in the context of an F- triad. An F- triad does not have a G in it, because that is the second in the key of F- and triads do not contain seconds. Bringing a plastic cup to a pottery sub and saying "it does the same thing, it doesn't matter what it's made of" is not going to make you very popular there. I think this is a very apt metaphor here - G# and Ab sound the same when played, but in theory they have different meanings. I don't mean this to sound rude or confrontational, but if this isn't relevant to you, or sounds overly particular, then you are in the wrong sub to be posting so adamantly.

  5360. musictheory 2019-12-20 01:46:53 halb7
    I think this heavily dependent in your first instrument. On a keyboard you have to know your notes to know the intervalls (I assume) where on a guitar you can directly see it when both notes are on the same string or from the pattern accross strings. Also the keyboard has a "Basic" scale in c minor where eveeything else is derived where on guitar there isnt such a scale so every scale is "equal" in that sense. I always hated the name Letter name system cause it uses already defined linear systems in an uneven way.

  5361. musictheory 2019-12-20 04:37:22 Xenoceratops
    [Brushy One String - Chicken in the Corn](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8H-67ILaqc): Whenever he says "one string," he's playing a guitar with one string.

  5362. musictheory 2019-12-20 04:54:42 65TwinReverbRI
    "Melodic Memory" - you have to also be able to hold a string of notes in your memory for long enough to write them down. So you might be able to identify a single chord or a pair of notes or pair of chords but when it becomes longer than that you can't hold on to the sound of the ones you haven't written yet. How much music do you play? How much music have you figured out by ear, even if not in real time? Have you tried a "slow downer" type app to slow down a melody to give you more time to figure it out and see if there's a threshold you can go back to and work your way up?

  5363. musictheory 2019-12-20 21:05:14 MaggaraMarine
    Singing the fifth is going to sound just fine. But emphasizing the root over a maj9 chord may not sound that good, not because it's too "strong", but because it clashes with the major 7th in the chord (you are singing a minor 2nd or minor 9th above a chord tone) - though this also depends on the chord voicing, but maj7 chords generally don't sound that great if you have the root as the top note (I think one voicing of a maj9 chord that sounds good with the root as the top note is C D G B C, but I guess that's not a "real" maj9 chord because it lacks the third - but just try playing an open Emaj7 chord on guitar like this: 0 2 1 1 0 0, and the open high E string just sounds bad). Singing the root over a 6/9 chord would sound less dissonant. Of course there's nothing stopping you from using that note if you like the sound of it, but it's something you want to be aware of. Any way, if your melody is emphasizing the root and fifth of the chord and you want to use extended harmony, you may want to consider reharmonizing the melody with some other chords. For example maybe a chord a third lower would work better because this way the notes would be the 3rd and 7th of the chord. But if you don't feel like your ears are strong enough, I would suggest starting from simpler harmonies. Start from basic triads and learn to harmonize melodies using them. If you can't hear whether what you sang sounds good over the chords, I really wouldn't suggest harmonizing your melodies with extended chords, because it'll most likely end up sounding like you don't know what you are doing. You first want to familiarize yourself with the sound of extended chords and train your ears to hear what fits and what doesn't fit over the chords. When it comes to what beats chord tones should fall on, that's really all about what sounds good to you. A lot of the time, chord tones are on strong beats, non-chord tones are on weaker beats (nothing stops you from playing chord tones on weak beats too). But that may actually sound a bit boring sometimes, and sometimes you want dissonances on strong beats. The main thing is that you want to resolve these dissonances properly. Also, sometimes most of your melody will consist of tensions. For example in "The Girl from Ipanema", the melody over the first chord (Imaj9) only uses 9, 7 and 6 over the chord, so none of the notes are really traditionally consonant notes. Again, using your ears is important. You really can't write music by just following some kind of a rule book. Music is sound first, "rules" second. You really want to be able to hear these things. The "rules" won't make any sense if you can't hear it. Also, you learn the "rules" best by looking at actual music that uses extended harmony. See what notes other songs use over different chords. "The Girl from Ipanema" is one song that you could analyze. But basically any jazz tune will work. I also wouldn't worry about terms like "strong" or "weak" chord tones. I would describe the different notes over a chord as having different colors or flavors. Some notes are going to be a lot more spicy or colorful than other notes. The least spicy notes are the root and the fifth, but the root may not always work against some of the other notes in the chord, so this is also a thing that you need to take into consideration.

  5364. musictheory 2019-12-20 23:15:44 Jongtr
    Let's fix those enharmonics to start with (and a couple of other things): Ebmaj7 - F/E - Gbmaj7 - Fmaj7 - Ebmaj7 - Ebmaj7#11 - Dm - Ddim7 F/E is the weird chord: is that really what you meant? Aside from that, it seems to be in Eb major, the final chord being the vii ("leading tone chord", borrowed from Eb minor) taking you back to the beginning. Obviously the Gbmaj7 and Fmaj7 don't come from that key (let alone the "F/E"), but they're a great illustration of the principle that "a chord can follow any other of the same type" (regardless of key) - a rule which works especially well with maj7s. Ebmaj7#11 and Dm have an A natural, of course, which could either point to Eb lydian mode (on those two anyway), or simply to the key not being Eb after all. It seems to be one of those kinds of sequence which are extremely common in contemporary pop (especially in R&B or hip-hop), which consist of a string of chords in which none of them really *sounds* like a key chord - even when the chords all share a scale, and of course they don't here. The whole idea is to avoid a cadence, to keep the sequence looping, rootless, "up in the air".

  5365. musictheory 2019-12-21 01:55:50 _wormburner
    A pedal point is maintaining a single note for an extended period of time within/below/above other musical material around it. So going back to the pm open string seems more like a pedal point to me. A compound melody is a figuration that suggests multiple melodic lines at the same time usually separated by register. So it would depend on if you hear that open pm as it's own melody with another melody on top of it or not.

  5366. musictheory 2019-12-21 03:56:47 stitchgrimly
    The D is bend up a quarter tone with the D string ringing out too for dissonance. A bit off topic but not many people get this right. It sounds like a dinosaur being woken up if you do it right.

  5367. musictheory 2019-12-21 07:23:19 MaggaraMarine
    I actually listened to the song before posting my last comment. I can post all of the time stamps of G#s or blue thirds if you want to. And what do you mean there are no chords? The guitar riff contains many chords, mostly power chords, but also some major chords (D major and E major). Listen to the first chord carefully. There's definitely a G# in it. [https://youtu.be/HQmmM\_qwG4k](https://youtu.be/HQmmM_qwG4k) At 0:14 the note that Robert lands on is a G#. Listen to it on half speed and you can hear it. Actually, originally I thought it was a blue third, but it is just a G#. The first phrase is B B B A G# D. He also bends the endings of the next phrases: "fooling" sounds like it is a bit flat, almost reaches G#, "schooling" does reach a G#. Those are a couple of examples from the beginning. (I think it's these "bends" that made me think they were blue thirds, but when I listened to it closely, he was actually just bending from G to G#, though some of the G#'s are still slightly flat. Not sure if that's intentional, though.) Guitar solo - listen to the chords carefully. G# is the top note of the chord, probably voiced like 0 7 9 9 9 x. All of the chords behind the solo have a G# in them as the top note. If you can't hear it, listen to it on half speed. At 2:40 in the vocal lines, Robert lands on a couple of G#'s "cooling" and "drooling". "Drooling" starts as a minor third but he bends it up to G#. "Misusing" is in between G and G#. "Inside" is also in between G and G#. Guitar at 3:07 is a clear major chord - the G# can be heard very clearly. Also, 3:15 (the long sustained chord) is a major chord. The "way down inside" part, listen to "inside". The note starts as a G natural, but he then bends it to G#. 4:06 you can hear a clear G#, probably played on the 6th fret of D string. Same thing at 4:11 and 4:20. (And he continues using this as the song fades out.) And at 4:20 when Robert starts to sing "oh oh oh", that's a G# (maybe slightly flat). If you can't hear the guitar stuff on the record that clearly, here's the isolated guitar track: [https://youtu.be/Ks7ovOW3nWg](https://youtu.be/Ks7ovOW3nWg) For example the sustained chord at 1:24 clearly has a G# in it. The chords behind the guitar solo start at 3:14 and you can clearly hear a G# in those chords. 4:08 is another clear example of an E major chord. And listen at around 5 minutes and you can hear that D5 resolving to E G# third that Jimmy plays many times in the outro. Also, I'm pretty sure the blues scale would have older origins, and it didn't just appear from out of nowhere. Yes, blues music itself is played on Western instruments, but the scale most likely has older origins (I mean, the scale at least in some form probably already existed before people started playing it on Western instruments, and that's probably also why they started bending the notes on the guitar to make it sound more like their original scales). We need to remember that black people had their own work songs and spirituals, etc. I'm by no means an expert on blues or African American music in general (I'm sorry if I made it sound like I'm some kind of an authority on this topic - that was definitely not my intent), but this is just stuff that I have heard or read. Quote from this article on blue notes: [https://emusicology.org/article/view/6316/5180](https://emusicology.org/article/view/6316/5180) *"ACADEMIC studies of the early blues concur that its pitch scale has within it three microtonal "blue notes" not found in 12 tone equal temperament intonation (Evans, 1982; Kubik, 2008; McClary 2001; Titon, 1977). Furthermore, they find that these notes, together with their tonic, perfect fourth and fifth, constitute a minimal scale structure in the early blues that does not correspond to any of the scales characteristic of the 12 tone equal temperament tradition."* *"Ethnomusicologists Kubik (1999) and Oliver (1970) provide compelling arguments that the blues is the result of a musical scale of west African origin, forced by the institution of slavery, into compromise with 12 tet instruments and harmony."*

  5368. musictheory 2019-12-21 20:55:27 Travisjd93
    It may also have to do with the guitar itself. Because it’s an acoustic instrument there are frequencies that are best resonated by the wood and because you’re playing on strings that are in a fixed tuning there are certain ways that notes move. I’m not a guitar player but for example when you move from E2 to E0 you’ll get an F# to E. And just because of the nature of the guitar there are certain movements that are unique and can’t be replicated on other instruments. It’s the same reason ukulele has such a distinct sound. I watched a really cool video where Jake Shimabukuro defended the high G tuning because it is essential to the character of the ukulele how notes on that string interact with other notes in the chord because of their octave. You lose some low end but that’s okay because you can’t recreate the voice leading on any other instrument.

  5369. musictheory 2019-12-21 22:32:29 SkyhouseStudio
    Voice-leading and counterpoint are the music theory terms for how make multiple melodic lines maintain independence and sound like distinct melodies. They are big and complex topics that are well-worth studying. But you can also use less-formal instrumentation, orchestration, arrangement, and production choices to help achieve certain effects. For example, big, sustained, extended chords behind the melody can be a great role for things like hammond organ, string sections, choir, synth pads, etc. Alternately, with "chimier" or more dynamic instruments such as acoustic guitar, piano, pitched percussion, harp, etc, it is pretty common to voice full-range accompaniment as repeating arpeggiated patterns. This helps a fluid, lyrical melody line to sit "on top" of the rigid triplet pattern or whatever. The place where you tend to run into trouble is when a guitar or piano is plunking out quarter-note chords over an eighth-note melody... the melody tends to kind of melt into the chord and make it sound like you're just changing chord voicings (which can actually be a really cool effect, if it's the one you're looking for). The terms for these things are: - voice-leading: the subset of music theory dedicated to the study of how chords and melodies interact. Looking at all the notes being played by all the instruments, and how they move through a whole harmonic and melodic sequence. - counterpoint: sort of the "OG" original voice-leading, specifically going back to choral music, and specifically dedicated to maintaining voice-independence. "Counterpoint" tends to imply that one is following the best and most formal rules of voice-leading, while "voice leading" can imply simply the study of what's going on in a rock or pop song, for example. - Instrumentation: what instruments are in the thing, what they are doing, and what their roles are. - Arrangement: related to all the above, the high-level decisions about whether this piece will be a simple voice-and-piano song, or a New-Orleans style ragtime jazz version with brass and marching drums, or a lavish pop production with strings and rock instruments and a gospel choir, etc. It's both about instruments and also stylistic choices. - Orchestration - kind of the more-formal study of instrumentation and arrangement, especially oriented towards a traditional western orchestra with SATB sections for strings, brass, and wind, plus percussion. Incorporates counterpoint and voice-leading, and also factors like tambre, loudness, and useful ranges of various instruments. Hope that helps.

  5370. musictheory 2019-12-22 00:00:47 65TwinReverbRI
    Your brain. Your brain is what makes a song sound good. You've been conditioned by all of the music you've heard (and all of the stories you've read) to expect certain things. When your expectations are met you either consider it good, or something that can be bad - predictable. When your expectations are not met you either consider it bad, or something that can be good - unpredictable. A lot of the music (and stories) that appeal to many people do so because they balance all that really well. But let's take a step back and let me ask you this: At what age did you begin to start experiencing stories? At what age did you begin to speak, and learn to read, and to write? When did you start writing stories? Or even just making up stories? At what age did you start fantasizing about things - making up scenarios to play with toys - maybe Star Wars toys that you did more than just "re-enact" scenes from the movie you saw but started making up your own subplots? I would suspect that you have done this over the course of your life in the very typical natural development of communication, and with formal training in terms of being taught - what - at least an hour a day 5 days a week, but with constant reinforcement maybe 5 hours a day 5 days a week. Did you do "leisure reading" like schools encourage students to do? Many kids do. Since you're so interested in stories and writing, you might have been one of those kids who read the entire Harry Potter series or whatever long before your classmates were and you advanced verbally, grammatically, and in written communication as well. You said "young life" but let's say you're 15. So really, you've experienced people talking to you, teaching you to speak, reading, writing, formal teaching, and so on for a large percentage of that time. It's ALWAYS around you and you even seek out MORE. You've taken a step beyond what many do and have become interested more in the "creation" aspects of story telling. Now, this is a common issue with music. "I want to compose". "I've been doing X for 1 year". No. You need 15 years :-) See, one issue that happens as we age is we really don't realize how much time and effort was spent, how much immersion we had, how much actual training we had - and at what age we had it - and we also think that because we've mastered other things in life - complex things like communicating verbally and in writing - that we should be able to do the same with other things. This is not true. And there's another fallacy in here - a great big fallacy - that "music is easy". I guess there's a lot of people out there who make it seem like it is. There's a lot of music out there that's really simplistic. I mean honestly, most popular music is "See Jane run. Run Jane run." If that's the kind of tale you want to tell, fine. But if you want to make the musical equivalent of Hemingway or Shakespeare (or whoever) then there's a lot more to it than simply "learning grammar". In a sense, you're trying to take a shortcut. Studying plot theory in storytelling is more helpful because you've already got a lifetime (thus far) of experience starting pretty much from day 1 with standardized training and a keen interest in building on that. So have you done that with music? Because "studying music theory" isn't going to help you write music without all that background (again unless you want to write Dick and Jane). Sure, OK, you've HEARD music - maybe you even grew up around music. But have you been *immersed* in music, and have you been formally trained in a standardized manner in the same way you were with language? Have you done to make music a part of your being the same things you have done with language? The answer is no. Or else you wouldn't be here :-) That's OK. But, the point I'm trying to make is, you can't shortcut it. If you are serious about making music you have to live and breathe music at a level beyond just what the average person does. Now, granted, one of the reason simplistic music is lauded in our society is because the average person is NOT given the same kind of experiences in the arts they are in music in life and in school so anything above average seems amazing by comparison. How many books have you read? How many scores have you read? How many times have you told a story - even a short fib? Something you created on the spot, or made up in your mind? How many times by comparison have you done this with music? How many times have you been tested on spelling, and vocabulary? How many times has the same been done with music? How much time have you spent into language? How much time by comparison have you put into music? Do you see what I'm getting at here? If you've heard about the whole 10,000 hours thing - that you need to spend at least 10,000 hours at something to get good at it? 10,000 hours is a Year roughly. So let's say 3 years for waking hours. If you were 15, you've been reading, writing, and communicating pretty much 5 times that. And an author has more importantly taken the time to invest in improving their communication skills by supplementing "everyday" communication with more intensive self-study as well paying more attention in their school education (or at least, that's what the teachers try to encourage). That number can be kind of silly in reality, but it does serve as a good comparison here - by comparison, how much time have you spent on music? I understand that yes, maybe you came to it later, and that's OK. But you can't expect to be able to do what you want to do without doing the same thing that you did to learn language - or the same thing that other composers did to learn to compose music. I'll leave you with one of my favorite things (in a sad way) that happens on forums like these: Poster: "Music is my **passion**. I will do *anything* to get better" Me: "Take lessons". Poster: "Except that". What if you took an hour lesson EVERY DAY - not once a week - like you did with English in school? And what if you did it through Elementary, Middle, and High School? Heck, even in college we don't have Applied Lessons daily. It's an hour a week (but you are immersed in music at a level far beyond what the average person can even fathom). But what if you did? What if all the kids who take piano lessons actually practiced for an hour a day like they're supposed to? We'd have a lot better musicians on the planet - and more people who understand it's not just something people who can't do anything else do. Sure, this is a resource and you're asking questions, and that's good. But I'll caution that your initial question is one of psychology and not of music. What sounds good are the learned patterns. Here's a great analogy: when writing texts and in forums like this, a string of words is often misinterpreted right? Sometimes someone says something and someone else is insulted by and that was not the authors intent. That is the WHOLE REASON WE HAVE EMOJIS!!!!!! Because outside of a known context, emotion is not inherent in the words or the phrases. Music is the exact same way. It's "sad" not because of what notes are used, but only if it's an idea taken from a context we already understand as sad, or if the first time we encounter it is in a sad context, and so on. Sadness is what WE bring to the music, not what the music brings to us (again, excepting things that have well known contexts). It all has to do with your life experiences. So I would encourage you to totally immerse yourself in music and musical training if you're serious about it, and not get caught up in the "what makes it emotional" kind of stuff - unless what your real interest is in in perception and psychology, or things like music cognition and psychoacoustics which are fascinating fields themselves. Lots of great *reading* there. Not as much music-making though...

  5371. musictheory 2019-12-22 00:30:49 WittyMess
    When I try and write music (mostly contemporary non classical) for larger ensembles I find it hard to elaborate the melodic and harmonic structure and write interesting individual parts for each player. I realize there is much to learn regarding orchestration, idiomatic writing for different instruments, the stylistic outlines of the genres that inspire me and more, but I figured starting with the basics and honing my craft first would be a good idea. In essence, I had the impression that going straight ahead and googling for example "how to write for a string quartet" or "idiomatic writing for rnb brass section" is not the best idea. Would you concur? Also I need to know how to complete a 4 part chorale and other countepoint-centered pieces for my local university's entrance exam :)

  5372. musictheory 2019-12-22 02:33:54 musical_cyclist
    Score study, especially keyboard music, sonatas for \_\_ and keyboard, and string quartets. Use IMSLP to find scores. As a performer, I would recommend seeking out books on performance practices, especially of the periods before 1900. For music theory articles, check places like [Music Theory Online](http://www.mtosmt.org/) and the Journal of [MT Pedagogy](https://jmtp.appstate.edu/articles).

  5373. musictheory 2019-12-22 03:26:11 0092678
    You're partly correct but it's my fault for not explaining. I'm a college horn player in an orchestra and we had competition for scoring a silent film that our conductor chose (this silent film was one he saw on youtube already). The winner was not chosen for how "good" (Hollywood sounding?) it sounded but originality, the progression of the motivic structure and most importantly how it sounded *without* the film because whoever won would have it played out for a live orchestra. Do you mean it doesn't sound like a Hans Zimmer modern film soundtrack with distorted synths and pulsing scary heartbeat basslines? Or do you mean it doesn't sound like a 1950 Bernard Hermann soundtrack horror film in which case I understand because I acknowledge my string writing is completely bad anyway? Either way, was there no part in the whole film that sounded like it belonged?

  5374. musictheory 2019-12-22 05:09:58 Zarlinosuke
    C4 (middle C) is the C one ledger line below the treble staff. The guitar sounds an octave lower than written, so generally the note written as middle C (one ledger line below the staff) is that which you play on the third fret of the A string.

  5375. musictheory 2019-12-22 05:32:45 Zarlinosuke
    You're welcome. Remember what I said about the note notated as middle C being played on the third fret of the A string? Everything else can be found in relation to that in the same way.

  5376. musictheory 2019-12-22 05:45:26 crom-dubh
    > Do you mean it doesn't sound like a Hans Zimmer modern film soundtrack with distorted synths and pulsing scary heartbeat basslines? > > Or do you mean it doesn't sound like a 1950 Bernard Hermann soundtrack horror film in which case I understand because I acknowledge my string writing is completely bad anyway? It would have been even weirder if it sounded like Zimmer for this film. I don't know what about what I said even hinted that this would be what I meant. I meant exactly what I said: it doesn't really sound like it belongs with this film. When you're scoring to a film that is, by far, the singular most important consideration. Your score has to help tell the story of the film, or it's just a piece of music. Scoring is its own discipline - you could conceivably be a great composer and be a rotten scorer. It takes a lot of practice and experience and I don't myself claim to be a master scorer or anything. If it's something you want to do, I recommend doing this with a *ton* of different types of films and genres and figuring out what works. The most unfitting part of yours is the beginning - I really feel like it doesn't belong at all, like it wasn't even originally written for this film. At around the 4 minute mark some of what you've got better matches the mood. But you have these odd moments where the music just stops for 20 seconds or so even though nothing has really changed. I'm also not feeling all the instrumentation - some of the percussion is too obtrusive, and overall the music is just too noticeable.

  5377. musictheory 2019-12-22 08:29:41 stanley_bobanley
    > Would that be just playing a 2-5-1 chord progression for each “1” around the whole circle? Exactly. You can play them harmonically, arpeggios, as melodic phrases that sequence through scales appropriate to the changes, all in a single position (guitarists), single string set sliding up and down the neck, using closed-voice triads, open-voice triads, 4-note chords, with upper extensions (9,11,13), rootless voicings and/or quartal harmony... and on and on. This is just for a vanilla major 2-5-1. Then you can introduce Lydian (instead of Ionian) on the I chord, altered or half-whole diminished on the V and suddenly the major 2-5-1 exercises expand substantially. Then you can move on to minor 2-5-1's which will have other options like Locrian #2 on the iim7b5 chord or plain old Locrian, harmonic minor or altered or half-whole dim on the V chord, etc etc etc. By the time you introduce rhythmic variations to these exercises, you can quickly see that the scope truly is a life's work. So love the journey because it truly is the reward. Also, remember to transcribe existing songs as they bits of all of these exercises in context.

  5378. musictheory 2019-12-22 08:36:30 aleksfadini
    Most scholars use the term Dorian #4 (Levine, Liebman) Lydian b7 is commonly called lydian dominant. But I never heard it "minorized". Also, since you pointed it out: Am7 (assuming there is a G natural because OP mentions open string on guitar, STD tuning) and B7 spell out E minor Harmonic. (4th and 5th degree tetrachords)

  5379. musictheory 2019-12-22 18:51:28 Rift_sk
    Not in string

  5380. musictheory 2019-12-23 02:36:13 Jongtr
    Guitar music is transposed by an octave. [Zarlinosuke](https://www.reddit.com/user/Zarlinosuke/) is right that the note written on the ledger line under the clef is the 3rd fret on the 5th string. It's just that that isn't middle C, it's C3. The note which *sounds* like middle C (C4) is shown in guitar notation as the 3rd space up, and is played on the 1st fret 2nd string. This is because the range of guitar covers roughly the middle register of piano, and if we used piano treble clef most of our notes would be way off below the stave. So the stave is lowered by an octave, putting middle C roughly in the middle of the stave (space above the centre line).

  5381. musictheory 2019-12-23 03:00:24 TNUGS
    /u/_wormburner pretty much got it. I would definitely call the open string use you describe a pedal rather than compound melody.

  5382. musictheory 2019-12-24 02:14:55 TwoAfter909
    Do you mean a different tuning system? Another commenter suggested just intonation. Or do you mean tuning the strings of your instrument to something else? If so, if you are a guitarist, there are many things to work with. I suggest drop D, DADGAD, and any open tunings. Those are all fairly common for guitar. If you're talking about a bowed string instrument, you may look at some Bach pieces which ask for a different tuning.

  5383. musictheory 2019-12-24 12:29:55 Zarlinosuke
    A C chord, in the abstract, is the notes C-E-G. You finger a C chord on the guitar because it involves playing only those notes: a C on the fifth string, an E on the fourth string, a G on the (open) third string, a C on the second string, and an (open) E on the first string. Same deal with all the others! A Cmaj7 is, rather than simply C-E-G, C-E-G-B. A seventh chord means that a fourth note, a seventh above the root, has been added to the fundamental triad. And so when you play a Cmaj7 on the guitar, it will resemble a C major chord but need to include a B somewhere in there.

  5384. musictheory 2019-12-24 12:33:06 Conrad59
    Do you know the notes on guitar? For example, if you play the 4th fret on the 5th string, do you know the letter-name of the note you're playing?

  5385. musictheory 2019-12-25 01:55:06 JustAnotherComposer4
    You could try D minor or E minor. Both are easy for string players and close enough to the original key so you don't have to change too many octaves around.

  5386. musictheory 2019-12-25 02:44:42 MaggaraMarine
    Because guitar is such a shape-based instrument, the chord structures are easy to see on the fretboard. Let's take the movable "A shape" (x 0 2 2 2 0) and for example play it starting on the third fret (making it a C major chord). Also, let's omit the note on the high E string because it makes things a bit simpler. So, our starting shape is x 3 5 5 5 x. The notes are root, perfect fifth, root, major third. The distance from root to fifth is 7 frets, and 4 frets from root to major third. (If you played these notes on one string, the third would be 4 frets above the root, and the fifth would be 7 frers above the root.) Remember that there is a perfect fourth (5 half steps) between each string, except for the interval between G and B strings that is a major third (4 frets). If you don't yet know how many half steps each interval is, you should learn it. Also, remember that the number in the interval name refers to how many note names you should count. A third up from A is three note names up, starting from A. So, A B C. This means, a third up from some kind of an A (Ab, A# or A natural) is always some kind of a C (Cb, C# or C natural). If you lower the major third by a half step (one fret), it becomes a minor third, and changes the quality of the chord from major to minor. So, C minor in the same position is x 3 5 5 4 x. Maj7 means that you add a major 7th to the triad. Major 7th is one half step below the root, so Cmaj7 would be x 3 5 4 5 x, and Cmmaj7 (minor major 7th) x 3 5 4 4 x. (Now the structure of the chord shape is root, 5th, 7th, 3rd.) 7 means that you add a minor 7th to the triad. Minor 7th is two half steps below the root. C7 would be x 3 5 3 5 x, and Cm7 x 3 5 3 4 x. Cm7b5 is a minor 7th chord with a lowered fifth (you lower the fifth by a half step), so Cm7b5 would be x 3 4 3 4 x. This chord is also known as half-diminished because the root, third and fifth form a diminished triad, and you have an added minor 7th. Full diminished chord (dim7 or o7) also has a diminished 7th that is a half step lower than the minor 7th. Cdim7 would be x 3 4 2 4 x.

  5387. musictheory 2019-12-25 05:26:47 tdammers
    It's not actually a small group of musicians - any group that is capable of free intonation and performs at a sufficiently high level will aim to hit just intervals at all times. Typical examples are a cappella groups (where just intervals are often exploited for psychoacoustic effects, such as the "fifth man" in barbershop, or a virtual subharmonic bass in romantic choir literature, achieved by scoring a pure fifth between the first and second basses), string quartets, and trombone ensembles. In all these forms, the same notational pitch will be performed differently depending on context, and performers are generally quite aware of this.

  5388. musictheory 2019-12-25 06:35:49 Conrad59
    > Is the progression I V IV and VIIb in key of G major? Can't really be sure of a key from just that string of 4 chords, but yes, it could well be. It's "bVII", not "VIIb".

  5389. musictheory 2019-12-26 06:18:49 nepane
    Obviously each key would have a different color. Like male and female voices are different, even in the same key/same pitch, so does each piano string have it‘s own sound. On an guitar you can play the same note on multiple places, but esch sounds different (warmer, punchier, brighter...) That’s what you hear. Sometimes I guess the right key by this feel, altough i don’t have a perfect pitch.

  5390. musictheory 2019-12-26 11:19:12 uh_no_
    > by tuning octaves pure (no beating) no beating does not produce pure octaves on a piano. it produces slightly wider than 2:1 ratio, as the harmonics of a piano string are not theoretically perfect. Tuners take this into account and the amount that the octave is "stretched" across the range is a bit of an art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stretched_tuning

  5391. musictheory 2019-12-26 23:11:59 RichardPascoe
    The intervals between the open strings, from the low string to the high string, are all perfect fourths except the interval between the open G string and open B string which is a third. That is why the tuning system is called 4-3. The Classical double bass and electric bass also have perfect fourth intervals between the open strings. The open strings which are fourths when barred are also fourths. So if you make a mini barre on the open high E and open B anywhere on the fretboard you are playing a fourth. Knowing the intervals between the open strings is a basic requirement and understanding that any barre (not barre chord - just the barre) gives the same 4-3 intervals. Make a barre at the fifth fret and name the notes from low to high. Which open string intervals do they correspond to?

  5392. musictheory 2019-12-26 23:28:33 tdammers
    It depends on the drum, the other instruments, the style of music, and even what the recording engineer (if any) does. Drum tuning is a fairly complex subject, more complex than tuning, say, a guitar or violin; it's actually multi-dimensional (!). Unlike a string or reed, a drumhead doesn't have a single main axis of oscillation; the standing wave runs in all directions out from the point where you hit it, to the rim, and back. Most drumheads, thus, have several tuning nuts (typically between 6-12 of them); if you tune them all equally, and you have a fresh, uniform drumhead, you will get a fairly clearly-pitched sound out of the drum, but by introducing slight variations between individual nuts, the drumhead will resonate at different frequencies in different directions, and those frequencies will all interfere with one another, producing a rougher, noisier sound. Things get even more complex when you consider the resonator as well, which has (at least) two main frequencies of its own (determined by its radius and depth); depending how the drumhead tuning relates to these, and how they relate to one another, the drum's main pitch may be more or less pronounced (e.g., if they all align, then the main pitch will be quite clear, and may even produce a "booming" effect, but if they are maximally unrelated, a less tonal sound will result). And we're still not done, because many drums have not one drumhead, but two, and for the resonator drumhead, the same considerations apply as for the main one; and then all these things interfere with one another, allowing the drummer to get all sorts of degrees of tonality out of a drum. And it gets even more complicated than that. It also matters how you hit the drumhead, where you hit it, and what you hit it with, *and then* you can also apply damping (e.g. by throwing a heavy cloth in the bass drum, or by taping a kleenex on the snare, or some such) to manipulate the sound further. So, back to that tritone. An example where it would matter a lot would be the congas in a salsa band. Congas are generally tuned to produce a very tonal sound, and the instrument itself, with its barrel-shaped resonators and a single head, lends itself well for this. Congueros are usually quite aware of how their drums relate to the key of the song, so when recording, they will often tune their drums to the song being recorded, and for live gigs, where frequent retuning is not an option, they will pick pitches that fit the repertoire best. E.g., if you're going to play a gig where the tunes are all somewhere between the keys of Bb and D in the circle of fifths, you might pick something like D and A, or maybe E and C. In any case, having the main conga tuned a tritone away from the root is going to sound slightly bad, get in the way of the bass, and might even derail the singer. By contrast, the ideal sound for a snare drum in a grunge band would be gritty, noisy, and not at all tonal, so the drummer will probably tune the main head differently than the resonance head, and might also tune each head slightly asymmetrically on purpose. In this scenario, the actual pitch of the drumhead isn't going to matter much, and if "a tritone away from the root" is where the snare sounds best, then that'll be just fine.

  5393. musictheory 2019-12-27 01:03:15 Larson_McMurphy
    While it is true that a drum won't create a harmonic pitch like a 1-dimensional resonating object (like a string or an air column), because the overtones it creates are too complex, someone who is good at tuning drums can get a discernible pitch out of one, especially a tom. See /u/tdammers comment. It is a very good explanation of this.

  5394. musictheory 2019-12-27 09:49:15 tjbassoon
    Tremolo is a dynamic (loudness) phenomenon. Vibrato is a pitch phenomenon. Many guitar products are not labeled properly, especially the completely incorrect name of the whammy bar as being a tremolo arm (it produces no tremolo at all). Should be a vibrato arm (like Bigsby is often properly referred to). Pedals can go either way, but usually tremolo pedals are properly named. In woodwind instruments vibrato is produced by a tremolo in the airstream. Some wind players do not believe this, but when you slow down the sound and also examine the waveform, you find this this to be almost universally true. String players can produce vibrato with pitch adjustment only. My suspicion is that vocalists fall into the wind player camp. If you can't tell the difference you just need to listen more carefully, because they do very different things.

  5395. musictheory 2019-12-27 15:41:51 Larson_McMurphy
    This is completely tangential to this thread, but super interesting. Bells have a strange overtone series compared to a string for the same reason that drums do, because there are more dimensions for vibration to take place in. I always thought it was strange that church bells have this really strong minor third overtone. Some engineers used something called finite-element-analysis to create a bell with harmonic overtones and wrote a [paper](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10645573_The_design_of_bells_with_harmonic_overtones?fbclid=IwAR1ys_9NHY5S_SvvZZ79DwVBoI3zaSV-ph-PSsMyhvuZ2GTx0cIDv0JemYc) about it.

  5396. musictheory 2019-12-27 16:30:57 Reptilefan
    String players can also do bow vibrato, which is a (not very commonly used) dynamic phenomenon

  5397. musictheory 2019-12-28 11:10:48 Mr-Yellow
    No one has really mentioned interval construction of modes much, how knowing their composition is the other side of the *"It's just Major scale displaced"* coin. So we have two problems when it comes to the fretboard. First we have to memorise a flat Major scale line through all of it's multi-string complexity. Then we have to actually play some harmony. So we can actively think: *"This is A minor, it has a `b3b6b7` interval construction."* while your *"muscle"* memory is *"thinking"* (no actual thinking involved) *"This is C Major, it goes up and down the neck in this way, your next finger goes just over there"* Compared to a guitarist who actively thinks *"This is A minor scale pattern, it starts with my index finger on A"*. You can instead think of the intervals, play a `b3`, play a `b6`, then simply fall into the C Major scale patterns without thinking.

  5398. musictheory 2019-12-28 19:50:55 Dune89-sky
    Why should scalar patterns on the guitar always be ascending starting on the sixth bass string? Solo playing occurs mostly on the higher strings so it would perhaps make more sense to identify the ’mode name’ from the first (fourth finger) or perhaps third string (index finger) note? That just shows how arbitrary this mode naming of scale fingering patterns is. By the time your fingers find a playable note on string two you can’t really be sure you are playing the scale in its ninth position fingering but instead the eight. Which would mean you are playing the Aeolian scale when you should have been doing Locrian. No, learn major and melodic minor fingerings for all positions in all keys for your muscle memory and note detection skills. Learn all 7th chiod arpeggios too. As soon as possible you should free yourself from position playing anyway. Then tackle the issue of providing modal color from major and melodic minor scales. The rascal Mick Goodrick (Advancing Guitarist) had his students practice improvisation on a particular mode for a semester or two on a single string with a single finger, just to distinguish between the idea of position playing and fingering patterns and what a mode is. Goodrick has a good(rick) point there.

  5399. musictheory 2019-12-29 02:50:07 BelgianSexWaffle
    Theoretically, but it’s so impractical. The one example I can think of is Eddie Van Halen claims to keep his g string a few cents flat so it’s more in tune with with the top strings, but he bends it a tiny bit when making Emajor shape barre chords to tune to the chord. Might be apocryphal though. Certainly wouldn’t make a difference in the live music situations he tends to fin himself in.

  5400. musictheory 2019-12-29 04:45:22 ResidentPurple
    IIRC, there is arpeggiation of the shape X07500 on a guitar in standard tuning. A A C B E The note in the bass from the guitar's perspective then moves to E then Eb (7th fret and then 6th fret of the A string). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1RTgznup5c starts at around 32 seconds.

  5401. musictheory 2019-12-29 05:42:10 Roadrunner571
    This is exactly the fight all fretless string players are fighting.

  5402. musictheory 2019-12-29 05:49:16 globalcitizen05
    I think you're confusing just intonation with "expressive intonation"? In western classical music like string quartets/trios or solo bach there is a performance practice where we do things like make minor thirds wider and major thirds narrower so that overall sound has more resonance and sounds more in tune but if you were to drop out the other voices and just play the third of the chord it would sound out of tune. You can't do it if you're playing with a piano because of equal temperament and I'm not sure if it would be possible on a fretted instrument. Or there's also something called Scordatura which is when you "detune" specified strings to make it easier to play a piece. The new open strings will also help the instrument resonate better in some keys.

  5403. musictheory 2019-12-29 11:04:45 callmelucky
    >so that as could learn to play in key on the fly Learning to play "in key on the fly" has nothing to do with tuning temperament etc, you just need ear training and theory and practice for that. The thing is, as a guitarist, you're probably only ever going to be playing with other instruments who tune to (or are locked into, e.g. electric keyboards) equal temperament, so making any adjustments to get more "natural" intervals is just going to put you out of tune with the others. Furthermore: the way guitar frets are laid out *necessitates* equal temperament! You could adjust the strings relative to each other in some non-equal temperament, but the notes on any given string will always be essentially equally tempered. Tldr: don't worry about any of this. Equal temperament is fucking rad. What you lose is completely insignificant compared to what you gain, and guitars just don't work with non-equal temperaments anyway.

  5404. musictheory 2019-12-29 12:02:48 tommaniacal
    The Human Abstract's "Holographic Sight" (2004) explores the wholetone scale If you're willing to a bit further back than 1990, Stevie Wonder's "You are the Sunshine of My Life" (1972) uses it in the intro Bela Bartok's "String Quartet No. 5" (1934) Igor Stravinsky's "L'Histoire du Soldat" (1918) uses both the wholetone scale and octatonic scale Claude Debussy's "Voiles" (1909) is almost entirely wholetone Arnold Schoenberg's "String Quartet No. 1" (1905)

  5405. musictheory 2019-12-29 13:26:44 YouWillBeWhatEatsYou
    Good advice. I ended up learning using mostly my thumb, and tend to keep my index or ring finger anchored on the top string when using it, but use three fingers to "pull" the DGb strings for most chords when playing blues and jazz. Very natural feeling for me.

  5406. musictheory 2019-12-30 02:56:04 angelenoatheart
    Seems to be a [term in string technique](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5GvLnikhaQ). ([Another video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msQpm5MgAhk).)

  5407. musictheory 2019-12-30 03:18:36 angelenoatheart
    That's what the kids in the second video are saying. I'm not a string player, but I can believe this would make an audible difference -- in particular, the player is not moving their fingers, i.e. changing how the two strings are stopped, rather changing only which one is bowed.

  5408. musictheory 2019-12-30 03:30:03 telephone_man
    My advice would be to put yourself into more of a rut before you can get of it. Personally I do this by restricting my available tools and resources to force me to think a bit more. E g. If I’m in a rut on a 6 string guitar, I give myself 2 strings and only create music with those, and only add in more if I feel it’s required. I think giving yourself more tools will make you do new things. But really you want to use your existing skill sets better as well. Theres a book on this subject, under the remit of ‘musicianship’, I cant quite remember the name. It was called ‘the book of music’ or something.

  5409. musictheory 2019-12-30 04:44:54 DerHunMar
    Cool idea. What you are thinking of is Just Intonation. If you research that term you will learn what you want to learn about how to arrive at those more expressive intervals. I do agree with another poster that what you are trying to do is perhaps more accurately called Expressive Intonation - playing in a equal temperament context (which you can't avoid on a fretted guitar) but reaching for the more primal interval that ET only approximates/fudges. There is a long tradition of doing this in vocal groups like barbershop quartets and among skilled vocalists, slide guitarists, pedal steel guitarists, string-bending guitarists, fiddle players and other instruments that allow note-bending or access to notes not in ET in blues, gospel, folk, country, even rock. There is also obviously a tradition of truly just-intoned music all over the world and even in western folk musics that has continued in spite of ET, and it's kind of cool when you find the links between those musics and the use of expressive intonation in an ET context (like Derek Trucks digging into Qawwali and Hindustani slide. Also, I haven't really analyzed it, but I bet Sonic Youth and bands who use all sorts of open and alternate tunings are hitting a lot of the purer just-intoned intervals by instinct and that's why their stuff packs such an emotional punch - they were probably fans of and influenced by Henry Partch and others like him). The reason the pure intervals have so much emotional punch is because they are exact multiples (and fractions) of the root frequency. Our modern tuning standard is A = 440 Hz. This is high E string 5th fret, but all the As on the guitar (tuned to 440) are whole numbers. So G string 2nd fret is 220 Hz, open A string is 110Hz. Obviously they occur in other places on the guitar as well. Thus key of A (maj, min, modal, doesn't matter) would be the easiest notes to start with as you train your ears. I have a tuner on my phone that tells me the frequency of the pitch I am playing. [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.soundlim.panotuner&hl=en\_US](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.soundlim.panotuner&hl=en_US) So break out your calculator and and calculate the frequencies of the just intervals you want to work on. You can just use the ratios I have in the 2nd chart below. The 1st chart tells you what interval it is you are working on. The 3rd chart is all the intervals in key of C since it's easiest to understand, but we want key of A for ease of calculation, which is in the 4th chart. I got this stuff from *Harmonic Experience* by Mathieu, but it's in other places too. &#x200B; M6 | M3 | M7 | #4 P4 | **1** | P5 | M2 m2| m6 | m3 | b7 &#x200B; 5/3 x | 5x | 15/8 x (=5\*3) | 45/32 x (=5\*3\*3) 4/3 x | **1** | 3x | 9/8 x (=3\*3) 16/15 x (= 1/5 \* 1/3) | 8/5 x (=1/5) | 6/5 x (=3/5) | 9/5 x (1/5 \* 3 \* 3) &#x200B; A | E | B | F# F | **C** | G | D Db | Ab | Eb | Bb &#x200B; F# | C# | G# | D# D | **A** | E | B Bb | F | C | G &#x200B; So say you want to practice a typical country/blues/rock major pentatonic style bend up to the M3. We can do this from B on the G string 4th fret. 220 Hz x 5/4 = 275 Hz. The Pano tuner will tell you when you hit it. You can also grab the 5th fret 2nd and 1st string E and A notes to hit an A maj triad when you make the bend and that will also help your ear get the just M3. You can do similar things with all the other intervals. Also know that 7-limit intervals are used a lot too. 7/4 is a low b7 interval, for example, that musicians in the American and rock traditions reach for a lot. There are others too but I don't remember them.

  5410. musictheory 2019-12-30 11:26:51 twozerone
    well, i am not an expert. But here is how I personally understand it, again coming from the guitar world: tremolo is variations in volume while vibrato is vibrations in pitch up and down. You can get a tremolo pedal for guitar but vibrato is done with your fingers to bend the string , so yes tremolo bar is wrong

  5411. musictheory 2019-12-30 11:31:53 Korrun
    I've seen it marked in string music several times at the middle school level (in America).

  5412. musictheory 2019-12-30 15:12:04 Zarlinosuke
    Mmhmm! I'm glad to hear you agree. For me, a string of chords usually means very little on its own without the formal context.

  5413. musictheory 2019-12-30 18:58:13 markjohnstonmusic
    OK so I'm not a piano technician or even really pianist, but from what I know, there's a mechanism built into the action on a grand which allows you to restrike the note without letting the damper down, so you can repeat a note legato. According to the French Wikipedia, it was invented in 1821 by Érard. You can feel this mechanism when you press a key down on a grand; it's like a little bump you go over on the way to the keybed. You don't have to play so deeply in the keybed, though; if you strike the keys with velocity but don't push through, they stay above the mechanism but still hit the string. You get a very light, airy sound, I guess because not the entire mechanism of the action is behind the hammer. That's just one example, of course. There's as many ways to have the hammer strike the string as there are sound colours you can imagine.

  5414. musictheory 2019-12-31 02:16:25 DRL47
    There is an "escape" mechanism which allows the hammer to rebound off of the string without affecting the key stroke, but not one that allows legato playing (except for the damper pedal). The dampers fall whenever the key is lifted for a new note. As for there being "as many ways to have the hammer strike the string as there are sound colours you can imagine"; without using the pedals, there is only one tone that you can get from a piano. You can only change the velocity (volume) and the duration (phrasing).

  5415. musictheory 2019-12-31 04:07:18 65TwinReverbRI
    "The Piano" is not "out of tune". It is tuned to a very specific system that begins with 12 Tone Equal Temperament and then "Stretches" it. This actually varies from Piano to Piano but when tuned properly, "a" Piano is as in tune with that system as it possibly can be. What you've discovered is that the way Pianos are tuned is not the same as other possible tunings, of which, there are many, and each tuning is only "out of tune" when referenced to another system. No one of them is "right" or "in tune". Instead, we have to adapt tuning for other artistic purposes, such as playing in all 12 Keys. You're getting into Just Intonation. People actually do this already in ensembles where pitch can be adjusted (Barbershop Quartet, Vocal Groups, String Groups, etc.). But Just intonation has its own shortcomings (having to re-tune everything, constantly) and the way we perceive pitch means that we don't have to make things "perfectly in tune" - evidenced by all the music out there that's not "in tune" (like that played on pianos, not to mention pianos that aren't even tuned to the stretch tuning standard) that no one gives a flip about whether it's "in tune" or not. BTW, I think you meant A-**flat** Minor triad - Eb, Ab, and **Cb**.

  5416. musictheory 2019-12-31 04:30:18 65TwinReverbRI
    Half the length, double the frequency. That's why they're inverses. So if you have a string of X length, and put a bridge at .5X, both halves of the string will be double the frequency, produce a pitch an octave higher. It's not "the smaller you divide the string" but more specific than that. When you divide it at 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6,...1/n Integers, or Whole Numbers. This tells us given a Fundamental *f*, that by dividing the string in half you'll get 2(*f*), and in thirds, you'll get 3(*f*) and so on. Now, when you have a bridge in the middle, you have the same distance on either side - a 2:1 ratio. When you divide a string with a bridge to get 1/3 of the string, the remaining part is 2/3 - which is why you get a 3:2 ratio. But if you could put a 2nd bridge at the other 1/3 point you'd get three thirds. This is why, when you play harmonics on your guitar, the 8ve harmonic is only at the 12th fret. But, if you play over the 7th fret OR the 19th fret, you'll get the same harmonic. Each one divides the string into 3rds, though you only have to touch one of the nodes at 1/3 the distance - the remaining 2/3 length of string actually breaks up into two, 1/3 parts. You should be able to demonstrate this with a friend if you play the harmonic at the 19th and they put their finger over the 7th, it shouldn't change too much (aside from the thickness of the finger being added). ______ Rameau is trying, like many, to "prove" or "justify" that music was adhering to some natural laws. At that time they could not "measure" the Harmonic Series, but they did understand ratios and the results they produced. Moreover, in this case he was trying to make a case that collections of notes, like E-G-C - which had previously been understood as "a type of E chord" should instead be understood as some type of C chord - where we get the idea of "Root" (which is basically like Fundamental or "Basis" or "base" that the "harmonic tree" stands on) and thus Inversions - where inversions have a Root still, but it's not the lowest sounding note. But Rameau - like many - conveniently skips some information that doesn't fit in with what he's trying to prove - he skips the 7th Partial IIRC. However, what he was really doing is being observant of a trend in music happening around him where people were conceptualizing of chords in this way, and partly trying to write an "observational report" on it as well as "justify" it using these ratios. Fortunately, the rest of his treatise deals with the more important stuff - actually making music.

  5417. musictheory 2019-12-31 05:15:38 TaigaBridge
    The actual physics of the situation is as /u/65TwinReverbRI explained. When two notes have frequencies in some small-number ratio those notes tend to sound consonant to us; if the frequencies have ratio a:b, the string lengths that produce them (all else being equal - string thickness, tension, etc) will be in ratio 1/a : 1/b = b:a. Rameau had a pet theory about the relationship between major and minor being tied up with this: the 4:5:6 frequency ratio of a major chord is produced by 1/4:1/5:1/6=15:12:10 length ratio of strings, while the 10:12:15 frequency ratio of a minor chord is produced by a 1/10:1/12:1/15=6:5:4 length ratio of strings. It's one semi-plausible explanation for the minor scale but not the only one available. It does, at least, explain why my violin professor always sounded a D minor chord at the piano, not just an A, when we turned at the beginning of our lesson (the D, F, and A all contributed "A" harmonics.)

  5418. musictheory 2019-12-31 07:38:41 65TwinReverbRI
    >It sounds good to me That's all that matters. This happens time and time again here and no offense but it sucks to have to keep explaining it :-) Look at it this way though: How did you come up with these chords? Were you concerned about the Key? Obviously not, because you aren't sure what it is. So you did it by SOUND. And that's what music is. Usually a question like this is "what key is this so I can come up with the rest of the progression?" And I'm always like, "well how did you come up with this much without knowing the key?" See if you used SOUND to come up with the first part, why do you want to suddenly *restrict* yourself by worrying about the Key? Em9 has an F# in it (or should) so that's outside of the Key of C Major. And this brings up the other common issue with doing this: WHAT IS YOUR MELODY? Because a string of chords could potentially be any number of keys, some mixture of keys, or even no key at all some times. So the Em9 has an F#. The other chords don't have F at all in them, so there's NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION :-) We need to know if you're playing F notes or F# notes in the melody above those other chords (or in some other secondary part). But this is a common problem with this question - without extra information we can only make assumptions that may or may not be correct or what you "hear" yourself - which would probably drive your music into a direction you may not want. Is it a common progression? What does it matter? Don't worry about it. There are plenty of songs out there with the same chord progression. There's nothing wrong with it. "common" doesn't justify it either. Does it "work". No, it's just a string of chords. It has to be put into a musical context - rhythm, voicings, timbre, usually with other elements like a bass line, melody, other parts, drums, etc. It certainly CAN work, but it can also suck. It's not about what chords are here at all. It's about how they're put into a musical context. That's what makes it "work". Don't worry about Roman Numerals either. It doesn't really tell you anything and at that point you're just "naming the chords" with numerals instead of letters. It could be in A Dorian, and it's IIImaj9 - i11 - v9 - i7 - i4/2 - but does that really tell you anything or help in any way? It's good for transposing but that's about it. And without knowing the status of the F note on the other chords, it's hard to say. Could be C Lydian, could be A Dorian. Forget all this stuff and just write the rest of the song and other parts based on the sounds you want, not your second guessing yourself because you're worried about some arcane and ancient theory rule that doesn't even apply. Let someone else figure it out later and get on to the business of making music :-)

  5419. musictheory 2019-12-31 07:44:50 65TwinReverbRI
    On Guitar, low E string Open, G string open, 20th fret on the high E string for a C/E chord.

  5420. musictheory 2019-12-31 12:15:42 Zarlinosuke
    OK, but just because an analyst you listened to called something in Beethoven a "second development," it doesn't mean that "Beethoven has written actual second developments." That's an interpretation--one among an infinite number--and doesn't mean that that's "what's actually there." I'm an analyst too, and if I say there's no second development, what then? It's my word against the other person's, right? Remember that every formal label you read about or hear about anywhere is just someone's interpretation--the only things that are "real" are the notes. All else is interpretation, and all interpretation is biased and clouded somehow or other. The notion of a "secondary development" in the recapitulation, usually between the first and second thematic areas, can be traced back to Charles Rosen, and I don't actually think it's a bad idea at all (he's observing a really interesting phenomenon), but I don't agree with the name. "Expanded transition" or "developmental digression" would be better, in my opinion, since "development" is already so strongly taken by the middle section of the form, which has its own priorities. You're definitely right that Beethoven will modulate around in his second theme areas much more on average than Mozart will. But check out the first movement of Mozart's E major piano trio, K. 542, if you want to be thrown for a real loop in that department! It became pretty common for both Haydn and Mozart to do things like this in their later music (for an example by Haydn, see the first movement of his op. 77 no. 1 string quartet, in G major), so it's not like Beethoven was inventing the idea at all, even if he did do it more often and more insistently. The notion of Beethoven's expositions having three themes is nothing new to Beethoven either--Mozart was famous for having such a wealth of thematic invention that he didn't know when to stop. I count at least four in the exposition of the first movement of his G minor piano quartet, K. 478, for example. If you meant a three-*key* exposition, then yes, that's far rarer before Beethoven, and even in Beethoven it's rare (it's mainly identified with Schubert). But even there, I offer you the first movement of Mozart's twenty-fifth piano concerto, K. 503, which makes a very nice C-Eb-G ascent in its solo exposition.

  5421. musictheory 2019-12-31 15:35:52 jrbr549
    OK, I was noodling on my guitar and this sounded good to me: Emaj7 (4x244), Gmin6 or Emin7b5 (3x233), Cmaj (33201)...why does it work? I'm thinking it's just the descending line on the B string going from 4, 3, 1 (Eb, D, C), that makes it sound pleasing.

  5422. musictheory 2019-12-31 19:25:05 Dune89-sky
    Isn’t the technical term ’muddy’. :) Even with a harmonically handicapped instrument like the guitar general rule is that notes below D on 5th string are bass notes. So something like a G9 [32323x] is too muddy. [3x3435] or [3x3203] are much better as the bass note maintains its integrity. (7th chords in closed position are usually impossible on g so drop2 is used instead, works fine generally).